Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • (in progress)(note to self) Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and

    (in progress)(note to self)

    Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and Economists in your opinion?” — Jose R. Alzaibar

    1. UNSCIENTIFIC (INCOMPLETE)

    Well, I’ll try to do a better job than Nassim Taleb at making a similar point, and say that to testify that you speak truthfully, and that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, for the purpose of committing fraud, economists would have to provide the following warranties of due diligence of their propositions:

    a) categorical consistency (identity)

    b) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    c) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    d) existential possibility (operational descriptions) *praxeological*

    e) moral possibility (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    f) limits, full accounting, and parsimony (fully accounted)

    In economics, except in rare circumstances, only a,b,c are ever vaguely satisfied. item (d) is almost never satisfied, and (e) is never satisfied, and they seem to be not even aware of the importance of (f).

    Now, regarding (d), existential possibility, in the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe, we only know that the universe equilibrates fully at all times, and therefore, that mathematics can be used to precisely model phenomenon that we observe. At some point we hope to know the first principles of the universe, and once we do, we can test our theories by operational construction from first principles. So in the physical sciences we must run tests and rely upon mathematical equilibrium (so-called ‘perfect symmetry’) and upon determinism (the result of the production of perfect symmetry via perfect equilibrium) as the test of our theories.

    Also, regarding (e), moral possibility, the universe does not have the choice of acting morally and preserving the incentive to cooperate, or immorally to hinder the incentive to cooperate. The universe is amoral, and we do not cooperate with it, we are merely subject to its laws.

    So (d) existential possibility, by tested by operational construction and (e) moral possibility, tested by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited externalities of the same criteria, are not properties we can yet (d), or ever shall (e), ask one another to warranty that one has done due diligence to test prior to testifying (stating) any theory.

    But when making statements in economics (the monetary measurement of cooperation), social sciences (the categorical study of cooperation), and the institutional method of existence of cooperation: habit, norm, ethics, morals, law, tradition, ritual, and mythos – we can both test (d) existential possibility and (e) moral possibility.

    The reason being that we know the first principles of human behavior through subjective testing of incentives (‘understanding the other person’s incentives’). and we must know that because without an understanding of intentions and incentives we could neither cooperate, nor reward one another for cooperation, nor punish one another for actions that inhibit cooperation. We could not form juries which depend entirely upon the ascertainment of intentions and incentives. The pre-cooperative creature finds safety in numbers, mating in numbers, information in numbers, but merely seizes opportunities amidst competitive threats within the limits of the creature’s range of perception and action. They do not cooperate. To cooperate requires a sympathetic transfer of intention between individuals.

    So, since man is a rational actor in the pursuit of his desires and following his incentives – even at the extremes of mental disability, if we can ascertain a sequence of events and actions, each of which we can subjectively test as ‘reasonably rational’, then we can construct a recipe (sequence of events) under which the individual’s actions are ethical, moral, and possible – or not.

    Now we come to (f), the determination of limits, parsimony, and full accounting. And these tests demonstrate the troublesome difference between our warranty of due diligence of the physical universe and our warranty of due diligence in cooperation. That is that the universe perfectly equilibrates because it must, and man does not perfectly equilibrate *because he must not.* And in that difference we find the opposite importance between mathematics of perfect symmetry in the physical universe, and operational construction in in the universe of human cooperation.

    So, mainstream

    (…how man always bends objective ethics and morals to accommodate current distributions of ability…)

    2. SELF CONFIRMING SELECTION BIAS INSTEAD OF FULL ACCOUNTING

    3. TRUTH (SCIENCE, FACILITATION,EUGENICS) VS FALSEHOOD (INTERFERENCE/FRAUD/DYSGENICS)

    Different camps possess different levels of confidence (arrogance).

    (a) social science (Austrian – positive externality) long term.

    (b) rule of law (freshwater – balanced externality) medium term.

    (c) rule by discretion (saltwater – negative externality) short term.

    So the conservative movement practices social science, the rule of law movement practices good government, and the rule by discretion movement practices what they consider the most immediately human (arbitrary) discretion.

    Different camps favor families and capital construction and others favor individual consumption.

    Different camps are more comfortable interfering with planning and contract, and others are less comfortable interfering with planning an contract.

    4. REPRODUCTIVE TIME PREFERENCE, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY

    (a) Parasites encourage consumption by the host, and then move to a new host.

    (b) Members insure one another against extraordinary hardships.

    (c) People subject the population to constant culling in pursuit of constant improvement.

    5. UNIVERSALISM

    6. DYSGENIC, DECIVILIZING, DEVOLUTIONARY

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:39:00 UTC

  • Ten Thoughts on Money

    Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”– I’ve written a bit , here and there, mostly on:

    1) the fact that fiat money is equal to shares in the state/economy, not notes or money. Moreover, I’ve tried to impress upon people that colloquial money (various mediums of exchange in sufficient volume to produce market price signals) and all its forms, differ substantially from money proper. And I’ve tried to correct mises and the bitcoin community on their uses of these terms – because it’s fraudulent to compare these media as having the same properties. They don’t’. 2) it’s not clear that people have any right to the appreciation of fiat money, nor whether they have a right to its store of value for any extended period of time (longer than a business cycle). 3) We should use multiple currencies for multiple purposes so that rates of inflationary dilution are purpose-specific. 4) There is no need to continue distribution of liquidity through the banking system as we did when there was hard currency. We can directly issue liquidity to consumers and cause spending without giving profits or power to the banking and finance system. This forces business and industry to fight for consumers, rather than fight for access to credit. 5) Money is information and the more kinds of money the more kinds of information we have that is less subject to distortion. I could write a book on this subject alone. 6) In theory money is neutral, in practice it is not. Not because prices are not eventually equilibrated, but because this process of equilibration works through the economy disruptively and without uniformity. 7) Lending should be regulated to the same degree as law, and debt should not be resellable because a price (value) is subjectively constructed and non-transferrable, and non-insurable. 8 ) Law has been abused to work in the favor of hazard-creation by lenders, and this should be inverted, and bankruptcy protection increased so that lenders have an extremely difficult time collecting and instead take fewer risks and take less responsibility for distributing liquidity. 9) intergenerational redistribution must be stopped, and the singaporean model adopted so that the future is calculable. Furthermore, this money cannot be touched by creditors or the state, or anyone else for that matter. 10 ) I would prefer that the government collected fees on all financial transactions rather than income taxes. I believe fees are necessary for the production of insurance of last resort, and those discretionary commons that make us competitive. Those are the major topics.

  • Ten Thoughts on Money

    Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”– I’ve written a bit , here and there, mostly on:

    1) the fact that fiat money is equal to shares in the state/economy, not notes or money. Moreover, I’ve tried to impress upon people that colloquial money (various mediums of exchange in sufficient volume to produce market price signals) and all its forms, differ substantially from money proper. And I’ve tried to correct mises and the bitcoin community on their uses of these terms – because it’s fraudulent to compare these media as having the same properties. They don’t’. 2) it’s not clear that people have any right to the appreciation of fiat money, nor whether they have a right to its store of value for any extended period of time (longer than a business cycle). 3) We should use multiple currencies for multiple purposes so that rates of inflationary dilution are purpose-specific. 4) There is no need to continue distribution of liquidity through the banking system as we did when there was hard currency. We can directly issue liquidity to consumers and cause spending without giving profits or power to the banking and finance system. This forces business and industry to fight for consumers, rather than fight for access to credit. 5) Money is information and the more kinds of money the more kinds of information we have that is less subject to distortion. I could write a book on this subject alone. 6) In theory money is neutral, in practice it is not. Not because prices are not eventually equilibrated, but because this process of equilibration works through the economy disruptively and without uniformity. 7) Lending should be regulated to the same degree as law, and debt should not be resellable because a price (value) is subjectively constructed and non-transferrable, and non-insurable. 8 ) Law has been abused to work in the favor of hazard-creation by lenders, and this should be inverted, and bankruptcy protection increased so that lenders have an extremely difficult time collecting and instead take fewer risks and take less responsibility for distributing liquidity. 9) intergenerational redistribution must be stopped, and the singaporean model adopted so that the future is calculable. Furthermore, this money cannot be touched by creditors or the state, or anyone else for that matter. 10 ) I would prefer that the government collected fees on all financial transactions rather than income taxes. I believe fees are necessary for the production of insurance of last resort, and those discretionary commons that make us competitive. Those are the major topics.

  • The First Property Of Production Is Time. And Money Is Its Commensurable Store.

    In the past ten years I have not been able to defeat the theory that money literally stores time ( saved by or spent in production ) and that our claim that it is a store of value is a mistaken subjective perception given the utility in accounting rather than an objective description of its causality. When we cooperate we save time. When we divide labor we save more. When we exchange productively we save more.

    We are not wealthier in time than our distant ancestors, we have – depending upon how we wish to describe the phenomenon – made everything cheaper in cost of time while at the same time holding caloric expenditure relatively constant. And thanks to the nineteenth And twentieth centuries, dramatically reduced the cost in cellular damage per moment. Even if we have offset it a bit with chemical preservatives, carbohydrates and sugars. So all increases in productivity ( not aggregate productivity, but case specific productivity) reflect time savings. Just as all thefts and frauds its loss. Now we could also restate time saved as time created, or time made available rather than time saved. But I think doing so enters the domain of mathematical Platonism. No matter what we do, money is only able to influence others by paying them in saved time to prefer spending their time on what we desire of them versus the alternatives. Comments
    Mark King —So, to borrow money is to borrow time saved by others (living on borrowed time so to speak.) To default on a loan is to have literally wasted someone’s time.–
     
    Davin Eastley —^That is correct indeed.–
     
    Jason Conway —This almost seems like you’ve described the commoditization of time through the use of commodificaton.–

  • The First Property Of Production Is Time. And Money Is Its Commensurable Store.

    In the past ten years I have not been able to defeat the theory that money literally stores time ( saved by or spent in production ) and that our claim that it is a store of value is a mistaken subjective perception given the utility in accounting rather than an objective description of its causality. When we cooperate we save time. When we divide labor we save more. When we exchange productively we save more.

    We are not wealthier in time than our distant ancestors, we have – depending upon how we wish to describe the phenomenon – made everything cheaper in cost of time while at the same time holding caloric expenditure relatively constant. And thanks to the nineteenth And twentieth centuries, dramatically reduced the cost in cellular damage per moment. Even if we have offset it a bit with chemical preservatives, carbohydrates and sugars. So all increases in productivity ( not aggregate productivity, but case specific productivity) reflect time savings. Just as all thefts and frauds its loss. Now we could also restate time saved as time created, or time made available rather than time saved. But I think doing so enters the domain of mathematical Platonism. No matter what we do, money is only able to influence others by paying them in saved time to prefer spending their time on what we desire of them versus the alternatives. Comments
    Mark King —So, to borrow money is to borrow time saved by others (living on borrowed time so to speak.) To default on a loan is to have literally wasted someone’s time.–
     
    Davin Eastley —^That is correct indeed.–
     
    Jason Conway —This almost seems like you’ve described the commoditization of time through the use of commodificaton.–

  • Markets: Designed, Constructed, Or Evolved?

    It’s that men did in fact create markets by forcible suppression of alternatives (parasitism) in all walks of life. Now this is different from ‘designed’. The market arises as a consequence of this suppression. So we ‘liberate’ the market as well as man, from parasitism. we construct liberty and market by the same means: suppression of its alternatives. So it’s not that we design the market, it’s that the market evolves from the design of suppression of parasitism. but reality is that market towns were established as were shopping malls today. So trade may exist prior to suppression – but markets are made. cooperation may exist prior to suppression – but liberty is constructed.

  • Markets: Designed, Constructed, Or Evolved?

    It’s that men did in fact create markets by forcible suppression of alternatives (parasitism) in all walks of life. Now this is different from ‘designed’. The market arises as a consequence of this suppression. So we ‘liberate’ the market as well as man, from parasitism. we construct liberty and market by the same means: suppression of its alternatives. So it’s not that we design the market, it’s that the market evolves from the design of suppression of parasitism. but reality is that market towns were established as were shopping malls today. So trade may exist prior to suppression – but markets are made. cooperation may exist prior to suppression – but liberty is constructed.

  • Why Do Central Banks Use Intermediaries?

    IMPORTANT: WHY DO CENTRAL BANKS USE INTERMEDIARIES? —“Question: why do central banks continue to do stimulus through intermediaries like banks when they can wire the money directly to consumers? Eg. by issuing them with prepaid cards to spend?”— Ayelam I am not an econometrician but I suspect I’ll hold my own against any living econometric economist on this subject: The answer consists of the following components: (1) The distribution of physical money through the banks was a necessity. (2 )There was no other distribution channel available until perhaps 20 years ago at the earliest. (I remember how hard it was to get people to use credit cards). (3) Digital money is actually not a very old technology and we have just recently begun to understand it.Governments move very slowly and this will disrupt the entire economy in (good) ways that will totally fuck the institutional investors that fund DC campaigns with ill-gotten gains unearned, since they merely distribute a costless good to the highest bidder for a commission. They are auctioneers. That is all. (4) The banker/crediting agency investigates the probability and insures the probability that the debt will be repaid. This INSURER function is actually what bankers do: insure the shareholders (citizens) that their fiat money (shares) are used judiciously. This argument has increasingly become specious because we have such accurate actuarial data now that we can predict the performance of a bucket of consumers with nearly perfect accuracy. 4A) It benefits the various rent seekers and politicians if all fiscal(spending) stimulus to the economy is provided by government to government suppliers just as all monetary stimulus is distributed through the financial sectors. What would happen to the construction of high cost government projects when consumers were able to say “but I could have used that money here at home?”. (5) There is a (mistaken) belief that the time value of productivity for the purpose of consumption (consumer income) needs interest for calculation purposes just as business and industry need interest for economic calculation purposes. This is a long conversation but I don’t see how consumption is any kind of entrepreneurial risk. it’s the cause of entrepreneurial risk. (6) The very idea was kind of poisoned by the MMT crowd. Particularly – we do not know the impact it would have on interest rates. And at present interest rates are the metric that the world uses to control the ‘price’ of money(which is not driven by cost of production), by regulating its ‘manufacture’ by states. Without interest rates we need another measure. This measure has been in dispute for many years, with some favoring some sort of purchasing power metric, and others favoring some productivity metric, and others some ‘growth’ metric. But if money loses its intertemporal predictability then economic calculation of contracts over any period of time increases and with that, the cost of all production, and therefore all prices, increases rapidly. (remember that money = influence that saves time and is therefore a store of time-in-production. Fiat money issued as credit money is a risk that the time will be more than saved over the interim period. (7) The moral hazard of distributing directly to consumers is frightening because unlike market activity, where people blame employers and the economy when activity shrinks and so does their income, we are fearful that people will change from living paycheck to variable paycheck, to living from monetary distribution to monetary distribution but retaliate politically against the government in the case of shrinking. Thereby all but making total communism a deterministic outcome – which is why some of the left advocate for it. (8) With the advent of leftist influence on the judiciary, it is no longer a social science bound by natural laws. So we have no means of putting such a policy into the constitution such that it’s immutable. Thereby eliminating the hazards articulated above. (9) I was nobody in 2008-2009 when I was talking about it, but as far as I know Galbraith was the only mainstream guy who articulated this problem correctly, and he correctly advocated the direct payment of mortgage debt. It would have price stabilized the world economy. But it would have fucked (undeserving) institutional debt-holders the same way greek debt holders were fucked. (His death was untimely) And conservatives (wrongly) thought it created a moral hazard (which would have been solved by giving people credit lines who had acted properly, and credit lines to those people over the next x years who were able to buy a house. ) I’ve also recommended limiting mortgages to 15 years in order to limit this problem further. Why? all increases in salary are eventually absorbed by housing prices and redistributed to long term property holders (indirect retirement savings accounts ). (10) So net net, we can buy or nationalize the ( worst )credit card company (mastercard), and distribute liquidity directly to consumers, as long as we put constitutional safeguards in place, and as long as the amount is dependent upon the overall economy. And let industry and business determine the interest rate, which should drop dramaticlaly if we reidstribute to consumers. Because the truth is that fiat currency is such an advantage that a people cannot compete without it. Competing currencies and commodities exist but they are not anywhere near as price stabilized as fiat money CAN be. So we are always going to have it. Probably digital will replace it and it will have to because the abuse of it has gotten out of hand. What real purpose does government debt serve over simply printing money and paying with it? You pay the price of interest in order to delay the equilibrial neutrality of money working through the economy. In other words, the faster new money moves the faster prices in the existing cycle of production adjust. Fast adjustment is bad if it interferes with production ( planning ) cycles. So instead we pay interest and sell government debt so that we inflate away the interest at about the same rate that prices adjust in the economy. If you understand it, then it seems ridiculous. A clever network of lies not really different from religion.

  • Why Do Central Banks Use Intermediaries?

    IMPORTANT: WHY DO CENTRAL BANKS USE INTERMEDIARIES? —“Question: why do central banks continue to do stimulus through intermediaries like banks when they can wire the money directly to consumers? Eg. by issuing them with prepaid cards to spend?”— Ayelam I am not an econometrician but I suspect I’ll hold my own against any living econometric economist on this subject: The answer consists of the following components: (1) The distribution of physical money through the banks was a necessity. (2 )There was no other distribution channel available until perhaps 20 years ago at the earliest. (I remember how hard it was to get people to use credit cards). (3) Digital money is actually not a very old technology and we have just recently begun to understand it.Governments move very slowly and this will disrupt the entire economy in (good) ways that will totally fuck the institutional investors that fund DC campaigns with ill-gotten gains unearned, since they merely distribute a costless good to the highest bidder for a commission. They are auctioneers. That is all. (4) The banker/crediting agency investigates the probability and insures the probability that the debt will be repaid. This INSURER function is actually what bankers do: insure the shareholders (citizens) that their fiat money (shares) are used judiciously. This argument has increasingly become specious because we have such accurate actuarial data now that we can predict the performance of a bucket of consumers with nearly perfect accuracy. 4A) It benefits the various rent seekers and politicians if all fiscal(spending) stimulus to the economy is provided by government to government suppliers just as all monetary stimulus is distributed through the financial sectors. What would happen to the construction of high cost government projects when consumers were able to say “but I could have used that money here at home?”. (5) There is a (mistaken) belief that the time value of productivity for the purpose of consumption (consumer income) needs interest for calculation purposes just as business and industry need interest for economic calculation purposes. This is a long conversation but I don’t see how consumption is any kind of entrepreneurial risk. it’s the cause of entrepreneurial risk. (6) The very idea was kind of poisoned by the MMT crowd. Particularly – we do not know the impact it would have on interest rates. And at present interest rates are the metric that the world uses to control the ‘price’ of money(which is not driven by cost of production), by regulating its ‘manufacture’ by states. Without interest rates we need another measure. This measure has been in dispute for many years, with some favoring some sort of purchasing power metric, and others favoring some productivity metric, and others some ‘growth’ metric. But if money loses its intertemporal predictability then economic calculation of contracts over any period of time increases and with that, the cost of all production, and therefore all prices, increases rapidly. (remember that money = influence that saves time and is therefore a store of time-in-production. Fiat money issued as credit money is a risk that the time will be more than saved over the interim period. (7) The moral hazard of distributing directly to consumers is frightening because unlike market activity, where people blame employers and the economy when activity shrinks and so does their income, we are fearful that people will change from living paycheck to variable paycheck, to living from monetary distribution to monetary distribution but retaliate politically against the government in the case of shrinking. Thereby all but making total communism a deterministic outcome – which is why some of the left advocate for it. (8) With the advent of leftist influence on the judiciary, it is no longer a social science bound by natural laws. So we have no means of putting such a policy into the constitution such that it’s immutable. Thereby eliminating the hazards articulated above. (9) I was nobody in 2008-2009 when I was talking about it, but as far as I know Galbraith was the only mainstream guy who articulated this problem correctly, and he correctly advocated the direct payment of mortgage debt. It would have price stabilized the world economy. But it would have fucked (undeserving) institutional debt-holders the same way greek debt holders were fucked. (His death was untimely) And conservatives (wrongly) thought it created a moral hazard (which would have been solved by giving people credit lines who had acted properly, and credit lines to those people over the next x years who were able to buy a house. ) I’ve also recommended limiting mortgages to 15 years in order to limit this problem further. Why? all increases in salary are eventually absorbed by housing prices and redistributed to long term property holders (indirect retirement savings accounts ). (10) So net net, we can buy or nationalize the ( worst )credit card company (mastercard), and distribute liquidity directly to consumers, as long as we put constitutional safeguards in place, and as long as the amount is dependent upon the overall economy. And let industry and business determine the interest rate, which should drop dramaticlaly if we reidstribute to consumers. Because the truth is that fiat currency is such an advantage that a people cannot compete without it. Competing currencies and commodities exist but they are not anywhere near as price stabilized as fiat money CAN be. So we are always going to have it. Probably digital will replace it and it will have to because the abuse of it has gotten out of hand. What real purpose does government debt serve over simply printing money and paying with it? You pay the price of interest in order to delay the equilibrial neutrality of money working through the economy. In other words, the faster new money moves the faster prices in the existing cycle of production adjust. Fast adjustment is bad if it interferes with production ( planning ) cycles. So instead we pay interest and sell government debt so that we inflate away the interest at about the same rate that prices adjust in the economy. If you understand it, then it seems ridiculous. A clever network of lies not really different from religion.

  • Exchanging Opportunity for Parasitism for Opportunity for Homesteading.

    Proximity decreases opportunity costs. We can also argue that as a consequence of reduced opportunity costs we can create opportunities otherwise impossible. And as a consequence, we compete to discover and homestead those opportunities. We make this density possibly by the high cost of forgoing opportunities for imposing costs. Thereby preserving cooperation despite an equal decrease in the opportunity for parasitism. As such we exchange the increased cost of forgoing opportunity for parasitism for the decreased costs of opportunity for homesteading opportunities.

    This concept is missing from the literature. We focus too much upon money that provides numerous additional discounts. And we focus too little operationally on the creation of conditions that make trade and money possible. This oversight is related to the other errors of the enlightenment