Apr 21, 2017 10:43am THE USD and EURO function as the Reserve Token Money for the purchase of the commodity money: hydrocarbons, and the USA uses its premium for the financing of the world military, and the Europeans use their premium to delay the onset of the collapse of their generous redistribution scheme. Now, what happens if say, iran or russia or both are able to determine obtian sufficient control over hydrocarbon distribution that they can require hydrocarbons are purchased with their token money? Well the USA and Europe will no longer be able to sell their token money. And so the USA will not be able to apy for its military, and europe for its generous redistribution scheme. The USA and canada can produce sufficient hydrocarbons and if necessary nuclear energy without going to the internatinoal market for additional supply. But europe cannot, and must in turn become a client state of either russia, iran, or both.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
Why Do We Hate Keynesians?
WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”— If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.
-
Why Do We Hate Keynesians?
WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”— If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.
-
The Burden of Immigrants
One parasitic burden immigrants often impose is overconsumption. Prosperity requires productivity. Productivity requires accumulated capital. Capital requires savings and investment. When a people become prosperous on account of their propensity to save and invest, that attracts immigrants from less prosperous areas, with less prosperous qualities. Even if they only consume what they produce, (that is, even absent redistribution and entitlements) they did not accumulate the capital which now enables them to produce. And if they do not save and invest at rates comparable to the natives, but consume all of their produce (or more) then they are not adding to the capital structure of their new home, but depreciating it, and eroding the conditions which temporarily allow them to enjoy higher incomes and standards of living than they formerly did. Without those immigrants, the native people could retain exclusive use of that capital structure, and its full productive output, in the form of higher wages for their labor, while continuing to add to it.
-
The Burden of Immigrants
One parasitic burden immigrants often impose is overconsumption. Prosperity requires productivity. Productivity requires accumulated capital. Capital requires savings and investment. When a people become prosperous on account of their propensity to save and invest, that attracts immigrants from less prosperous areas, with less prosperous qualities. Even if they only consume what they produce, (that is, even absent redistribution and entitlements) they did not accumulate the capital which now enables them to produce. And if they do not save and invest at rates comparable to the natives, but consume all of their produce (or more) then they are not adding to the capital structure of their new home, but depreciating it, and eroding the conditions which temporarily allow them to enjoy higher incomes and standards of living than they formerly did. Without those immigrants, the native people could retain exclusive use of that capital structure, and its full productive output, in the form of higher wages for their labor, while continuing to add to it.
-
More “What’s Wrong With the Keynesian World?”
Deficit spending on infrastructure that produces returns, and is somehow quantifiable, doesn’t seem to be a problem. I don’t see a problem borrowing against the future for the purposes of production (capital increases). In fact, history is very optimistic about both research investment, infrastructure investment, export market investment, and trade route investment (including conquest). It’s just very pessimistic about funding rents, subsidies, and vote-bribes. OTOH, Destruction of intergenerational lending, is informationally destructive. Distortion of the interest rate is informationally destructive. Flooding the economy with money is informationally destructive. And cumulatively that destruction appears to be more than even the combination of innovation and productivity can compensate for, even in a period of gold rush created by the technology booms. I mean, if it isn’t working from 1990 to the present, it’s not going to work in more common periods. Interest is necessary for the purposes of measurement, and to make use of information by those with demonstrated ability to make judgements. I don’t understand why we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves (the treasury). I don’t understand why we care about our status as a reserve currency except as a means of financing the military empire. And I no longer see much advantage to the preservation of the empire (power projection), only our defense of territory and trade. In fact, the empire has dominated our domestic policy for a century now. Lets take it further: I would see no problem in distributing liquidity (dilution of the money supply) if distributed annually or quarterly to consumers on debit cards – other than the moral hazard it would create. This causes industry to fight for consumer dollars, and gives consumers the option to consume or reduce debt. Right now the distortion by financialization (gambling) rather than capitalization is so …. vast … no one has any idea how to measure it. Other than we can see that ‘something isn’t right here’ and we cant find a target that will correct whatever is wrong. (productivity). Targets are pretty simple really: how many hours to the 66% of people on either side of the median have to work to pay for all non-signal private goods? As far as I know, all interest on consumption of non-signal private goods is money lost from the treasury and capital-producing industry. And that looks like trillions to me.
-
More “What’s Wrong With the Keynesian World?”
Deficit spending on infrastructure that produces returns, and is somehow quantifiable, doesn’t seem to be a problem. I don’t see a problem borrowing against the future for the purposes of production (capital increases). In fact, history is very optimistic about both research investment, infrastructure investment, export market investment, and trade route investment (including conquest). It’s just very pessimistic about funding rents, subsidies, and vote-bribes. OTOH, Destruction of intergenerational lending, is informationally destructive. Distortion of the interest rate is informationally destructive. Flooding the economy with money is informationally destructive. And cumulatively that destruction appears to be more than even the combination of innovation and productivity can compensate for, even in a period of gold rush created by the technology booms. I mean, if it isn’t working from 1990 to the present, it’s not going to work in more common periods. Interest is necessary for the purposes of measurement, and to make use of information by those with demonstrated ability to make judgements. I don’t understand why we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves (the treasury). I don’t understand why we care about our status as a reserve currency except as a means of financing the military empire. And I no longer see much advantage to the preservation of the empire (power projection), only our defense of territory and trade. In fact, the empire has dominated our domestic policy for a century now. Lets take it further: I would see no problem in distributing liquidity (dilution of the money supply) if distributed annually or quarterly to consumers on debit cards – other than the moral hazard it would create. This causes industry to fight for consumer dollars, and gives consumers the option to consume or reduce debt. Right now the distortion by financialization (gambling) rather than capitalization is so …. vast … no one has any idea how to measure it. Other than we can see that ‘something isn’t right here’ and we cant find a target that will correct whatever is wrong. (productivity). Targets are pretty simple really: how many hours to the 66% of people on either side of the median have to work to pay for all non-signal private goods? As far as I know, all interest on consumption of non-signal private goods is money lost from the treasury and capital-producing industry. And that looks like trillions to me.
-
The Greater Good? Three Branches of Economics, Three Group Strategies
Apr 28, 2017 2:50pm THE GREATER GOOD???? We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continually saturated with lies as to possible ‘greater goods’ and impossible greater goods. And it turns out that all successful appeals to ‘greater goods’ are in fact, merely pretenses for parasitism. Because we are forever ignorant, we cannot know goods, or truths, only bads or falsehoods. As such the greater good can only be obtained by removal of known bads: the natural common law of torts. The demand for reciprocity. And the punishment of offenders. By this (via-negativa) removal of bads, only voluntary market-produced goods can be brought into existence, in any form, whether as material goods, services, or information for consumption or as material goods, services or information for direct investment, or for material goods, services, or information for the production of commons as an indirect investment. By profits from the (via-negativa) removal of bads, and the production of the voluntary organization of production of private, semi-private, and common goods, services, and information, we are then able to insure one another against the vicissitudes of nature. In the literature we find: 1) Totalitarianism of the underclass socialists to use discretion to organize production and perform discretionary redistribution of proceeds as a means of aggressive transition of people from a state far behind competitors; This approach requires existential information to make use of, and is indifferent to the demographic quality, and absence of market economy. 2) The progressive ‘representational’ use of pareto optimums to justify forcible redistribution and the expansion of the dead weight of the underclass (Rawlsian social democracy) as a means of using population to defeat competitors. This approach requires existential market economies to make use of reduced production of information. 3) And we find the conservative ‘aristocratic’ use of Nash equilibriums (classical liberalism/contractualism under natural law) to justify meritocracy and voluntary cooperation and eugenic reduction of the dead weight of the underclasses as means of remaining ahead of competitors. This approach requires existentially reduced lower classes, existential market economies, and existential high trust within that economy to function. 4) To support these three literatures we find three branches of economics: a) the “Saltwater and Discretionary School”. b) The “Freshwater and Rule of Law School” c) The “German/Austrian Political Economy School” I can answer further questions about political models, demographic demands, and the supposed wisdom of crowds, but you wouldn’t believe how much of the totality of political thought is contained in those few paragraphs.