Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Will Future Economies Depend On Socialist Governments, As Technology Makes Human Labour Redundant?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER

    1. socialism means central management of property and production. Socialism is dead. It cannot exist, ever, any more than communism or anarchism can exist – for obivous reasons, that I won’t go into here.
    2. Almost the entire world works on a mixed economy. A mixed economy means that private property, money, and prices are used to provide calculability, planning, and incentives for individuals, yet the proceeds of their unequal productivity are captured, and redistributed.
    3. The means of this redistribution varies from the investment in research, in industry, and infrastructure, to the subsidy of retirement, unemployment, general income, and the provision of health care and justice, military and defense.
    4. the uncomfortable truth is that the lower classes (dumber, more impulsive people, with lower industriousness) are far more costly than people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and industrious can compensate for, so the countries that are the most advanced and have the highest redistribution are those that have eliminated their underclasses through attrition during the middle and late middle and early modern ages. In other words, the best way to increase your wealth and unemployment is to force one or zero children to people who require redistribution.
    5. Moreover: There are limits to energy consumption available on the planet.
    6. Moreover: There are limits to productivity using energy available on the planet.
    7. Moreover: Humans are *extremely* expensive organisms.

    SO:

    THE OPTIMISTIC VERSION:
    We impose worldwide one or zero child policy on those people who cannot engage in fruitful employment and over about four generations raise the median ability of humanity about one standard deviation, eliminating most demand. Meanwhile we impose a law that says that any job that CAN be done by a human without repetitive stress injury, shall be done by a human. And that would solve most of the problems.

    THE STATUS QUO VERSION
    Since that would be untenable for the third world the vast majority of their populations being ‘surplus humans’, and impolitic for the first world, given that the state is empowered by women and the lower classes through voting I expect what will occur is no change, until the existing system of credit collapses (which should occur somewhere in the next generation if not this one.) And we will

    THE SCARY VERSION
    The vast importing of underclasses into the civilized world in order to attempt to compensate for the impossibility of maintaining these levels of redistribution in a world that is no longer economically and institutionally backward, nor pervasively superstitious and illiterate, will reverse 3500 years of reduction of the underclasses, and reduce all but say the japanese and Han chinese to worldwide malthusian poverty, since it is DIFFERENCES that make productivity possible.

    Regardless of what economists like to promote the carrying capacity of the planet looks as if the current standards of living cannot be extended to the full population extant.

    That’s my understanding of the choices.

    https://www.quora.com/Will-future-economies-depend-on-socialist-governments-as-technology-makes-human-labour-redundant

  • The minute you have skin in the game, you become an advocate of meritocracy. The

    The minute you have skin in the game, you become an advocate of meritocracy. The moment you can obtain returns without skin in the game, you become an advocate of equalitarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 13:21:00 UTC

  • INCOME VS CAPITAL Do you realize that all this international sense of wealth and

    INCOME VS CAPITAL

    Do you realize that all this international sense of wealth and opportunity is coming from a small number of outlier companies and the press that promotes them, an ignorant young generation riding on the last vestiges of fiat debt, and the use of post-peasant labor to maintain low prices?

    Economists who calculate income rather than capital are as stupid as people who calculate income statements rather than balance sheets.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 11:27:00 UTC

  • Why and how do free markets work?

    Why and how do free markets work? https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-do-free-markets-work/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=658c5d7f

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 01:07:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867910018611499008

  • Why is it called the free market when the poor have no choice but to sell their

    Why is it called the free market when the poor have no choice but to sell their labor so they don’t starve? https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-called-the-free-market-when-the-poor-have-no-choice-but-to-sell-their-labor-so-they-dont-starve/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=c9ab8bdc

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 00:34:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867901734160670720

  • What are some criticisms of the Austrian school of economic thought?

    What are some criticisms of the Austrian school of economic thought? https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=9a235e59

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 00:31:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867900974094045185

  • come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate

    https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-do-free-markets-work/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=658c5d7fPeople come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate opportunities and decrease the cost of each opportunity). This is the reason productivity increases with population density: we save time and expense, increase the division of knowledge and labor, and increase the velocity of trades, so we make the cost of pursuing opportunities cheaper.

    But when we come into proximity and decrease the costs of opportunities, we also increase the number of competitors both for consumption of goods, services, and information, and for the production of goods, services, and information.

    So the only means of pursuing those opportunities is to reduce the cost or improve the product, service, or information. Innovators force all other producers to improve the cost and quality and diversity of their products. Unfortunately it is usually much harder to improve the quality of labor, than it is to improve goods, services, and information.

    This cycle of competition and innovation keeps prices down and quality up, at the cost of forcing everyone to work harder, think harder, and spend more time working, leaving some people by the wayside because they cannot adapt themselves or their goods, services, or information fast enough to serve the interests of buyers given the available competition.

    A free market refers to the territorial, political, and juridical conditions under which anyone can engage in the negotiation and voluntary trade of attention, effort, labor, goods, services, information, promises and obligations, assuming that which he trades was obtained by him by the same means.

    Where one of the following sets of conditions applies:

    The government does not interfere with prices or conditions of the transaction and only enforces common laws of contract and tort. (this is an ok thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, and against fraud. (This is better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, for fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive (This is an even better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity. (an even better thing.)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity, and that no conspiracy exists to create an artificial shortage in order to increase prices without increasing the content of the product, service, or good (an even better thing.)

    A free market, may describe any of those different conditions. But only the last of those, I have listed is in fact a MORAL free market.

    Free markets are too often used as an excuse to conduct parasitism rather than productivity, under the ruse of moral pretense.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:07:00 UTC

  • is it called the free market when the poor have no choice but to sell their labo

    https://t.co/pndD5hKIcNWhy is it called the free market when the poor have no choice but to sell their labor so they don’t starve?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:34:00 UTC

  • depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about. 1) the Christian Austria

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=9a235e59It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.

    1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.

    or

    2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

    This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.

    The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.

    So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.

    If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:31:00 UTC

  • Why And How Do Free Markets Work?

    People come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate opportunities and decrease the cost of each opportunity). This is the reason productivity increases with population density: we save time and expense, increase the division of knowledge and labor, and increase the velocity of trades, so we make the cost of pursuing opportunities cheaper.

    But when we come into proximity and decrease the costs of opportunities, we also increase the number of competitors both for consumption of goods, services, and information, and for the production of goods, services, and information.

    So the only means of pursuing those opportunities is to reduce the cost or improve the product, service, or information. Innovators force all other producers to improve the cost and quality and diversity of their products. Unfortunately it is usually much harder to improve the quality of labor, than it is to improve goods, services, and information.

    This cycle of competition and innovation keeps prices down and quality up, at the cost of forcing everyone to work harder, think harder, and spend more time working, leaving some people by the wayside because they cannot adapt themselves or their goods, services, or information fast enough to serve the interests of buyers given the available competition.

    A free market refers to the territorial, political, and juridical conditions under which anyone can engage in the negotiation and voluntary trade of attention, effort, labor, goods, services, information, promises and obligations, assuming that which he trades was obtained by him by the same means.

    Where one of the following sets of conditions applies:

    The government does not interfere with prices or conditions of the transaction and only enforces common laws of contract and tort. (this is an ok thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, and against fraud. (This is better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, for fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive (This is an even better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity. (an even better thing.)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity, and that no conspiracy exists to create an artificial shortage in order to increase prices without increasing the content of the product, service, or good (an even better thing.)

    A free market, may describe any of those different conditions. But only the last of those, I have listed is in fact a MORAL free market.

    Free markets are too often used as an excuse to conduct parasitism rather than productivity, under the ruse of moral pretense.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-do-free-markets-work