Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • 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.

  • Q&A: “Curt: What Defines Middle Class?”

    —“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella The common definition is: —“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”— I would use: ***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”*** Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it. THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive. We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified. The British and American Class Models British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states) British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money) For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation. British Elite – American Upper Middle Class (in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.) Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class. British Established middle class – American Middle Class Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26] British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27] British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27] British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27] British Emergent service sector – American lower working class The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27] British Precariat – American upper proletarian class The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers. British ???? – American Lower proletarian class British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class. PROPERTARIANISM However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion: 1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics. 2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war 3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury. The Four Middle Classes Criteria 1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable) 2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions) 3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business) 4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner) To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations). So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in. American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically. SUMMARY the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits. Cheers
  • Q&A: “Curt: What Defines Middle Class?”

    —“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella The common definition is: —“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”— I would use: ***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”*** Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it. THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive. We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified. The British and American Class Models British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states) British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money) For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation. British Elite – American Upper Middle Class (in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.) Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class. British Established middle class – American Middle Class Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26] British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27] British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27] British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27] British Emergent service sector – American lower working class The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27] British Precariat – American upper proletarian class The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers. British ???? – American Lower proletarian class British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class. PROPERTARIANISM However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion: 1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics. 2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war 3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury. The Four Middle Classes Criteria 1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable) 2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions) 3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business) 4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner) To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations). So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in. American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically. SUMMARY the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits. Cheers
  • Soros v Hayek and Why.

    Aug 22, 2016 2:48pm SOROS V HAYEK, AND WHY When where Soros disagrees with Hayek he relies on the criticism of the rational actor hypothesis, saying that people do not in fact act this way. But here again we have Hayek as a social scientist seeking rule of law, versus Soros as a financier seeking discretionary rule. The difference in the western heroic tradition and the Jewish tradition is illustrated once again: we peers may not interfere with the sovereignty of other peers with actions that interfere with their plans. Ergo: rule of law. Soros, as a cosmopolitan, seeks only to increase transactions regardless of the impact on the peerage, and the consequences to intertemporal capital. So yet again we see the metaphysics of the Aryans’ no harm to the commons, vs the Cosmopolitans’ maximum consumption. Hayek’s advocates do not know how to criticize Soros.

  • Soros v Hayek and Why.

    Aug 22, 2016 2:48pm SOROS V HAYEK, AND WHY When where Soros disagrees with Hayek he relies on the criticism of the rational actor hypothesis, saying that people do not in fact act this way. But here again we have Hayek as a social scientist seeking rule of law, versus Soros as a financier seeking discretionary rule. The difference in the western heroic tradition and the Jewish tradition is illustrated once again: we peers may not interfere with the sovereignty of other peers with actions that interfere with their plans. Ergo: rule of law. Soros, as a cosmopolitan, seeks only to increase transactions regardless of the impact on the peerage, and the consequences to intertemporal capital. So yet again we see the metaphysics of the Aryans’ no harm to the commons, vs the Cosmopolitans’ maximum consumption. Hayek’s advocates do not know how to criticize Soros.

  • State Healthcare is Not A Problem Unless It’s A Monopoly

    Aug 24, 2016 11:35am The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.

  • State Healthcare is Not A Problem Unless It’s A Monopoly

    Aug 24, 2016 11:35am The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.

  • Forcing People To Come To The Table To Trade

    Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.

  • Forcing People To Come To The Table To Trade

    Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.

  • Q&A: Economic Orders

    Aug 24, 2016 2:14pm
    Q&A: MR DOOLITTLE: QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC ORDERS —“Can you please elaborate on this “Once cheap labor stops, and marginal differences in knowledge are exhausted, what remains is a nation’s ability to dynamically reorganize production in real time, and to competitively innovate in real time.”
    Are you saying that productivity and innovation are not dependent on a nation’s wealth, size or population, but instead on how it organizes its existing resources to achieve maximum output? Basically, higher social capital = better long term growth and innovation?”— Yes. Thank you, I don’t think of putting it that way. But for example, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, are small countries with small populations. But they are homogenous germanic peoples with high trust polities. This trust is just like having oil, gold, great farmland, or any other local asset. It’s an economic advantage. So all resources being equal, the competitive difference between societies would be determined by the absence of corruption and the presence of rule of law. The conflict generally comes with the tradeoff between military, trade, and credit capacity at scale, and ability to suppress corruption and tailor law, policy, and norms to the needs of local groups.