Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • TOP 100 SUPPOSEDLY SMART CITIES GIVEN SOME SUSPECT ONLINE DATA…. (NOTE 1: This

    TOP 100 SUPPOSEDLY SMART CITIES GIVEN SOME SUSPECT ONLINE DATA….

    (NOTE 1: This is a very-very-suspect data set but I think something can be learned from it. The cities that did NOT make the list are the take-away: immigrant cities.)

    (NOTE 2: that New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Houston and Chicago were not on the list. The areas of greater Boston and Seattle were the only ones that made the list.

    1. Ithaca, NY

    2. State College, PA

    3. Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN

    4. Iowa City, IA

    5. Ames, IA

    6. Ann Arbor, MI

    7. Bloomington, IN

    8. Madison, WI

    9. Lawrence, KS

    10. Pullman, WA

    11. College Station-Bryan, TX

    12. Appleton, WI

    13. Champaign-Urbana, IL

    14. Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA

    15. Charlottesville, VA

    16. Boulder, CO

    17. Provo-Orem, UT

    18. Harrisonburg, VA

    19. Rolla, MO

    20. Houghton, MI

    21. Muncie, IN

    22. Corvallis, OR

    23. Boone, NC

    24. Logan, UT-ID

    25. Stillwater, OK

    26. Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

    27. Claremont-Lebanon, NH-VT

    28. Lebanon, PA

    29. Moscow, ID

    30. Cedar Rapids, IA

    31. Lincoln, NE

    32. Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA

    33. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI

    34. Starkville, MS

    35. Athens, OH

    36. La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN

    37. Brainerd, MN

    38. Burlington-South Burlington, VT

    39. Fargo, ND-MN

    40. Stevens Point, WI

    41. Columbia, MO

    42. St. Cloud, MN

    43. Rochester, MN

    44. Auburn-Opelika, AL

    45. Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA

    46. Oil City, PA

    47. Fort Collins, CO

    48. Sheboygan, WI

    49. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

    50. Keene, NH

    51. Oshkosh-Neenah, WI

    52. Burlington, NC

    53. Pittsburgh, PA

    54. Fond du Lac, WI

    55. Concord, NH

    56. Morgantown, WV

    57. Bellingham, WA

    58. Mount Pleasant, MI

    59. Ottawa-Peru, IL

    60. Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN

    61. Laramie, WY

    62. Barnstable Town, MA

    63. Lancaster, PA

    64. Reading, PA

    65. Winchester, VA-WV

    66. Bozeman, MT

    67. Bloomington, IL

    68 Gainesville, FL

    69. Duluth, MN-WI

    70. Michigan City-La Porte, IN

    71. South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI

    72. Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA

    73. Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA

    74. Oxford, MS

    75. Altoona, PA

    76. Wooster, OH

    77. Bismarck, ND

    78. Grand Forks, ND-MN

    79. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI

    80. Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY

    81. Binghamton, NY

    82. Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

    83. Wisconsin Rapids-Marshfield, WI

    84. Ogdensburg-Massena, NY

    85. Kansas City, MO-KS

    86. San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA

    87. Torrington, CT

    88. Trenton, NJ

    89. Rochester, NY

    90. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

    91. Oneonta, NY

    92. Eau Claire, WI

    93. Warsaw, IN

    94. Norwich-New London, CT

    95. Eugene, OR

    96. Topeka, KS

    97. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ

    98. Mankato-North Mankato, MN

    99. Helena, MT

    100. Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 09:13:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING CITIES Cities = Markets = Decreased Opportunity Cost. It’s the abi

    UNDERSTANDING CITIES

    Cities = Markets = Decreased Opportunity Cost.

    It’s the ability to communicate that decreases opportunity cost.

    Opportunity cost = increasing choices.

    The question is whether increasing choices produces increasing outcomes.

    For business it does. For genes it does not.

    This is the fundamental problem. Cities Destroy Genes in exchange for lower opportunity costs of consumption.

    So we have a choice: (a) continue to bring people to capital at the cost of genes (genetic capital), or (b) bring capital to people to preserve genetic capital.

    In other words, redistribute the opportunity costs.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 09:07:00 UTC

  • Q:Have you written about the Coase theorem?

    —“Have you written about the Coase theorem in respect to the propertarian theory of property? I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.”— 1) Hmmm… I think I see polity formation as the process of suppressing local rents, centralizing them to pay for local suppression of rents, and trading a small number of low cost rents that are predictable (taxation) for many high transaction cost rents that are not …. 2) …and the individuals in the polity capturing the differences as profits on decreased transaction costs, increased risk tolerance, and higher economic (monetary) velocity. (This follows my general method of analysis by via-negativa: we are always saving time via cooperation). 3) Coase’s theorem can be stated the same way: the differential rents (different allocations of property rights) are suppressed by competition across variable property allocations (normative property, and formal property rights) by international trade. … 4) So Coase expresses at the inter-polity scale, what I express at the intra-polity scale. But the phenomenon is the same: increasing the radius of cooperation will suppress rents(assymetries) through competition, whether internal or external. …. 5) … and we eventually converge on individual property rights with gains captured and redistributed as commons, just as we see by comparison the convergence on mathematics, and the convergence on scientific ‘grammar’ as a universal language. 6) Competition at ever increasing scales causes convergence on indifference in all ‘grammars’ (Methods) of cooperation from the conceptual to the verbal, to the material. (offset by war, group strategy etc.) 7) So in this sense my approach is broader than Coase, and where Coase incorrectly suggests cooperation reinforces seeking equilibrium, instead cooperation seeks convergence, competition seeks efficiency, and opportunity seeks disequilibrium, with shocks as discovery of limits. 8) That’s pretty heavy but I think it’s in your intellectual wheelhouse. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Q:Have you written about the Coase theorem?

    —“Have you written about the Coase theorem in respect to the propertarian theory of property? I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.”— 1) Hmmm… I think I see polity formation as the process of suppressing local rents, centralizing them to pay for local suppression of rents, and trading a small number of low cost rents that are predictable (taxation) for many high transaction cost rents that are not …. 2) …and the individuals in the polity capturing the differences as profits on decreased transaction costs, increased risk tolerance, and higher economic (monetary) velocity. (This follows my general method of analysis by via-negativa: we are always saving time via cooperation). 3) Coase’s theorem can be stated the same way: the differential rents (different allocations of property rights) are suppressed by competition across variable property allocations (normative property, and formal property rights) by international trade. … 4) So Coase expresses at the inter-polity scale, what I express at the intra-polity scale. But the phenomenon is the same: increasing the radius of cooperation will suppress rents(assymetries) through competition, whether internal or external. …. 5) … and we eventually converge on individual property rights with gains captured and redistributed as commons, just as we see by comparison the convergence on mathematics, and the convergence on scientific ‘grammar’ as a universal language. 6) Competition at ever increasing scales causes convergence on indifference in all ‘grammars’ (Methods) of cooperation from the conceptual to the verbal, to the material. (offset by war, group strategy etc.) 7) So in this sense my approach is broader than Coase, and where Coase incorrectly suggests cooperation reinforces seeking equilibrium, instead cooperation seeks convergence, competition seeks efficiency, and opportunity seeks disequilibrium, with shocks as discovery of limits. 8) That’s pretty heavy but I think it’s in your intellectual wheelhouse. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • 7) So in this sense my approach is broader than Coase, and where Coase incorrect

    7) So in this sense my approach is broader than Coase, and where Coase incorrectly suggests cooperation reinforces seeking equilibrium, instead cooperation seeks convergence, competition seeks efficiency, and opportunity seeks disequilibrium, with shocks as discovery of limits.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:17:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002585052159627264

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752

  • 5) … and we eventually converge on individual property rights with gains captu

    5) … and we eventually converge on individual property rights with gains captured and redistributed as commons, just as we see by comparison the convergence on mathematics, and the convergence on scientific ‘grammar’ as a universal language.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:15:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002584334912638979

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752

  • 4) So Coase expresses at the inter-polity scale, what I express at the intra-pol

    4) So Coase expresses at the inter-polity scale, what I express at the intra-polity scale. But the phenomenon is the same: increasing the radius of cooperation will suppress rents(assymetries) through competition, whether internal or external. ….


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:13:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002584003608809472

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752

  • 3) Coase’s theorem can be stated the same way: the differential rents (different

    3) Coase’s theorem can be stated the same way: the differential rents (different allocations of property rights) are suppressed by competition across variable property allocations (normative property, and formal property rights) by international trade. …


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:11:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002583435062464512

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752

  • 2) …and the individuals in the polity capturing the differences as profits on

    2) …and the individuals in the polity capturing the differences as profits on decreased transaction costs, increased risk tolerance, and higher economic (monetary) velocity. (This follows my general method of analysis by via-negativa: we are always saving time via cooperation).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:09:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002582912515047424

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752

  • “Have you written about the Coase theorem in respect to the propertarian theory

    —“Have you written about the Coase theorem in respect to the propertarian theory of property? I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.”—

    1) Hmmm… I think I see polity formation as the process of suppressing local rents, centralizing them to pay for local suppression of rents, and trading a small number of low cost rents that are predictable (taxation) for many high transaction cost rents that are not ….

    2) …and the individuals in the polity capturing the differences as profits on decreased transaction costs, increased risk tolerance, and higher economic (monetary) velocity. (This follows my general method of analysis by via-negativa: we are always saving time via cooperation).

    3) Coase’s theorem can be stated the same way: the differential rents (different allocations of property rights) are suppressed by competition across variable property allocations (normative property, and formal property rights) by international trade. …

    4) So Coase expresses at the inter-polity scale, what I express at the intra-polity scale. But the phenomenon is the same: increasing the radius of cooperation will suppress rents(assymetries) through competition, whether internal or external. ….

    5) … and we eventually converge on individual property rights with gains captured and redistributed as commons, just as we see by comparison the convergence on mathematics, and the convergence on scientific ‘grammar’ as a universal language.

    6) Competition at ever increasing scales causes convergence on indifference in all ‘grammars’ (Methods) of cooperation from the conceptual to the verbal, to the material. (offset by war, group strategy etc.)

    7) So in this sense my approach is broader than Coase, and where Coase incorrectly suggests cooperation reinforces seeking equilibrium, instead cooperation seeks convergence, competition seeks efficiency, and opportunity seeks disequilibrium, with shocks as discovery of limits.

    8) That’s pretty heavy but I think it’s in your intellectual wheelhouse.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 12:21:00 UTC