Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Operational Economics Is A Minimum Necessary Skill For Participation In Post-Medieval Discourse.

    If you don’t understand operational economics, meaning opportunities, incentives and the equilibration of those opportunities as we act on them, then you are no different in your deficiencies from a late medieval rationalist ignorant of empiricism. Economics is counter-intuitive, in large part because it exposes the fallacies of ethical, moral, and ‘good’ pretenses and creates a measurable means testing ethical and moral thoughts, words, and actions. We are, and we act, as extensions of the physical universe, and we do so by exactly the same laws, and language just is a polite means of negotiating with others. The advantage intelligence, of memory, of the ability to cooperate, and of the ability to live for three weeks without food, is that we can use fairly long periods to plan short medium and long term means of expending small amounts of energy as individuals, and together as groups, to capture calories necessary to support that fairly expensive neurological system. We are simply a better means of capturing, converting, and concentrating energy in a universe of perpetual entropy, because our memories allow us to predict the future, and act to seize the opportunity or alter it and create it or seize the risk and alter ir. At some point humans must stop seeking discounts (cunning in the short term ) and produce returns ( productivity through invention). And we seem to covet a steady state, yet never wish to pay for the long investments that make the great leaps in wealth possible. Because they are only possible when an elite minority possesses both technological advantage AND an internal demand to create markets that produce returns, rather than predations that prevent them in exchange for current and near term signal and consumption.
  • Operational Economics Is A Minimum Necessary Skill For Participation In Post-Medieval Discourse.

    If you don’t understand operational economics, meaning opportunities, incentives and the equilibration of those opportunities as we act on them, then you are no different in your deficiencies from a late medieval rationalist ignorant of empiricism. Economics is counter-intuitive, in large part because it exposes the fallacies of ethical, moral, and ‘good’ pretenses and creates a measurable means testing ethical and moral thoughts, words, and actions. We are, and we act, as extensions of the physical universe, and we do so by exactly the same laws, and language just is a polite means of negotiating with others. The advantage intelligence, of memory, of the ability to cooperate, and of the ability to live for three weeks without food, is that we can use fairly long periods to plan short medium and long term means of expending small amounts of energy as individuals, and together as groups, to capture calories necessary to support that fairly expensive neurological system. We are simply a better means of capturing, converting, and concentrating energy in a universe of perpetual entropy, because our memories allow us to predict the future, and act to seize the opportunity or alter it and create it or seize the risk and alter ir. At some point humans must stop seeking discounts (cunning in the short term ) and produce returns ( productivity through invention). And we seem to covet a steady state, yet never wish to pay for the long investments that make the great leaps in wealth possible. Because they are only possible when an elite minority possesses both technological advantage AND an internal demand to create markets that produce returns, rather than predations that prevent them in exchange for current and near term signal and consumption.
  • Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urban

    Exactly.

    People actually are pretty stupid.

    The other related concept that urbanites don’t account for is HOW MUCH COMMONS the people in the suburbs, and rural areas are maintaining and defending with how few resources.

    Versus how LITTLE IF ANY commons an urbanite is, like a child living under his or her parents, responsible for maintaining and defending.

    Versus how high opportunity costs are in low population density versus how low opportunity costs are in high population density.

    If we are going to progressively tax anyone, we ought to tax people by population density AND income so that we equally pay for the commons we protect.

    Urbanites think like, vote like, and act like children. Because for all intents and purposes they have the same level of responsibility for the commons as do children living under their parents.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-17 14:10:00 UTC

  • Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urban

    Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urbanites don’t account for is HOW MUCH COMMONS the people in the suburbs, and rural areas are maintaining and defending with how few resources. Versus how LITTLE IF ANY commons an urbanite is, like a child living under his or her parents, responsible for maintaining and defending. Versus how high opportunity costs are in low population density versus how low opportunity costs are in high population density. If we are going to progressively tax anyone, we ought to tax people by population density AND income so that we equally pay for the commons we protect. Urbanites think like, vote like, and act like children. Because for all intents and purposes they have the same level of responsibility for the commons as do children living under their parents.
  • Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urban

    Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urbanites don’t account for is HOW MUCH COMMONS the people in the suburbs, and rural areas are maintaining and defending with how few resources. Versus how LITTLE IF ANY commons an urbanite is, like a child living under his or her parents, responsible for maintaining and defending. Versus how high opportunity costs are in low population density versus how low opportunity costs are in high population density. If we are going to progressively tax anyone, we ought to tax people by population density AND income so that we equally pay for the commons we protect. Urbanites think like, vote like, and act like children. Because for all intents and purposes they have the same level of responsibility for the commons as do children living under their parents.
  • This is nonsense. A trade war with china would increase our prices, but it would

    This is nonsense. A trade war with china would increase our prices, but it would destroy the chinese economy and …. anyway. They have more to worry about than we do.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-17 01:44:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953442755778371585

    Reply addressees: @washingtonpost

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953442521169973248


    IN REPLY TO:

    @washingtonpost

    Perspective: A trade war with China would backfire on Trump — and America https://t.co/QUjd08Lxtl

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953442521169973248

  • (I know you’re trying to educate the vox populi on relative risk, but likewise I

    (I know you’re trying to educate the vox populi on relative risk, but likewise I try to do the same by illustrating that comparison of costs requires full accounting of the seen and unseen.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 11:52:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953233589738639360

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953224319815045120


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @sapinker Steven, That reasoning is an instance of false equivalency of costs. A disease that kills even 100k will not escalate to interfere with the velocity of cooperation (externalities) – nor be curable. While terrorism can both escalate and be cured.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/953224319815045120


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @sapinker Steven, That reasoning is an instance of false equivalency of costs. A disease that kills even 100k will not escalate to interfere with the velocity of cooperation (externalities) – nor be curable. While terrorism can both escalate and be cured.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/953224319815045120

  • Steven, That reasoning is an instance of false equivalency of costs. A disease t

    Steven, That reasoning is an instance of false equivalency of costs. A disease that kills even 100k will not escalate to interfere with the velocity of cooperation (externalities) – nor be curable. While terrorism can both escalate and be cured.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 11:16:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953224319815045120

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953100283764191232


    IN REPLY TO:

    @sapinker

    How much should the government pay to eliminate a disease that kills 6 Americans a year? Now, how much should it pay to eliminate terrorism? John Mueller on why we shouldn’t exaggerate the scale of terrorism in the U.S. https://t.co/6B1GGWCR72

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953100283764191232

  • Untitled

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-15 21:43:00 UTC

  • Generous spending has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to

    Generous spending has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.