Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 16:44:00 UTC
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
WHAT DID MISES GET WRONG BUT ALMOST RIGHT? Oliver Westcott, Edward Gotham (And a
WHAT DID MISES GET WRONG BUT ALMOST RIGHT?
Oliver Westcott, Edward Gotham (And anyone else who cares)
In 2014 I created a facebook page for Scientific Praxeology (rather than pseudoscientific praxeological science) and posted the majority of my work from that year on the subject together as a set of articles for anyone to read.
I do not really know if this is tough going or not. I don’t really think so, but I am the wrong person to ask.
But if you want to know, here it is.
Mises’ position in intellectual history is the same as almost every other intellectual in economics at the beginning of the 20th century: they all failed to rescue us from the pseudoscientific movement and pseudoscientific socialism and pseudoscientific keynesianism.
Popper, Mises, Hayek, Brouwer, Bridgman, and many others came close but just could not do it.
But it can be done.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 12:03:00 UTC
-
It matters that I take so long – really. This morning, at the request of Jose, I
It matters that I take so long – really.
This morning, at the request of Jose, I have been writing about ‘what’s wrong with economics’.
And I finally feel I know how to say it clearly enough. I mean, It’s what, almost three years it’s taken me to ‘get it right’?
And it’s pretty mind blowing really.
You will be able to see how Mises ‘felt’ but got it wrong. And why modern macro is immoral and destructive.
And I think I’ve said it simply enough that most people who have some familiarity with economics and the hard sciences will be able to reiterate it.
And I think it’s the test case for testimonialism. Because it uses testimonialism as the framework for explaining the issue.
Happy Day.
My brain continues to return…. slowly.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 03:29:00 UTC
-
If two-thirds of our brothers are pretty much useless for the purposes of the pr
If two-thirds of our brothers are pretty much useless for the purposes of the production of goods and services, why must they suffer the deceit? To what use can we put them and pay them? What commons can they construct that are beautiful, rather than goods and services that are unnecessary?
Do you see the opportunity?
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-04 13:02:00 UTC
-
We get all this cool free stuff because google sells advertising – replacing the
We get all this cool free stuff because google sells advertising – replacing the yellow pages.
We get all this cool free stuff because facebook sells advertising and in doing so pays for our favorite replacment for ’email’.
We get all this cool expensive stuff because Apple sells iPhones – and hardly any computers.
All three of these companies are disruptable by technolgical competiton that is not difficult to envision.
But will we get all this cool ‘free stuff’.
Like I said, apple will break first. The question is, whether they will use the ‘opportunity’ to take out Microsoft or not.
I konw how to do it. I assume people at Apple do.
But you know, they might consider it slumming.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-04 03:38:00 UTC
-
NO CAPITALISM IS NOT ENOUGH –“trust isn’t necessary just capitalism”— Diego A
NO CAPITALISM IS NOT ENOUGH
–“trust isn’t necessary just capitalism”— Diego Anonymous
Diego,
Let me correct you a bit – largely by providing you with more precise language.
Capitalism – private production of goods and services by the universal distribution of private property rights – has always existed to some degree – it must for trade to exist.
But, cooperation at *scale* using institutions, that creates what we call ‘consumer capitalism’ requires high trust society.
Without high trust, states are necessary to organize sale and complex production, because of the risk required of all participants. States as the insurer of last resort, insure against ‘risk of defection’.
This is why centrally managed economies can be used to transform states from a condition of backwardness, but cannot be used to maintain them once backwardness is reduced and society reordered, or to create persistently competitive states where self-ordering produces consistent market innovation.
The only known way of producing high trust is evolution from common (negative) law, property rights for women, and the prohibition on inbreeding (cousin marriage). Common law insures against ‘risk of defection’.
The only known way of producing common (negative) law is evolution from a militia (Anglo-Saxon model).
The only known way of producing a professional bureaucracy is evolution from an army (french-german-prussian). (And this leads to napoleonic law of state vs people, not common natural-law of militias of universal equality)
The only known way of producing a libertarian (anglo-saxon) political order is with militia and common law, combining to provide sufficient suppression of free riding such that commons can be produced without defection preserving competitiveness, and private goods can be produced competitively.
One man may rule.
An Oligarchy may rule.
A professional bureaucracy may rule.
Or all may rule – thereby ensuring that none rules.
Rule of law (nomocracy);
The civic production of commons (liberalism);
The private production of goods and services (capitalism);
And the condition under which we experience all three (liberty);
Can each exist but they cannot exist without one another.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 05:09:00 UTC
-
TEN THOUGHTS ON MONEY Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”– I’ve writ
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.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-02 03:28:00 UTC
-
In Exchange for tariff free access to the EU market, the UK agrees not to provid
In Exchange for tariff free access to the EU market, the UK agrees not to provide tax haven status for european companies.
duh.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-01 03:33:00 UTC
-
In exchange for access to the EU market as a tarriff-free trading partner, the U
In exchange for access to the EU market as a tarriff-free trading partner, the UK agrees not to provide bank secrecy to europeans.
duh.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-01 02:48:00 UTC
-
MIAMI, DETROIT, CLEVELAND, PATTERSON, GARY, D.C. —“No city in the United State
MIAMI, DETROIT, CLEVELAND, PATTERSON, GARY, D.C.
—“No city in the United States is worse to live in than Miami. The city’s median home value of $245,000 is well above the national median of $181,200. However, with a median household income of only $31,917 a year, well below the national median of $53,657, most of these homes are either out of reach or a financial burden on most Miami residents,” the authors noted in their rationale. “Like most of the worst cities to live in, more than one in every four people in Miami live in poverty.”
They also cited “citywide violence” along with rates of incarceration, unstable employment, lower cognitive functioning among children, and “anxiety.”
Detroit was in second place on the list, followed by: Paterson, New Jersey; Hawthorne, California; Fall River, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; Memphis, Tennessee; Flint, Michigan; Cleveland, Ohio; and Gary, Indiana to round out the top-10. Washington, D.C., incidentally, was No. 46.”—
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-29 17:45:00 UTC