There is no problem with paying dividends on the economy. I don’t see why that’s a problem. But every time I do the math I come to the same conclusion: that surpluses sufficient to create a marginal difference in the quality of life of the individuals are not possible. In other words, it’s pretty much impossible to implement a basic income scheme. What is possible is to provide chaotic windfalls, and distribute liquidity through to consumers. The data just hold up under that.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
Q&a: What Do You Mean By The Disproportionate Value Of Cooperation?
No matter how hard 100 men work independently they can never achieve what that can cooperatively. And if they fight instead then the difference in assets between conflict and cooperation produces a measurement of the value of cooperation. Or to fall back on Adam smith. A division of labor between ten is not ten times the productivity of on man but ten thousand times the productivity of one man. Ergo, cooperation is so rewarding that it is not only impossible to survive without it but impossible to compete without it and foolish to exist without it.
-
Q&a: What Do You Mean By The Disproportionate Value Of Cooperation?
No matter how hard 100 men work independently they can never achieve what that can cooperatively. And if they fight instead then the difference in assets between conflict and cooperation produces a measurement of the value of cooperation. Or to fall back on Adam smith. A division of labor between ten is not ten times the productivity of on man but ten thousand times the productivity of one man. Ergo, cooperation is so rewarding that it is not only impossible to survive without it but impossible to compete without it and foolish to exist without it.
-
Eli Harman on Cooperation
Cooperation is rational in that it can be vastly preferable to non-cooperation or conflict. But it also requires altruism because most preferable of all is to defect while OTHERS cooperate with you. And foregoing that temptation (on behalf of others, more than yourself) is a price that one must pay in order to cooperate. Cooperation is self-enforcing among kin. And defection is self-defeating among kin. Kinship makes altruism reciprocal because genes which code for kinship altruism help other instances of themselves, and therefore spread and outcompete genes which code for, or don’t code against, defection against kin (which parasitize other instances of themselves.) Cooperation between non-kin is possible but it is more difficult and costly, it requires more technology: reputation, active enforcement, full accounting, quid pro quo, exchange, warranty, adjudication, punitive measures, etc… Cooperation between non-kin is therefore more technical than between kin and would best be left to specialists while most people live most of their lives, and do most of their business, among kin – to minimize costs and maximize benefits.
-
Eli Harman on Cooperation
Cooperation is rational in that it can be vastly preferable to non-cooperation or conflict. But it also requires altruism because most preferable of all is to defect while OTHERS cooperate with you. And foregoing that temptation (on behalf of others, more than yourself) is a price that one must pay in order to cooperate. Cooperation is self-enforcing among kin. And defection is self-defeating among kin. Kinship makes altruism reciprocal because genes which code for kinship altruism help other instances of themselves, and therefore spread and outcompete genes which code for, or don’t code against, defection against kin (which parasitize other instances of themselves.) Cooperation between non-kin is possible but it is more difficult and costly, it requires more technology: reputation, active enforcement, full accounting, quid pro quo, exchange, warranty, adjudication, punitive measures, etc… Cooperation between non-kin is therefore more technical than between kin and would best be left to specialists while most people live most of their lives, and do most of their business, among kin – to minimize costs and maximize benefits.
-
Objectives and Time Preferences of Different Schools of Economic Thought
I — OBJECTIVE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS — The different economic schools pursue different ends: a) Austrian: Social Science : reduction of frictions. Emphasis on institutions of cooperation. (“Paleo-Libertarianism / Natural Law”) b) Freshwater: Rule of Law: Non-interference with planning, but insurance against informational asymmetries, at the expense of consumption. Emphasis on ‘balance’. (“Classical Liberalism / Constitutionalism”) c) Saltwater: Discretionary Rule – favoring consumption at the expense of savings, capital, and planning. Emphasis on equality and spending. (“social democracy / leftism”) II — TIME PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS —- We can judge the time preference by the levers that each school advocates or shuns, from shortest to longest. – Direct Redistribution ( not practiced ) “New” but Saltwater will jump on it. – Fiscal Policy – Saltwater – Social Policy – Saltwater – Monetary Policy – Freshwater – Tax and Trade policy – Freshwater – Infrastructure Policy – Freshwater – Education Policy (human capital) Immigration Policy (Austrian) – Institutional Policy (Austrian)
-
Objectives and Time Preferences of Different Schools of Economic Thought
I — OBJECTIVE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS — The different economic schools pursue different ends: a) Austrian: Social Science : reduction of frictions. Emphasis on institutions of cooperation. (“Paleo-Libertarianism / Natural Law”) b) Freshwater: Rule of Law: Non-interference with planning, but insurance against informational asymmetries, at the expense of consumption. Emphasis on ‘balance’. (“Classical Liberalism / Constitutionalism”) c) Saltwater: Discretionary Rule – favoring consumption at the expense of savings, capital, and planning. Emphasis on equality and spending. (“social democracy / leftism”) II — TIME PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS —- We can judge the time preference by the levers that each school advocates or shuns, from shortest to longest. – Direct Redistribution ( not practiced ) “New” but Saltwater will jump on it. – Fiscal Policy – Saltwater – Social Policy – Saltwater – Monetary Policy – Freshwater – Tax and Trade policy – Freshwater – Infrastructure Policy – Freshwater – Education Policy (human capital) Immigration Policy (Austrian) – Institutional Policy (Austrian)
-
Is Propertarianism Both Chicago and Austrian? Well…
Sep 04, 2016 11:10am —“Curt: Can we then say that your philosophy is both Chicago and Austrian?”—GREAT QUESTION I have no problem with discretion in fiscal policy(saltwater), rule of law in monetary, infrastructure, and trade policy(Chicago freshwater), and social science in institutional and human capital policy(Austrian). It’s when economists try to conflate any of those TOOLS by misapplying them outside of the knowledge required to truthfully appeal to the public for moral license to act upon opportunities each tool provides that I have a problem. In other words, if it’s true and voluntary that’s fine. If it’s not true and voluntary then it isn’t. My objective is truth in the pursuit of voluntary cooperation through exchanges. And to overthrow the pseudoscientific era of aggregations for the purpose of conducting fraud. Thanks
-
Is Propertarianism Both Chicago and Austrian? Well…
Sep 04, 2016 11:10am —“Curt: Can we then say that your philosophy is both Chicago and Austrian?”—GREAT QUESTION I have no problem with discretion in fiscal policy(saltwater), rule of law in monetary, infrastructure, and trade policy(Chicago freshwater), and social science in institutional and human capital policy(Austrian). It’s when economists try to conflate any of those TOOLS by misapplying them outside of the knowledge required to truthfully appeal to the public for moral license to act upon opportunities each tool provides that I have a problem. In other words, if it’s true and voluntary that’s fine. If it’s not true and voluntary then it isn’t. My objective is truth in the pursuit of voluntary cooperation through exchanges. And to overthrow the pseudoscientific era of aggregations for the purpose of conducting fraud. Thanks
-
Why Don’t We MIX Economies?
Sep 05, 2016 12:48pm WHY IS IT THAT WE DON”T MIX ECONOMIES?
- Military (Slavery) – labor dependent
- Communist (Serfdom) – skill dependent
- Democratic Socialist (freedom) – mentally dependent
- Capitalist (liberty) – capital dependent
If nations are smaller there are more ‘top slots’ but each having less free capital for use in corruption available. All era’s face information problems when they scale. This is ours. The answer is always the same: information and institutions.