Came across an intriguing contention relative to markets and the disparity between Mengle’s theory of imputation and Adam’s labor theory.
Curiosity has me peering this morning into imputation with one eye on the labor theory (testing binary) in hope to bifurcate my way through if possible, for awhile, and test whether or not claims made by each can reconcile (ternary) with current propertarian positions, and if so, why. If not, why not.
Time constraints may limit me to the basics of imputation theory alone, which is fine.
It is likely that a true binary does not exist of course (never does really), which translates to mean we end up bagging one more carry-along misfit ternary puzzle piece for future resolve.
But the implications so far are heartening.
Not sure if you’ve had the opportunity to perform this test already tho.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
Came across an intriguing contention relative to markets and the disparity betwe
Came across an intriguing contention relative to markets and the disparity between Mengle’s theory of imputation and Adam’s labor theory. Curiosity has me peering this morning into imputation with one eye on the labor theory (testing binary) in hope to bifurcate my way through if possible, for awhile, and test whether or not claims made by each can reconcile (ternary) with current propertarian positions, and if so, why. If not, why not. Time constraints may limit me to the basics of imputation theory alone, which is fine. It is likely that a true binary does not exist of course (never does really), which translates to mean we end up bagging one more carry-along misfit ternary puzzle piece for future resolve. But the implications so far are heartening. Not sure if you’ve had the opportunity to perform this test already tho. -
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty. -
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty. -
IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME. The capitalis
IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.)
In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity.
In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals.
The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’.
An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves.
We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment.
Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying.
So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military).
So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in.
SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples.
Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 13:42:00 UTC
-
The Experiment With Monopoly Economies Has Failed
Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans. That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition). An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions. As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation. The experiment with monopoly economies has failed. -
THE EXPERIMENT WITH MONOPOLY ECONOMIES HAS FAILED Not that I want to degrade one
THE EXPERIMENT WITH MONOPOLY ECONOMIES HAS FAILED
Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans.
That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition).
An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions.
As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation.
The experiment with monopoly economies has failed.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 00:25:00 UTC
-
The Experiment With Monopoly Economies Has Failed
Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans. That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition). An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions. As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation. The experiment with monopoly economies has failed. -
Bitcoin Criticisms – Not The Idea, The Marketing And The Execution
My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks. My problems are with BTC are: (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy. (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. ie: tulip bulbs. I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument. IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also. -
BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION My criticisms
BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION
My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks.
My problems are with BTC are:
(a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model.
(b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy.
(c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks.
(d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish.
ie: tulip bulbs.
I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument.
IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 17:17:00 UTC