http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/when-america-was-great-taxes-were-high-unions-were-strong-and-government-was-big/407284/ [L]ets Look at History: 1) Americans conquered a new continent 2) They sold off this continent to immigrants 3) They sold consumer goods to these immigrants. 4) They caused a collapse in prices in Europe (like china does to americans today) 5) They created new fiat money to give credit to these immigrants. 6) They directed these profits to investment in everything including the 20’s boom. 7) Europeans sought to control german expansion and created the european civil war. 8) The resulting correction and the oppressive settlement with Germany led to the second world war, which was merely an extension of the first, and which destroyed the word’s economy. 9) Americans inherited control of the British empire’s trading lanes and took over as the reserve currency. 10) American workers benefitted from producing expensive but low quality products to a world largely destroyed by war. 12) It took to the 1970’s for the world to reasonably rebuild. 13) In 1990 the effects of Chinese abandonment of communism and their entry into world labor started the dramatic shift in american consumption of consumer goods, just as america had done to Europe more than a century before. 15) In 2007 the rest of the world has largely adopted the same fiat money and consumer capitalist techniques. 16) In 2015, Americans have lost most competitive advantages EXCEPT for their GERMANIC high trust ethics and rule of law. 17) By 2040 Americans will lose their advantage in high trust ethics and rule of law to cultural and genetic conquest.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
Definitions: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Game
RIGHT: Capitalism: the voluntary organization of production as a the result of the incentives that result from the anarchic evolution of money, prices, exchanges and contracts under the single principle, norm, regulation or law of the voluntary exchange of private property. This process is naturally meritocratic and eugenic and therefore scientific, which is the reason why the marxists despise it. CENTER: Mixed economy: the voluntary organization of production of capitalism, combined with the involuntary confiscation and redistribution of the proceeds of production. It can be dysgenic or eugenic, meritocratic or not, depending upon the amount of confiscation and the use of confiscated proceeds. This is the least worst option in which neither lower nor upper classes can obtain better conditions. (Like marriage).
LEFT: Socialism: the involuntary organization of production and the distribution of proceeds independent of the contribution to production. It is dysgenic and non meritocratic, and provides insufficient incentives to produce enough to meet demands. But this prevents the lower classes from being ‘left behind’ which is their central intuitionistic fear. -
Definitions: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Game
RIGHT: Capitalism: the voluntary organization of production as a the result of the incentives that result from the anarchic evolution of money, prices, exchanges and contracts under the single principle, norm, regulation or law of the voluntary exchange of private property. This process is naturally meritocratic and eugenic and therefore scientific, which is the reason why the marxists despise it. CENTER: Mixed economy: the voluntary organization of production of capitalism, combined with the involuntary confiscation and redistribution of the proceeds of production. It can be dysgenic or eugenic, meritocratic or not, depending upon the amount of confiscation and the use of confiscated proceeds. This is the least worst option in which neither lower nor upper classes can obtain better conditions. (Like marriage).
LEFT: Socialism: the involuntary organization of production and the distribution of proceeds independent of the contribution to production. It is dysgenic and non meritocratic, and provides insufficient incentives to produce enough to meet demands. But this prevents the lower classes from being ‘left behind’ which is their central intuitionistic fear. -
Counter Intuitive Econ Solved By Operational Analysis: The Internet Increases Prices
—Economists have two standard very simple models of product competition: firms can compete on price or compete on quantity.— —“whether firms compete on price or quantity depends more on which of these they must commit to earliest, not which is easier to change at the last minute. Knowing this, once you heard that it would be easier to change prices at the last minute for products sold on internet, you should have predicted that the internet would increase quantity competition and reduce price competition. Which it in fact has. Economics is general and robust enough to predict things like how selling products on the internet changes competition. But you have to use it right.”— https://shar.es/17xxNn
[F]irst, I want to point out that the reason the author is able to make his argument is that he has operationally explained the phenomenon as a sequence of decisions and actions in time. Yet intuitive economics would suggest that price competition would be increased while operational analysis (incentives) would cause competition to be decreased. This simple example illustrates why operationalism is so important to the testing of hypothesis. [S]econd, the author is trying to make a different point, but I want to riff off it to show that firms compete in commodity and non-commodity spaces. And to some degree economists study commodity activity where noise and signal cancel one another out. But that isn’t how companies think about competition, it’s how distributors do. I have taught the following means of competition by firms: 1) Price, 2) Quantity, 3) Profitability or Debt 4) Rents (firms like polities accumulate renters) 5) Adaptation Costs (innovator’s dilemma). 6) Geographic Housing Costs (salary costs) 7) Segmentation (startups start in niches and expand) Why? Decreasing production cycles, increasing distribution of production, the increasing importance of TALENT and innovation service industries. vs capital or credit in manufacturing and distribution companies. In a highly efficient market, one can sacrifice profits for talent while larger organizations accumulate internal rents. This is most frequently the reason Generally speaking, higher profits incentivize more rents. And while prices are sticky, internal rents are much stickier than prices. Generally speaking, adaptation costs vary dramatically from industry to industry: service firms trade out people and production firms trade out people and capital. The difference being that GAP regulation and tax policy obscure the tail of fixed vs human capital, largely because we can finance against the illusion of fixed capital value while we cannot finance against the obvious lack of control over human capital. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Counter Intuitive Econ Solved By Operational Analysis: The Internet Increases Prices
—Economists have two standard very simple models of product competition: firms can compete on price or compete on quantity.— —“whether firms compete on price or quantity depends more on which of these they must commit to earliest, not which is easier to change at the last minute. Knowing this, once you heard that it would be easier to change prices at the last minute for products sold on internet, you should have predicted that the internet would increase quantity competition and reduce price competition. Which it in fact has. Economics is general and robust enough to predict things like how selling products on the internet changes competition. But you have to use it right.”— https://shar.es/17xxNn
[F]irst, I want to point out that the reason the author is able to make his argument is that he has operationally explained the phenomenon as a sequence of decisions and actions in time. Yet intuitive economics would suggest that price competition would be increased while operational analysis (incentives) would cause competition to be decreased. This simple example illustrates why operationalism is so important to the testing of hypothesis. [S]econd, the author is trying to make a different point, but I want to riff off it to show that firms compete in commodity and non-commodity spaces. And to some degree economists study commodity activity where noise and signal cancel one another out. But that isn’t how companies think about competition, it’s how distributors do. I have taught the following means of competition by firms: 1) Price, 2) Quantity, 3) Profitability or Debt 4) Rents (firms like polities accumulate renters) 5) Adaptation Costs (innovator’s dilemma). 6) Geographic Housing Costs (salary costs) 7) Segmentation (startups start in niches and expand) Why? Decreasing production cycles, increasing distribution of production, the increasing importance of TALENT and innovation service industries. vs capital or credit in manufacturing and distribution companies. In a highly efficient market, one can sacrifice profits for talent while larger organizations accumulate internal rents. This is most frequently the reason Generally speaking, higher profits incentivize more rents. And while prices are sticky, internal rents are much stickier than prices. Generally speaking, adaptation costs vary dramatically from industry to industry: service firms trade out people and production firms trade out people and capital. The difference being that GAP regulation and tax policy obscure the tail of fixed vs human capital, largely because we can finance against the illusion of fixed capital value while we cannot finance against the obvious lack of control over human capital. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
QUOTE OF THE DAY —“It’s near criminal that the Nobel committee never awarded a
QUOTE OF THE DAY
—“It’s near criminal that the Nobel committee never awarded a Tullock-Krueger prize for rent-seeking.”– Michael Philip
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 09:08:00 UTC
-
ARISTOCRACY AND COOPERATION ***Cooperation is only superior to conquest because
ARISTOCRACY AND COOPERATION
***Cooperation is only superior to conquest because of externalities it produces. We are competitors. Evolution determines winners – not that we enjoy our experience.***
(for my Nietzschian friends: this ought to state my position clearly.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-13 04:32:00 UTC
-
Not all bubbles burst – some merely deflate over years, decades or centuries
Not all bubbles burst – some merely deflate over years, decades or centuries.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-11 11:31:00 UTC
-
BARTER (economics) – The direct trading of goods and services without the use of
BARTER (economics) – The direct trading of goods and services without the use of an intermediary medium of exchange that produces prices rendering goods and services commensurable.
MONEY (economics) – a medium of exchange, having the following properties:
-Properties-
Having the properties:
1) universal market demand – as medium of exchange
2) non-fungible unitary weight and measure – capable of creating commensurability and as a consequence prices.
3) non-perishable – store of value (and retaining a stable price over time)
4) portability (high exchange value relative to weight and volume)
-Forms-
Existing in the forms:
Non-perishable (durable)
1) commodity measure money(weight or volume – insured by market)
2) commodity money(in fixed units, weighed and measured: insured by stamp)
3) token money (commodity money substitute, an artificial commodity not redeemable), (??? not sure I should include this form of money substitute.
Perishable (fragile)
4) note-money(debt money – redeemably backed – dependent upon issuer ),
6) credit money(debt money – partly-backed promises – dependent upon issuer),
5) political share-money(credit money, unbacked, not redeemable – dependent upon issuer).
7) electronic credit money (promises – wholly dependent upon issuer)
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-07 03:44:00 UTC
-
CAPITALISM IN EVERYTHING —“According to The Economist,… the number of porn s
CAPITALISM IN EVERYTHING
—“According to The Economist,… the number of porn studios in America is now down from over 200 to 20. Performers who used to make $1,500 an hour, now get $500 and before the launch of porn tubes, the industry’s estimated revenue was $40 billion to $50 billion, which is believed to have fallen by at least three-quarters since [to $10B]”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-06 02:57:00 UTC