Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link. Free Markets are advocated under the presumption t

    Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    Free Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government interference **comparative advantage** will provide the optimum market for goods, services, and information to everyone.

    However, this doesn’t turn out to be true.
    Free-Market is a code word for:
    1 – all government non-interference trade by taxation.
    2 – all governmental non-interference in trade by policy
    3 – socialist government interference in the organization of production, distribution, and trade.

    In the **developing world**, this translates to:
    1 – on one hand, ‘the reduction and elimination of corruption’ and
    2 – on the other hand ‘the privatization of common resources’ by internal members, and ‘the exploitation of common resources’ by outside members.

    In the **Developed World** translates to:
    1- Forcing all post-war nations to grant human (natural) rights (property rights), rather than territorial expansion (growth by warfare).
    2 – Forcing all post-war nations to compete entirely by meritocratic production distribution and trade, so that survival is dependent upon being a good market citizen of the world, thus reducing the chances of another world war.
    3 – (Failed Hypothesis) By encouraging democracy (which appears to have been a universal disaster) citizens both 1 and 2 will be brought to bear out of citizen’s self interest. (Despite the fact that communism and islamism are hostile to meritocracy.)

    **This is America’s postwar policy in a nutshell.**

    Add to this policy the unstated threat that ‘*You can Choose your own government under democracy but if you choose poorly we will punish you so severely that you’ll be back in the stone age.*”

    The problem is that America promotes the CARROT but doesn’t mention the STICK. And it turns out that Authoritarian State Capitalism, which is just monarchy at greater scale, is superior to democracy in every case OTHER than small homogenous protestant nation states where everyone is a sixth cousin at the outside.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 21:53:12 UTC

  • Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government i

    https://www.quora.com/Do-free-market-policies-help-poor-countries/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=046bc1f0&srid=u4Qvhttps://www.quora.com/Do-free-market-policies-help-poor-countries/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=046bc1f0&srid=u4QvFree Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government interference **comparative advantage** will provide the optimum market for goods, services, and information to everyone.

    However, this doesn’t turn out to be true.

    Free-Market is a code word for:

    1 – all government non-interference trade by taxation.

    2 – all governmental non-interference in trade by policy

    3 – socialist government interference in the organization of production, distribution, and trade.

    In the **developing world**, this translates to:

    1 – on one hand, ‘the reduction and elimination of corruption’ and

    2 – on the other hand ‘the privatization of common resources’ by internal members, and ‘the exploitation of common resources’ by outside members.

    In the **Developed World** translates to:

    1- Forcing all post-war nations to grant human (natural) rights (property rights), rather than territorial expansion (growth by warfare).

    2 – Forcing all post-war nations to compete entirely by meritocratic production distribution and trade, so that survival is dependent upon being a good market citizen of the world, thus reducing the chances of another world war.

    3 – (Failed Hypothesis) By encouraging democracy (which appears to have been a universal disaster) citizens both 1 and 2 will be brought to bear out of citizen’s self interest. (Despite the fact that communism and islamism are hostile to meritocracy.)

    **This is America’s postwar policy in a nutshell.**

    Add to this policy the unstated threat that ‘*You can Choose your own government under democracy but if you choose poorly we will punish you so severely that you’ll be back in the stone age.*”

    The problem is that America promotes the CARROT but doesn’t mention the STICK. And it turns out that Authoritarian State Capitalism, which is just monarchy at greater scale, is superior to democracy in every case OTHER than small homogenous protestant nation states where everyone is a sixth cousin at the outside.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 17:53:00 UTC

  • Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government i

    https://www.quora.com/Do-free-market-policies-help-poor-countries/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=046bc1f0&srid=u4QvFree Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government interference **comparative advantage** will provide the optimum market for goods, services, and information to everyone.

    However, this doesn’t turn out to be true.

    Free-Market is a code word for:

    1 – all government non-interference trade by taxation.

    2 – all governmental non-interference in trade by policy

    3 – socialist government interference in the organization of production, distribution, and trade.

    In the **developing world**, this translates to:

    1 – on one hand, ‘the reduction and elimination of corruption’ and

    2 – on the other hand ‘the privatization of common resources’ by internal members, and ‘the exploitation of common resources’ by outside members.

    In the **Developed World** translates to:

    1- Forcing all post-war nations to grant human (natural) rights (property rights), rather than territorial expansion (growth by warfare).

    2 – Forcing all post-war nations to compete entirely by meritocratic production distribution and trade, so that survival is dependent upon being a good market citizen of the world, thus reducing the chances of another world war.

    3 – (Failed Hypothesis) By encouraging democracy (which appears to have been a universal disaster) citizens both 1 and 2 will be brought to bear out of citizen’s self interest. (Despite the fact that communism and islamism are hostile to meritocracy.)

    **This is America’s postwar policy in a nutshell.**

    Add to this policy the unstated threat that ‘*You can Choose your own government under democracy but if you choose poorly we will punish you so severely that you’ll be back in the stone age.*”

    The problem is that America promotes the CARROT but doesn’t mention the STICK. And it turns out that Authoritarian State Capitalism, which is just monarchy at greater scale, is superior to democracy in every case OTHER than small homogenous protestant nation states where everyone is a sixth cousin at the outside.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 17:53:00 UTC

  • I have a few questions if you don’t mind. 1) –“Besides Ostrom, what can I read

    I have a few questions if you don’t mind.

    1) –“Besides Ostrom, what can I read if I want to understand more of the commons?”–

    Honestly, I don’t think there is else much worth reading. I would read the history of the common law which is in my book list. And I would read my definition of property in toto.

    2) –“Who would you consider influential in the Chicago school for the insurer of last resort argument for the state?”–

    Becker and Friedman. Becker for method, and Friedman for Solutions, Hayek for integration with law, Coase for institutions. Just go thru the list of famous people from Chicago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics

    3) —“And lastly, where can I read more on the proposed propertarian financial/monetary/banking system?”—

    I haven’t categorized (tagged) that group of ideas on the site, so it’s spread all over the place. I can’t spend 30 minutes doing a bunch of searches right now but I can think of a few that might be helpful. But understand, this is a very small part of the program:

    1) https://propertarianism.com/2016/12/10/whats-your-position-on-ubi-welfare-2-0/

    2) ***DE-FINANCIALIZATION:

    Definancialization of the Financial System. There is no reason we pay interest on consumer loans (and every reason we pay it on business and industrial loans).

    By nationalizing Mastercard, and issuing one every LEGAL AND FULLY INTEGRATED citizen, we can distribute liquidity (increase the money supply) by direct redistribution to the citizenry (in which case our homes would all be paid for because of the last recession), and consumer loans can be provided directly from the treasury.

    Furthermore, by professionalizing ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPA’s), we can eliminate consumer interest, and cut payment periods in half or to one third. Additionally we make universities carry the zero interest loans on behalf of any student, and to obtain payment as a payroll deduction over a period of no more than ten years.

    This combination will mean that after about 15 years, the first time home owner will own his home free and clear, and the universities will no longer be able to offer junk degrees. I won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s way of life and destroy the predatory financial, academic, and government sectors. There will be no other way to profit than the Silicon Valley (monarchy) model of investment in research, development, and industry.

    Financialism will be destroyed forever.***

    4) —“If I understand correctly, you’re proposing 100% reserves under fiat,”—

    No, you must publish your ratios at all times, and hold to any ratio whenever a debt was initiated.

    You many not transfer originated debt. You can sell interest in that debt but must carry it.

    And lastly, given that most consumer lending would be from the treasury and without interest, this would apply largely to commercial relations.

    5) —“while having at least two if not more parallel monies, one for savings (probably a gold standard) and one as a means of exchange (fiat e-cash),”—

    Multiple monies in general. I think my view is of far more than two.

    6) —-With savings and investments happening under private banks while current accounts controlled by central bank). Is that correct?”—-

    I see individual agents having relationships with the central bank for consumer credit, and very little need for them, without a bank as an intermediary.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 11:49:00 UTC

  • –“Do Free Market Policies Help Poor Countries?”–

    DO FREE MARKET POLICIES HELP POOR COUNTRIES
    https://www.quora.com/Do-free-market-policies-help-poor-countries/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=046bc1f0&srid=u4Qv
    Free Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government interference **comparative advantage** will provide the optimum market for goods, services, and information to everyone. However, this doesn’t turn out to be true. Free-Market is a code word for: 1 – all government non-interference trade by taxation. 2 – all governmental non-interference in trade by policy 3 – socialist government interference in the organization of production, distribution, and trade. In the **developing world**, this translates to: 1 – on one hand, ‘the reduction and elimination of corruption’ and 2 – on the other hand ‘the privatization of common resources’ by internal members, and ‘the exploitation of common resources’ by outside members. In the **Developed World** translates to: 1- Forcing all post-war nations to grant human (natural) rights (property rights), rather than territorial expansion (growth by warfare). 2 – Forcing all post-war nations to compete entirely by meritocratic production distribution and trade, so that survival is dependent upon being a good market citizen of the world, thus reducing the chances of another world war. 3 – (Failed Hypothesis) By encouraging democracy (which appears to have been a universal disaster) citizens both 1 and 2 will be brought to bear out of citizen’s self interest. (Despite the fact that communism and islamism are hostile to meritocracy.) **This is America’s postwar policy in a nutshell.** Add to this policy the unstated threat that ‘*You can Choose your own government under democracy but if you choose poorly we will punish you so severely that you’ll be back in the stone age.*” The problem is that America promotes the CARROT but doesn’t mention the STICK. And it turns out that Authoritarian State Capitalism, which is just monarchy at greater scale, is superior to democracy in every case OTHER than small homogenous protestant nation states where everyone is a sixth cousin at the outside.

  • –“Do Free Market Policies Help Poor Countries?”–

    DO FREE MARKET POLICIES HELP POOR COUNTRIES
    https://www.quora.com/Do-free-market-policies-help-poor-countries/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=046bc1f0&srid=u4Qv
    Free Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government interference **comparative advantage** will provide the optimum market for goods, services, and information to everyone. However, this doesn’t turn out to be true. Free-Market is a code word for: 1 – all government non-interference trade by taxation. 2 – all governmental non-interference in trade by policy 3 – socialist government interference in the organization of production, distribution, and trade. In the **developing world**, this translates to: 1 – on one hand, ‘the reduction and elimination of corruption’ and 2 – on the other hand ‘the privatization of common resources’ by internal members, and ‘the exploitation of common resources’ by outside members. In the **Developed World** translates to: 1- Forcing all post-war nations to grant human (natural) rights (property rights), rather than territorial expansion (growth by warfare). 2 – Forcing all post-war nations to compete entirely by meritocratic production distribution and trade, so that survival is dependent upon being a good market citizen of the world, thus reducing the chances of another world war. 3 – (Failed Hypothesis) By encouraging democracy (which appears to have been a universal disaster) citizens both 1 and 2 will be brought to bear out of citizen’s self interest. (Despite the fact that communism and islamism are hostile to meritocracy.) **This is America’s postwar policy in a nutshell.** Add to this policy the unstated threat that ‘*You can Choose your own government under democracy but if you choose poorly we will punish you so severely that you’ll be back in the stone age.*” The problem is that America promotes the CARROT but doesn’t mention the STICK. And it turns out that Authoritarian State Capitalism, which is just monarchy at greater scale, is superior to democracy in every case OTHER than small homogenous protestant nation states where everyone is a sixth cousin at the outside.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES ALL AROUND

    Yes, I work from the Misesian premise of full accounting when referring to money and its substitutes, and the totality of monetary aggregates.

    However, the problem with the Austrian model is (as has always been stated) it’s overly respectful of lenders (asset holders) without accounting for the moral hazard most money lenders profit from.

    This is ‘unsaid’ in the literature of both sides. It’s this competition between the moral premises of consumer vs lenders vs the judiciary (state) that over the priority to which we must grant the malincientives of either party and therefore the rewards of either party.

    I tend to err on the side of lender beware almost always, and the lender and borrower beware of the state at all possible times.

    All parties: state, lender, and borrower have malincentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 16:09:06 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Um. I can’t emphasize this enough. 1) *While

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Um. I can’t emphasize this enough.

    1) *While Prices drive to Equilibrium, Markets drive to Disequilibrium*.

    2) Loose credit (monetary expansion) increases disequilibrium necessary for causing corrections (discovering limits).

    3) The debate between conservatives and progressives is whether the cumulation of short term gains exceeds the costs of the correction. In my opinion, this is rather obviously ‘no’, but that is because the economics profession does not measure changes in ALL capital and instead cherry picks measures of capital.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 14:04:19 UTC

  • Debate Between Conservatives and Progressives Is Whether the Cumulation of Short Term Gains Exceeds the Costs of The Correction

    Um. I can’t emphasize this enough. 1) *While Prices drive to Equilibrium, Markets drive to Disequilibrium*. 2) Loose credit (monetary expansion) increases disequilibrium necessary for causing corrections (discovering limits). 3) The debate between conservatives and progressives is whether the cumulation of short term gains exceeds the costs of the correction. In my opinion, this is rather obviously ‘no’, but that is because the economics profession does not measure changes in ALL capital and instead cherry picks measures of capital.

  • Debate Between Conservatives and Progressives Is Whether the Cumulation of Short Term Gains Exceeds the Costs of The Correction

    Um. I can’t emphasize this enough. 1) *While Prices drive to Equilibrium, Markets drive to Disequilibrium*. 2) Loose credit (monetary expansion) increases disequilibrium necessary for causing corrections (discovering limits). 3) The debate between conservatives and progressives is whether the cumulation of short term gains exceeds the costs of the correction. In my opinion, this is rather obviously ‘no’, but that is because the economics profession does not measure changes in ALL capital and instead cherry picks measures of capital.