Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Sorry guys but all austrian economics is practiced empirically today and the mis

    Sorry guys but all austrian economics is practiced empirically today and the misesian program was abandoned as an ideological failure. Just how it is.

    1) I can identify economic phenomenon empirically.

    2) I cannot identify all economic phenomenon deductively.

    3) I must be able to explain all economic phenomenon operationally or it is false.

    4) I cannot claim to know the limits of an apriori general rule without empirical analysis. If I cannot know the limits of a general rule I cannot use it for the purpose of argument and deduction of consequent states. Even if I *can* use it for the purpose of explanation of the current state.

    YOU CAN THROW AWAY EVERYTHING MISES INSTITUTE SAYS ABOUT ECONOMICS

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 17:01:00 UTC

  • Three strategies for free riding: – Marxism (on private production) – Libertaria

    Three strategies for free riding:

    – Marxism (on private production)

    – Libertarianism (on commons production)

    – Neo-Conservatism (on military expansion of markets)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 16:30:00 UTC

  • CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM VS MIXED ECONOMIES? (well intentioned fools) Capitalism

    CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM VS MIXED ECONOMIES?

    (well intentioned fools)

    Capitalism refers to the allocation of property to individuals providing incentives and the possibility of calculation.

    Socialism refers to the allocation of property to the state, eliminating incentives and the possibility of calculation.

    Mixed economies solve the problem of allocation of proceeds of cooperation under capitalism, by forcible redistribution of the proceeds largely using progressive taxation.

    Mainstream economists debate the degree of ‘takings’ that would achieve a pareto optimum, but evidence is that competition from the restoration of globalization under global consumer capitalism is lowering the maximum possible level of taxation, and that increased opportunity for extra-economic strategic expansion, may lead to wars, which is putting pressure on defense expenditures as well.

    For this variety of reasons, real incomes from other than financialization have been in constant decline as the world equilibrates, and just as conservatives feared, the left has created a moral hazard through expansion of the underclass in order to generate demand to compensate for the general decline in the distribution of productivity and its rewards.

    I always find well intentioned fools well intentioned. But we do not choose our governments. They are chosen for us by external circumstances, and we either adapt well to those circumstances or we do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 11:47:00 UTC

  • No. The economic foundations of NS were impossible. Iv’e gone through it and so

    No. The economic foundations of NS were impossible. Iv’e gone through it and so have others. Economics was an afterthought.

    If you want to say communism, socialism, social democracy, classical liberalism, and market fascism serve simply as a set of economic orders for the slave class, peasant class, working class, middle class, and aristocratic class, in that order, then I would say that’s correct.

    And that we can determine which political order is necessary for any group given its degree of (under)development. I would argue that this is precisely why we need separate micro states on one hand, or multiple economies on the other hand. As far as I can tell it’s almost impossible to create multiple economies in a single polity. But it is possible to use monarchy and natural law and to create any kind of economic polity. And that appears to be possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:37:00 UTC

  • So you are retroactively applying the necessity of money and prices in calculati

    So you are retroactively applying the necessity of money and prices in calculation and planning argument to property?

    Hmmm….

    Engels wrote the seminal work on the origin of property in man.

    Butler Sheaffer wrote the seminal work on its universality.

    Haidt’s bibliography contains dozens of explanations of its evolutionary origin.

    Evolutionary Biology (Axelrod) explained its necessity (cooperation).

    And….

    As for calculation, Weber stated that this was the future of all disciplines:calculation.

    Simmel in his ‘philosophy of money’ provides the necessity of money.

    Mises restates Simmel as an argument against socialism in his failed attempt at operationalism in economics (praxeology).

    As far as I know the origin of possession is pre-human.

    The need to defend self.The need to possess territory and defend nests or offspring.

    The origin of the habit of property is necessary for any independent but cooperative organism to prevent disincentive to cooperate.

    The origin of the norm of private property is to keep assets within families during inheritance.

    The origin of the law of private property is to prevent retaliation cycles.

    The origin of contract is to allow cooperation and planning across time.

    The origin of money and prices is to allow calculation and commensurability.

    The origin of property RIGHTS is the common law by which disputes were settled

    The criteria of dispute settlement arose in parallel to the granularity of property (tribe > family > generation > Individual)..

    The criteria of dispute resolution at the individual level is investment.

    The test of transfer of property is reciprocity, not only preserving investments but requiring gains.

    So as far as I know the origin of property is the preservation of investment and the prevention of parasitism that leads to conflict in cooperating organisms. And that monetary calculation would be possible whether private, generational, familial, or tribal (common) property existed.

    And as far as I know you are attempting to create a circular argument by stating that calculation that was made possible by property is the cause rather than property was a consequence of the scope of cooperation given the probability of retaliation, that is necessary to preserve that cooperation, such that individuals preserve the incentive to invest and save.

    In other words, the origin of property is the commons at each incremental scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:26:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: RESOURCES That which we have acted, or may act, to acquire and inven

    DEFINITION: RESOURCES

    That which we have acted, or may act, to acquire and inventory for the purpose of current and future transformation or consumption – from territory and all its natural assets, to perishable capital, to portable capital, to built capital, to institutional capital, to normative capital, to informational capital, to genetic capital.

    “That which we can use to transform state for our benefit.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 09:41:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY STUDENT LOAND PROBLEM IS A FEMALE GUT-COURSE NONSENSE DEGREE PROBLEM It

    THE ONLY STUDENT LOAND PROBLEM IS A FEMALE GUT-COURSE NONSENSE DEGREE PROBLEM

    It’s interesting since the imbalance is caused by the vast number of women taking nonsense courses, and being awarded nonsense-degrees. Whereas men do not pay money to take nonsense degrees.

    –“42 percent of women have more than $30,000 in college debt, compared with 27 percent of men. Women are two times more likely than men to think it will take more than 20 years to pay off their loans, “–

    —“Women currently hold two-thirds of the $1.3 trillion in outstanding student-loan debt in the U.S., “—

    In other words, women are more likely to (a) finance the anti-western propaganda (b) take nonsense gut courses and majors (c) create vast student debt.

    This is despite the fact that (a) it’s demonstrable that women learn nothing in college of workplace value (b) women more easily fit into diverse social orders in the work place (c) women are better clerical workers at an earlier age (d) women are given defference in social interaction assisting communications and collaboration in the workplace.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 14:05:00 UTC

  • “Is criticism of economic velocity a sentiment against pure capitalism?”—Ayela

    —“Is criticism of economic velocity a sentiment against pure capitalism?”—Ayelam Valentine Agaliba

    It’s that velocity is not a sufficient measure. At some point you’re either increasing risk(insufficient reserves) or decreasing accumulated capital(consuming reserves), or maximizing rents(creating fragility) such that it is not possible to (a) adapt to shocks, (b) adapt to change, because there is insufficient free capital or available debt to adjust the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade, consisting in patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, and you achieve in organizational continuity, the same effect as deflation in economic continuity.

    Collapses aren’t rare and usually occur in one generation or less. But they always occur for the same reasons: accumulated fragility.

    All the drastic collapses occur from overextension, economic colonization, export of technology, reproductive decrease, and primitive (empowered underclass) migrations willing to pay higher costs to obtain than advanced societies are willing to pay to maintain. (china the durable exception that even egypt didn’t survive.)

    Now, in our current condition this fragility is 3 hours of power, 2 days of water, 7 days of food, 14 days of gasoline, and about 30-60 days of ‘chaos’. (Which I’m sure enough people in govt know. I know members of the boards of power companies who are all too clear about it.)

    So i view pure capitalism as full accounting of all changes in state of all capital, not what it is now, ‘just run at high rpm’s until everything breaks’. SO it’s not a criticism of capitalism but a criticism of keynesianism (measurement of velocity without measurement of capital.)

    AFAIK: all economic collapse is a failure of measurement.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 10:03:00 UTC

  • “BANKS” Banks allow large numbers of people to cooperate *anonymously* by aggreg

    “BANKS”

    Banks allow large numbers of people to cooperate *anonymously* by aggregating small amounts of money from those with small amounts of income to leverage the borrowing capacity of fiat money. The first question is only whether *bankers* are providing any coordination value that cannot be provided purely statistically (doubtful. very.) The second question is whether continuous interest or transactional fees are either beneficial(destructive) or preferable(necessary).

    From what I can defend, I see a need for:

    1) Mutual Funds (distributed investment risk for consumers)

    2) Credit Services (and counseling)

    3) Clearing Services (an account or accounts)

    And I do not see any value in an other services.

    The collateral system as I understand it does not achieve the desired purpose. It is a means of regulating BANKS not consumer or business behavior: the deprivation of credit alone is the only motivator for consumers. And as far as I an tell the collateral system is just a means for creating moral hazard and entrapment. The only criteria is whether individuals have an ability to pay from income streams, not whether we can ‘retaliate’ against their assets. Secondly, there is no reason why we require people to pay on a regular schedule rather than as a percentage of their income streams. Much of what we believe is true is not. Money is not money any longer.

    BANKING HIERARCHY: (class based services)

    check cashing services: underclass

    (hole in the market): working poor

    credit unions: labor class (renters)

    savings and loans: homeowners

    banks: small business banks

    commercial banks: medium and large business banks.

    semi-political banks: ‘financial institutions’

    the central bank: the private sector.

    the treasury: the public sector.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 07:31:00 UTC

  • REDMOND/BELLEVUE: YOU ARE THE NEXT ROCHESTER You know, I said all this would hap

    https://www.yahoo.com/tech/microsoft-cuts-3-000-jobs-focus-cloud-171151815.htmlDEAR REDMOND/BELLEVUE: YOU ARE THE NEXT ROCHESTER

    You know, I said all this would happen. I said they couldn’t course correct. I said WHY they couldnt’ course correct. And I was right that Ballmer was the reason it wouldn’t be able to course correct. There is no replacement generation.

    They cannot buy a way into competency. Microsoft management culture and organizational cultures is Toxic.

    Not gonna happen. It won’t be a decline like Kodak, but it will be a decline like Xerox. And for the greater seattle area it will make the Boeing debacle in the 70’s look like a bad hair day.

    You become your parents if you aren’t careful. (IBM)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 16:44:00 UTC