(FB 1542474255 Timestamp) NEAR ZERO CONSUMER INTEREST 1) let’s assume there is only one consumer lender: the treasury. what happens to default rates? And 2) under single (consumer) lender, with limits by rolling income, why are defaults a problem? And 3) now let’s distribute liquidity via those same accounts, and what happens? And (4) if those ‘rents’ on state-secured interest aren’t available where does investment capital seek longer term returns instead? With the exception that; (5) black market ‘loan’ might increase (not for sizable), because there is always an unpredictable ‘lottery payment’ coming from insertion of liquidity to maintain the money supply, with zero delay.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1542396784 Timestamp) —I’m sure there is a solution that can “protect the commons” and provide an efficient and cost-effective solution. My understanding is that passenger flights are required to carry USPS, where the private companies must own their own planes. Curt Doolittle maybe you can chime in a propertarian solution to this problem?”—@[572309326:2048:Bryan Nova Brey] The problem is the cost of government employees. The service is also supported by spam mail none of us want (or need, in the age of the internet). All political services can be provided by libraries (forms etc). All shipping better provided by private agencies. Selling it whole yet requiring all domestic postcards, and ‘letters’ at a subsidized price would solve the problem. Insuring the private postal service and ups and anyone else for that matter, the way we insure banks (insurer of last resort) in the case of national emergency is adequate.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542474255 Timestamp) NEAR ZERO CONSUMER INTEREST 1) let’s assume there is only one consumer lender: the treasury. what happens to default rates? And 2) under single (consumer) lender, with limits by rolling income, why are defaults a problem? And 3) now let’s distribute liquidity via those same accounts, and what happens? And (4) if those ‘rents’ on state-secured interest aren’t available where does investment capital seek longer term returns instead? With the exception that; (5) black market ‘loan’ might increase (not for sizable), because there is always an unpredictable ‘lottery payment’ coming from insertion of liquidity to maintain the money supply, with zero delay.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1542396784 Timestamp) —I’m sure there is a solution that can “protect the commons” and provide an efficient and cost-effective solution. My understanding is that passenger flights are required to carry USPS, where the private companies must own their own planes. Curt Doolittle maybe you can chime in a propertarian solution to this problem?”—@[572309326:2048:Bryan Nova Brey] The problem is the cost of government employees. The service is also supported by spam mail none of us want (or need, in the age of the internet). All political services can be provided by libraries (forms etc). All shipping better provided by private agencies. Selling it whole yet requiring all domestic postcards, and ‘letters’ at a subsidized price would solve the problem. Insuring the private postal service and ups and anyone else for that matter, the way we insure banks (insurer of last resort) in the case of national emergency is adequate.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542562192 Timestamp) —“The left tests the limits capital accumulation. The right tests the limits of capital outlay (consumption).”— Skye Stewart
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542562192 Timestamp) —“The left tests the limits capital accumulation. The right tests the limits of capital outlay (consumption).”— Skye Stewart
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542678201 Timestamp) WHERE DID ECONOMICS GO WRONG? As far as I know, economics ‘went wrong’ when “the republican income statement no longer propagated to the monarchical balance sheet.” In other words, when we failed to account for ALL capital changes, including territorial, genetic, cultural, normative, knowledge, and institutional, and therefore treated economics as a means of pseudo-scientific cherry-picking of measurements, under the pretense that such capital was being mobilized rather than consumed (or simply lost or destroyed). The postwar era, by the pseudoscientific taboo against the darwinian revolution and the necessity of continuing 3500 years of environmental eugenics, and 1600 years of manorial eugenics, and 800 years of juridical eugenics, converted the discipline into the means by which to conduct war against civilization: the incremental domestication of animal man into equilibrium with his productive technologies, and his means of calculating a survivable future with them: sovereignty, reciprocity, law (tort), markets in everything, property, money, prices. Economics is either a measure of cooperation, and therefore, reciprocity, and therefore political economy, and as such Law (tort – dispute resolution), Legislation (commons production and defense), and regulation (prior restraint by the insurer of last resort), and attendant standards of measurement, or it is merely an innumerate pseudoscience to justify the consumption of accumulated capital in pursuit of slow reversal of eugenic evolution, regression to the ancient mean, and the source of the justification for the consequente devolution of civilization and man. Efficiency is a rather ridiculous pursuit unbound by justification for less visible capital destruction , just as is legislation is a pursuit unbound by rules of contract. The Market Failure hypothesis is rather ridiculous since if the market produces proceeds sufficient to subsidize goods services and information, and distorting that market harmful to it. And a hundred other nonsense-schemes we use to obscure the reversal of eugenic evolution, or the returns on conquest and sale of continents, or the conversion of intergenerational lending to temporal redistribution and the price of that risk, or the transition from physical money to digital record of credit and debt, and the end of necessity or value of distribution of liquidity through the financial system, and the inability to reconstruct that capital without such chaos we dare not speak of it. Science is not kind. We have yet to have the necessary revolution in economics by its reunification with the law. As far as I know there is only one social science – the law (tort), legislation (contracts for the commons) and regulation (insurance) and the rest is measurement of its consequence. This was the difference between the austrian (rule of law), chicago (rule of law insured) and saltwater (return to arbitrary rule of man) schools of economics. Today, post 2008, it is very difficult to see much more than “I dunno what to do know” from the profession, except to permute as do the physicists on dark matter, because we lack the instrumentation necessary to obtain the information sufficient to correct our theories, and therefore limited to failure (collapse) and therefore desperate incentive to correct these errors, rather than falsify the 20th century social pseudosciences in economics as we are doing in psychology and sociology, with cognitive sciences and genetics. The Worm Turns, and as Hayek warned but could not himself answer: the 20th will be remembered as an era of the restoration of mysticism – which we more correctly state as platonism, idealism, sophism, innumeracy, and pseudoscience. Cheers
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542651949 Timestamp) INHERENT RIGHTS (IDEALS) VS INHERENT DEMAND AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (REALS) by Luke Weinhagen (important concept) —“Commons: Every single thing you pay for by either action, inaction,or forgone opportunity for discount or gain”— This is another area where much of the west is operating with a categorization error in place. We have been categorizing the concept “natural rights” as an INHERENT quality of each individual, not something that has a COST. We should be categorizing it as an available property, with a cost to gain interest in. A commons. Because of its relationship to reciprocity. natural rights is the root commons. All other commons extend from the foundation that natural rights creates and are limited by the breadth of those rights. One must, and can only, purchase interest in that commons through the demonstration of reciprocity and sovereignty. Failure to police this root commons, and extending it to everyone (categorization error – natural/available to all, not inherent/granted to all), creates a vulnerability (extends agency status to parasites) and exposes every derivative commons to parasitism. No correction downstream can remove this vulnerability, they are become attempts at compensation for that original flaw, just more imposed costs. (if I am understanding [Curt] correctly, this one is going to make heads explode when the correction is put in place – though the only other outcome is system collapse)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542637058 Timestamp) WHY DOES ANYONE DO WHAT THEY DO? Why does anyone do what they do? Incentives. You can encourage someone to seize incentives they did not previously know of, but you cannot convince people NOT to seize opportunities and incentives that they DO know of. That’s why we invented disapproval, shaming, punishing, norms, laws, traditions and rules uncountable.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542678201 Timestamp) WHERE DID ECONOMICS GO WRONG? As far as I know, economics ‘went wrong’ when “the republican income statement no longer propagated to the monarchical balance sheet.” In other words, when we failed to account for ALL capital changes, including territorial, genetic, cultural, normative, knowledge, and institutional, and therefore treated economics as a means of pseudo-scientific cherry-picking of measurements, under the pretense that such capital was being mobilized rather than consumed (or simply lost or destroyed). The postwar era, by the pseudoscientific taboo against the darwinian revolution and the necessity of continuing 3500 years of environmental eugenics, and 1600 years of manorial eugenics, and 800 years of juridical eugenics, converted the discipline into the means by which to conduct war against civilization: the incremental domestication of animal man into equilibrium with his productive technologies, and his means of calculating a survivable future with them: sovereignty, reciprocity, law (tort), markets in everything, property, money, prices. Economics is either a measure of cooperation, and therefore, reciprocity, and therefore political economy, and as such Law (tort – dispute resolution), Legislation (commons production and defense), and regulation (prior restraint by the insurer of last resort), and attendant standards of measurement, or it is merely an innumerate pseudoscience to justify the consumption of accumulated capital in pursuit of slow reversal of eugenic evolution, regression to the ancient mean, and the source of the justification for the consequente devolution of civilization and man. Efficiency is a rather ridiculous pursuit unbound by justification for less visible capital destruction , just as is legislation is a pursuit unbound by rules of contract. The Market Failure hypothesis is rather ridiculous since if the market produces proceeds sufficient to subsidize goods services and information, and distorting that market harmful to it. And a hundred other nonsense-schemes we use to obscure the reversal of eugenic evolution, or the returns on conquest and sale of continents, or the conversion of intergenerational lending to temporal redistribution and the price of that risk, or the transition from physical money to digital record of credit and debt, and the end of necessity or value of distribution of liquidity through the financial system, and the inability to reconstruct that capital without such chaos we dare not speak of it. Science is not kind. We have yet to have the necessary revolution in economics by its reunification with the law. As far as I know there is only one social science – the law (tort), legislation (contracts for the commons) and regulation (insurance) and the rest is measurement of its consequence. This was the difference between the austrian (rule of law), chicago (rule of law insured) and saltwater (return to arbitrary rule of man) schools of economics. Today, post 2008, it is very difficult to see much more than “I dunno what to do know” from the profession, except to permute as do the physicists on dark matter, because we lack the instrumentation necessary to obtain the information sufficient to correct our theories, and therefore limited to failure (collapse) and therefore desperate incentive to correct these errors, rather than falsify the 20th century social pseudosciences in economics as we are doing in psychology and sociology, with cognitive sciences and genetics. The Worm Turns, and as Hayek warned but could not himself answer: the 20th will be remembered as an era of the restoration of mysticism – which we more correctly state as platonism, idealism, sophism, innumeracy, and pseudoscience. Cheers