Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker): Why Unhealthy Food Is Cheap and Plentiful vi

    https://t.co/tWbCHc62h3Retweeted Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker):

    Why Unhealthy Food Is Cheap and Plentiful https://t.co/tWbCHc62h3 via @aier

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 10:25:00 UTC

  • ANTI ECONOMICS TRENDS (Re: I think it’s nonsense. Economics is a very immature,

    ANTI ECONOMICS TRENDS

    (Re: https://theihs.org/seminars-conferences/policy-research-seminars/new-tech/)

    I think it’s nonsense.

    Economics is a very immature, that by accident of history has had an opportunity to replace property, law, reciprocity, and markets as the western means of government – because of the world wars, and the destruction of the traditional european order of small state monarchies with houses as markets for the commons, all under traditional common law of torts (reciprocity).

    All immature sciences have been problematic due to human rush to judgement and over enthusiastic use of new insights to gain advantages over others. Marxism, scientific socialism, keynesian monetarism, feminism, postmodernism are all attempts to use the violence of government to extract from others by force as a means of circumventing traditional exchanges between the classes – producing predictable results.

    Economics is repairable just as all sciences are repairable. Economics is rife with cherry-picking the way that social science is rife with attribution bias. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases )

    The Human desire that economic science advance their interests in politics is prohibitable.

    But the MATERIAL differences between the genders, classes, and sub-races is not ‘fixable’, other than by small-state nationalism, because all the alternatives -searching for equality- eventually result in castes(hinduism/brazil) or imperial tribalism(islam). And they must. Because no polity can survive competition for leadership without dependence upon its upper classes.

    So the problem was not economics, but the REPLACEMENT of rule of law, markets for exchanges of commons between the classes, with monopoly government using pseudoscientific methods of measurement to impose a war of transfers upon the classes – each of which rebels against it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 11:21:00 UTC

  • Anti Economics Trends

    (Re: https://theihs.org/seminars-conferences/policy-research-seminars/new-tech/) I think it’s nonsense. Economics is a very immature, that by accident of history has had an opportunity to replace property, law, reciprocity, and markets as the western means of government – because of the world wars, and the destruction of the traditional european order of small state monarchies with houses as markets for the commons, all under traditional common law of torts (reciprocity). All immature sciences have been problematic due to human rush to judgement and over enthusiastic use of new insights to gain advantages over others. Marxism, scientific socialism, keynesian monetarism, feminism, postmodernism are all attempts to use the violence of government to extract from others by force as a means of circumventing traditional exchanges between the classes – producing predictable results. Economics is repairable just as all sciences are repairable. Economics is rife with cherry-picking the way that social science is rife with attribution bias. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases ) The Human desire that economic science advance their interests in politics is prohibitable. But the MATERIAL differences between the genders, classes, and sub-races is not ‘fixable’, other than by small-state nationalism, because all the alternatives -searching for equality- eventually result in castes(hinduism/brazil) or imperial tribalism(islam). And they must. Because no polity can survive competition for leadership without dependence upon its upper classes. So the problem was not economics, but the REPLACEMENT of rule of law, markets for exchanges of commons between the classes, with monopoly government using pseudoscientific methods of measurement to impose a war of transfers upon the classes – each of which rebels against it. May 19, 2018 11:21am

  • Anti Economics Trends

    (Re: https://theihs.org/seminars-conferences/policy-research-seminars/new-tech/) I think it’s nonsense. Economics is a very immature, that by accident of history has had an opportunity to replace property, law, reciprocity, and markets as the western means of government – because of the world wars, and the destruction of the traditional european order of small state monarchies with houses as markets for the commons, all under traditional common law of torts (reciprocity). All immature sciences have been problematic due to human rush to judgement and over enthusiastic use of new insights to gain advantages over others. Marxism, scientific socialism, keynesian monetarism, feminism, postmodernism are all attempts to use the violence of government to extract from others by force as a means of circumventing traditional exchanges between the classes – producing predictable results. Economics is repairable just as all sciences are repairable. Economics is rife with cherry-picking the way that social science is rife with attribution bias. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases ) The Human desire that economic science advance their interests in politics is prohibitable. But the MATERIAL differences between the genders, classes, and sub-races is not ‘fixable’, other than by small-state nationalism, because all the alternatives -searching for equality- eventually result in castes(hinduism/brazil) or imperial tribalism(islam). And they must. Because no polity can survive competition for leadership without dependence upon its upper classes. So the problem was not economics, but the REPLACEMENT of rule of law, markets for exchanges of commons between the classes, with monopoly government using pseudoscientific methods of measurement to impose a war of transfers upon the classes – each of which rebels against it. May 19, 2018 11:21am

  • Um, just tax people by population density. It’s not complicated. It’s progressiv

    Um, just tax people by population density. It’s not complicated. It’s progressive as hell. Higher density means lower cost of commons maintenance and lower opportunity cost, and higher income. Now we progressively tax income but we don’t progressively tax benefits from the commons, and give credit for maintenance of the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 11:21:00 UTC

  • TAXATION by Bill Anderson —-“A small group of people gather together and then

    TAXATION

    by Bill Anderson

    —-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above.

    Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable.

    Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism.

    Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:08:00 UTC

  • If We Train One Another in Stoicism We Can Implement Redistribution.

    Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed. The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental. The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military). If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.

  • Taxation

    by Bill Anderson —-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above. Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable. Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism. Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.

  • The Value of The Classes

    There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.

  • The Value of The Classes

    There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.