Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Santagata on The Great Economic Deceit

    —“Under the machinations of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a nation of share croppers living with the illusion that they are getting ahead with economic “freedom” just around the corner; as they fall deeper and deeper into debt with each planting and harvest no matter how bountiful.”— James Santagata

  • Santagata on The Great Economic Deceit

    —“Under the machinations of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a nation of share croppers living with the illusion that they are getting ahead with economic “freedom” just around the corner; as they fall deeper and deeper into debt with each planting and harvest no matter how bountiful.”— James Santagata

  • “Under the machinations of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into

    —“Under the machinations of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a nation of share croppers living with the illusion that they are getting ahead with economic “freedom” just around the corner; as they fall deeper and deeper into debt with each planting and harvest no matter how bountiful.”— James Santagata

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 04:39:00 UTC

  • ***Under the advice of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a n

    ***Under the advice of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a nation of migrant workers.***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 03:35:00 UTC

  • “By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and

    —“By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.”— JM Keyens

    Somehow, the “extra-judicial theft of purchasing power and wealth via inflation” (the operative Keynesian mechanism for curing a “lack of aggregate demand”) disappeared from Keynes’ narratives by the 1930s. – Bob Roddis

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 05:29:00 UTC

  • Does The Market Produce Truth Telling?

    [D]oes The Market Produce Truth Telling? Every polity possesses a market order – it must. Very few polities produce truth telling – truth telling is extremely expensive. Its expensive because its an investment in a commons (norm). And that investment is easily open to privatization (cheating). Ergo, groups demonstrate the minimum truth possible necessary to survive rather than the highest trust necessary to complete. Cheating is demonstration of a shorter(higher) time preference, and truth telling and longer(lower) time preference. With meritocratic ability (skill talent knowledge) determining the value of common investment(truth telling/production) versus private consumption (cheating/parasitism). Ergo the less genetic pacification (culling of the underclass), and the less pacification of parasitism (rule of law and property), the lower the trust and the greater the parasitism, and the greater the demand for the state. This is compatible with the Nozickian origins of social order (they will emerge out of cooperative necessity). But not with locke,hobbes,rousseu,hume who seem not to have (I could be wrong) identified the equilibrium between pure self interest and cheating and the extraordinary returns on morality and cooperation. Meaning Axelrod is right that the prisonner’s dilemma is the state of nature we must answer. So of all the prior era writers’ imaginings of the state of nature, appear to have been either wrong or insufficient.

  • Does The Market Produce Truth Telling?

    [D]oes The Market Produce Truth Telling? Every polity possesses a market order – it must. Very few polities produce truth telling – truth telling is extremely expensive. Its expensive because its an investment in a commons (norm). And that investment is easily open to privatization (cheating). Ergo, groups demonstrate the minimum truth possible necessary to survive rather than the highest trust necessary to complete. Cheating is demonstration of a shorter(higher) time preference, and truth telling and longer(lower) time preference. With meritocratic ability (skill talent knowledge) determining the value of common investment(truth telling/production) versus private consumption (cheating/parasitism). Ergo the less genetic pacification (culling of the underclass), and the less pacification of parasitism (rule of law and property), the lower the trust and the greater the parasitism, and the greater the demand for the state. This is compatible with the Nozickian origins of social order (they will emerge out of cooperative necessity). But not with locke,hobbes,rousseu,hume who seem not to have (I could be wrong) identified the equilibrium between pure self interest and cheating and the extraordinary returns on morality and cooperation. Meaning Axelrod is right that the prisonner’s dilemma is the state of nature we must answer. So of all the prior era writers’ imaginings of the state of nature, appear to have been either wrong or insufficient.

  • Translating Chinese Policy Into Words

    “[I]f we possess a reserve currency, and maintain the military means of defending it and our trade routes, then we can capture the premium on trafficking contracts, exchanges, and their negotiations currently captured by the British/American financial and trade route system – and by doing so may cause a drastic reduction in the USA’s ability to finance it’s system, provide competition to that trade system, provide one that is not as meritocratic but more suitable to our needs, and cause a significant drop in the american standard of living such that we restore our ancestral position as first-nation in the world.”

    “Agree with what you wrote Curt, but while the meritocratic system worked for the US initially, the US just doesn’t make them like it used to. Therefore, the US is now viewed as a country no longer interested in propagating the best products/standards/ideas throughout the world, but in only maintaining its 80-year financial/military/industrial advantage. In short, the US is in danger, if it hasn’t already, of becoming just another friggin’ country. It’s a shame, but the Chinese are incentivised to overturn the existing system and to create a new one. As American living standards drop, so does its military capabilities, and I suspect that’s what China is really after.” — Sean Ring

    Shared vision.

  • Translating Chinese Policy Into Words

    “[I]f we possess a reserve currency, and maintain the military means of defending it and our trade routes, then we can capture the premium on trafficking contracts, exchanges, and their negotiations currently captured by the British/American financial and trade route system – and by doing so may cause a drastic reduction in the USA’s ability to finance it’s system, provide competition to that trade system, provide one that is not as meritocratic but more suitable to our needs, and cause a significant drop in the american standard of living such that we restore our ancestral position as first-nation in the world.”

    “Agree with what you wrote Curt, but while the meritocratic system worked for the US initially, the US just doesn’t make them like it used to. Therefore, the US is now viewed as a country no longer interested in propagating the best products/standards/ideas throughout the world, but in only maintaining its 80-year financial/military/industrial advantage. In short, the US is in danger, if it hasn’t already, of becoming just another friggin’ country. It’s a shame, but the Chinese are incentivised to overturn the existing system and to create a new one. As American living standards drop, so does its military capabilities, and I suspect that’s what China is really after.” — Sean Ring

    Shared vision.

  • THE DWINDLING CONFIDENCE OF ECONOMISTS. I read pretty much everything on economi

    THE DWINDLING CONFIDENCE OF ECONOMISTS.

    I read pretty much everything on economics every day that has anything to do with political economy. Or conversely I don’t care about banking and finance.

    I wish I had the data to support the memory.

    But through about 2010 economists were full of confidence and prediction in all manner of things.

    But since then the shift has continued away from both speculation and confidence.

    Now the next boom will increase demand for their opinions. And economists will return to the monetary equivalent of fantasy football once again. And with the predictability of growth again portray confidence that exacerbates the cycle.

    I guess the bright side is that for now they do less damage.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 15:35:00 UTC