—“Everyone is born with X amount of potential (genetic, cultural, material and technological capital). If they do nothing or pursue a hedonic lifestyle, that potential will be consumed and then one dies. Most people barely sustain it, maybe increase it marginally. Exceptional people increase it exponentially, and that’s why we have pareto distributions of success. The people that take advantage of the most opportunities and put their potential/capital to work gain the most potential/capital in return. Simple.”— @Yannis Kontinopoulo ( h/t: Simon Ström )
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
ARE WRONG. WAR IS THE BEST INDUSTRY AFTER RULE. WAR, RULE, FINANCE … Everythin
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/03/war-drove-18th-century-industrial-revolution-great-britain/LIBERTARIANS ARE WRONG. WAR IS THE BEST INDUSTRY AFTER RULE.
WAR, RULE, FINANCE … Everything else is just noise.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 19:55:00 UTC
-
“Yes My Child, Only Half Of People Work” 😉
—“Only half participate in the work force? Really?”— um… that’s normal. children, stay at home moms, and the elderly. 20 years to mature, 40 years of work, 20 years of retirement = 50% employment in an evenly rotating population. That simple sentence is enough to explain why redistribution doesn’t work. Costly to train, costly to reproduce the next generation and work, and costly to support in old age. Basically if you can’t pay for yourself you’re screwed.
-
“Yes My Child, Only Half Of People Work” 😉
—“Only half participate in the work force? Really?”— um… that’s normal. children, stay at home moms, and the elderly. 20 years to mature, 40 years of work, 20 years of retirement = 50% employment in an evenly rotating population. That simple sentence is enough to explain why redistribution doesn’t work. Costly to train, costly to reproduce the next generation and work, and costly to support in old age. Basically if you can’t pay for yourself you’re screwed.
-
“YES MY CHILD, ONLY HALF OF PEOPLE WORK” 😉 —“Only half participate in the wor
“YES MY CHILD, ONLY HALF OF PEOPLE WORK” 😉
—“Only half participate in the work force? Really?”—
um… that’s normal. children, stay at home moms, and the elderly. 20 years to mature, 40 years of work, 20 years of retirement = 50% employment in an evenly rotating population.
That simple sentence is enough to explain why redistribution doesn’t work. Costly to train, costly to reproduce the next generation and work, and costly to support in old age. Basically if you can’t pay for yourself you’re screwed.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 10:32:00 UTC
-
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation un
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:05:00 UTC
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.
-
One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.
The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.
-
One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.
The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.