(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)
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
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 shared a link.
(FB 1543196225 Timestamp) TURNING SEX WORKERS INTO THE IRS? You know I first heard about this yesterday when someone sent me a photo of one of the report forms. I”m not quite sure how I feel about it. I mean, abstractly, its funny as hell as a creative prank. Whether the IRS would act on it, is something else. Given that I think the IRS is the most criminal of institutions I have a problem with licensing them against anyone. Depriving low income bimbos of hard currency is not something I feel good about. Whether the consequence would mean de-funding those sites that stream crime, gore, accident, and fail videos is all I really care about. I’m perfectly happy if the sexually desperate pay cam girls in order to provide me with free streaming of crime around the world. https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/rightwing-trolls-report-online-sex-workers-to-tax-authorities-in-thotaudit/news-story/16cff3e5f5f4303b78d1dc23c80af4db?
-
(FB 1543416435 Timestamp) UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC PRAXEOLOGY: ECONOMIC INTUITIO
(FB 1543416435 Timestamp) UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC PRAXEOLOGY: ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM
-
(FB 1543416435 Timestamp) UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC PRAXEOLOGY: ECONOMIC INTUITIO
(FB 1543416435 Timestamp) UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC PRAXEOLOGY: ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543425047 Timestamp) MORE ON DE-PROPAGANDIZING “CAPITALISM” (required reading)
- Trade has always existed (generating exchange)
Markets have almost always existed (generating prices).
Capitalists have existed as long as there have been markets (generating means of production).
Northern Europeans (Venetians less so. Saxons largely, the Hansa in particular, the English systematically, the Dutch first at political scale), developed rule of law – which is why they escaped the church with the reformation.)
Capitalism consists of rule of law consisting nearly entirely of markets, and socialism of rule of men eliminating or vastly reducing markets – but all polities have some mixed economy and must do so. The problem is that the state is superior at investing in some commons, but the private sector is far better at allocating and maximizing the returns on capital.
So capitalism and socialism only evolved once the industrial revolution came into play – and the socialists demanded control over production. Capitalism then was the name they used for ‘market bias under rule of law’ , and socialism ‘state bias under rule of men’.
So any statement about when was capitalism invented, is rater ‘stupid’ really. The answer is very simple: capitalism was the ‘jewish’ view of markets, and socialism the ‘jewish’ view of the state. And suckers bought into this false dichotomy. The question is and always will be the utilities of the state monopoly vs the private sector market. And as it stands, the lesson is quite clear: when it is simple and you know how to do it, but it’s risky and expensive, the state can provide startup capital and market protections. Once that investment is running, it can be ‘sold’ to the private sector who can then maximize its potential. The USA has mastered the art of moving this high risk investment into the private sector, but this has had the effect of hollowing out predictable sectors of the economy. So it appears that once again, there are those things it is better for the state to produce (labor-consuming and strategic companies, that are less speculative and produce slower longer returns), and things that it is better for the private sector to produce (IQ consuming and highly speculative things with shorter higher returns.) CONVERSELY The flood river and irrigation valleys of the fertile, crescent, pakistan-india, and china, could produce state-capital easily, just as the west could produce private-capital easily. The west and east homogenous peoples higher trust. The center tribal heterogenous people lower trust. It’s not complicated. You do what you can with the people and geography you have.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543425047 Timestamp) MORE ON DE-PROPAGANDIZING “CAPITALISM” (required reading)
- Trade has always existed (generating exchange)
Markets have almost always existed (generating prices).
Capitalists have existed as long as there have been markets (generating means of production).
Northern Europeans (Venetians less so. Saxons largely, the Hansa in particular, the English systematically, the Dutch first at political scale), developed rule of law – which is why they escaped the church with the reformation.)
Capitalism consists of rule of law consisting nearly entirely of markets, and socialism of rule of men eliminating or vastly reducing markets – but all polities have some mixed economy and must do so. The problem is that the state is superior at investing in some commons, but the private sector is far better at allocating and maximizing the returns on capital.
So capitalism and socialism only evolved once the industrial revolution came into play – and the socialists demanded control over production. Capitalism then was the name they used for ‘market bias under rule of law’ , and socialism ‘state bias under rule of men’.
So any statement about when was capitalism invented, is rater ‘stupid’ really. The answer is very simple: capitalism was the ‘jewish’ view of markets, and socialism the ‘jewish’ view of the state. And suckers bought into this false dichotomy. The question is and always will be the utilities of the state monopoly vs the private sector market. And as it stands, the lesson is quite clear: when it is simple and you know how to do it, but it’s risky and expensive, the state can provide startup capital and market protections. Once that investment is running, it can be ‘sold’ to the private sector who can then maximize its potential. The USA has mastered the art of moving this high risk investment into the private sector, but this has had the effect of hollowing out predictable sectors of the economy. So it appears that once again, there are those things it is better for the state to produce (labor-consuming and strategic companies, that are less speculative and produce slower longer returns), and things that it is better for the private sector to produce (IQ consuming and highly speculative things with shorter higher returns.) CONVERSELY The flood river and irrigation valleys of the fertile, crescent, pakistan-india, and china, could produce state-capital easily, just as the west could produce private-capital easily. The west and east homogenous peoples higher trust. The center tribal heterogenous people lower trust. It’s not complicated. You do what you can with the people and geography you have.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543515495 Timestamp) by Bill Joslin “The commons” was initially used (or at least at the time of corporatism in Germany) to mean the people. We are a product of the commons and a part of the commons – the primary part – the core.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543759047 Timestamp) ART ISN”T THAT HARD TO PRICE – IT’S HARD TO LIQUIDATE QUICKLY —“…Value of art varies….”— Hmmmm…. One can objectively compare art, particularly by triangulation. One can, with some skill, estimate its current market value by RANGE – dealers are relatively good at it. But doing so requires a rather great deal of knowledge of the pieces in the inventory whether on market or not. When talking of rarities (culturally, technically, or aesthetically significant pieces, or pieces from an artist), one has to understand the liquidity of customers and their incentives. Houses are less ridiculous, and more likely to take a loss, but follow the same general rules. Fashion less ridiculous than houses, but following the same general rules. Ergo, “All Stereotypes Are True”, “Class Stereotypes Are True”, “Taste Stereotypes Are True”, and one need only understand the relationship between Stereotype, Available Inventory, and Current Economic Conditions within that Stereotype. As in all economic questions, the more predictable the price range the lower the value of the service, commodity, product, item. Signal Value is Costly Regardless of Class.
-
(FB 1543677239 Timestamp) ACQUISITION AND THE SUPPLY DEMAND CURVE (And Hayekian
(FB 1543677239 Timestamp) ACQUISITION AND THE SUPPLY DEMAND CURVE (And Hayekian Triangles). by Bill Joslin (Important concept) (“The Grammar of Social Relations.”) We (Propertarians) often use spectrums, but do so in a linear fashion a-b-c etc. A line in a single dimension, possibly two. Start to end or minimum to maximum. There is always, for any point on the spectrum, a vertical dimension which is context or frame. (CD: usually it’s scale.) We presume, properly, the existential frame, but without explicit expression it leaves us open to frame manipulation. The vertical dimension would be context – we’re always low context, but there might be something to including in what domain of existence we’re referring to for a spectrum, or accounting for all domains along with the spectrum. An example: aquisitionalism on a base biological level (domain)-> acquisition of calories and mating opportunities. Aquisitionalism on an individual level (domain) -> pursuit of “goods’ Aquisitionalism on a social level (domain)-> acquisition of signals and opportunity Aquisitionalism on a societal level (domain) -> acquisition of advantage
Without specifying or accounting for all domains, we tend to be mistaken for reductionists
(Curt Doolittle Responds: ) Correct. So we have some spectrum, some time series, and some range of context(conceptual) or conditions (existential). So, because of (a) w can repeat series indefinitely in text, and this trains people through repetition. (b) text (This venue) does not assist us in creating graphs (supply demand curves), and (c) most people are unfamiliar with Hayekian Triangles, which is how these things are optimally communicated. (d) I am … let us say ‘leery’ of illustrating all these concepts in hayekian triangles, despite the fact that in my mind, I model all these concepts in Gary Becker’s supply and demand curves of Social Science Incentives. (Which is how I plan to teach the class: getting the students to draw all of them.) This converts the textual to the graphical. So. A series should define a supply demand curve. —THE GRAMMARS OF SOCIAL RELATIONS — IDEAL TYPE Hyper Generalization (overgeneralization). an Ideal. This is how most people converse in ordinary language. SERIES Hierarchy (series) = The Production Cycle (commonly) CURVE Supply = Volume (quantity, amount) Demand = Criteria for Choice Intersection = Choice TRIANGLES Production Cycle
Possible Production Range Amount of investment vs trust required. EQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN COMPETING TRIANGLES (Mapping two or more curves together) DYNAMIC STOCHASTIC EQUILIBRIUM MODELS (how economics is performed today) So please forgive me if I speak in legal argument using series presuming the user can grasp that I speak in curves not lines. Because if I wrote at any greater level of complexity, (a) the demand on my time would be logarithmic, (b) it would only be fit for academic publication, and not for production of LAW COMPREHENSIBLE BY MEN. –GRAMMARS– Note that this pattern of grammars exists EVERYWHERE in every discipline.