Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • PROPERTARIAN REASONING ON TOO BIG TO FAIL I won’t go into it here because it’s l

    PROPERTARIAN REASONING ON TOO BIG TO FAIL

    I won’t go into it here because it’s late, I am tired and it’s loud here. But if I follow Propertarian reasoning, then no bank is insulated from too big to fail without warranty of every individual committing to a price.

    The only way to create large banks immune to perverse incentives and dependence upon impossible calculations, is to professionalize banking, require insurance, and eliminate all immunity.

    This would dramatically increase the number and quality of bankers and flatten the income distribution in federations of banks.

    More details are required to grok this if you are knowledgable about banking (finance).

    But my point is that you cannot fix too big to fail any other way.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-11 16:11:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    All Eyes on the Swiss Gold Referendum

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-09 15:57:00 UTC

  • Age Population —“In November of 2007, there were 121,875,000 full time employe

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/10/revealing-look-at-hours-worked.html#B1QvdPDk9k0dsCVh.99Working Age Population

    —“In November of 2007, there were 121,875,000 full time employees. Now there are 119,287,000.

    Fulltime employment is 2,588,000 below the 2007 peak. Meanwhile working age population, 16 and older has gone up from 232,939,000 to 248,446,000. That’s an increase of 15,507,000.

    Simply put, the working-age population has gone up by approximately 15.5 million while fulltime employment has declined by 2.5 million.

    Some of this is related to boomer demographics and retirement. A lot of it isn’t.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-07 05:48:00 UTC

  • THE MIDDLE CLASS GOES TO DIE Urban policy

    http://www.nationalreview.com/node/388336/printWHERE THE MIDDLE CLASS GOES TO DIE

    Urban policy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 15:17:00 UTC

  • the Rich Give to New York by Nicole Gelinas, City Journal Summer 2014

    http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_nyc-private-wealth.htmlWhat the Rich Give to New York by Nicole Gelinas, City Journal Summer 2014

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 15:15:00 UTC

  • MARX WAS WRONG ON LABOR. THE PROBLEM IS ORGANIZING PRODUCTION NOT LABOR. LABOR I

    MARX WAS WRONG ON LABOR. THE PROBLEM IS ORGANIZING PRODUCTION NOT LABOR. LABOR IS A COMMODITY WHOSE ONLY VALUE IS DETERMINED BY SCARCITY. THE MORE POPULOUS THE LOWER CLASSES THE LESS SCARCE, THE LESS VALUE.

    Organizing production is where the value is created. Potential labor is merely a commodity like wood or wheat.

    Organizing production, and in particularly organizing voluntary production using nothing but incentives, in an environment where your offered incentives are tested against other incentives, (your theory of demand for your good or service is tested), is where value is created.

    If that was not true, people would never have to look for work. When people look for work they are seeking to ‘buy’ income by participation in the organization of production that they themselves cannot organize and profit from – they are capable only of organizing their OWN labor. Property-Rights Makers(aristocracy), Investors, Bankers, Entrepreneurs, People who calculate in various jobs, down to the people who manage machines and who operate machines, each organize labor – their own and that of others. And we do this all in real time with constantly changing wants, needs, scarcity and prices.

    We are rewarded for the value of our contribution, which is determined by the scarcity of our contribution. Organizing production is more rewarding than any other activity. It is extremely difficult. It is extremely difficult and highly unproductive to organize production involuntarily in a managed economy. It is extremely difficult but highly productive to organize production in a voluntary economy.

    There is no reason that we cannot use both involuntary (the military) and voluntary (the market) organization of production in the same economy. There is no reason that the physical commons cannot be maintained involuntarily as is the military, while the more complex commons and the market itself are organized voluntarily. Only socialism and libertarianism have tried to enforce a monopoly mode of production. And while I agree that an aristocratic, highly homogenous society that that of the English once possessed could produce a libertarian order, the fact of the matter is that even in that order, we had a lot of lower class labor in oversupply, which for all intents and purposes could have been organized, like the military, for the production of commons.

    THE OBJECTIVE OF THE LOWER CLASSES MUST ALWAYS BE TO REDUCE THEIR NUMBER TO INCREASE THEIR TAKE. DEMOCRACY REVERSES THIS AND WORKS AGAINST THEM.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 05:10:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY? Here… A negative externality is produced by ta

    WHAT IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY? Here…

    A negative externality is produced by taking an action that causes an involuntary decrease in an individual’s inventory of property-in-toto* (*’Propertarian’ property defined as that which we demonstrate to be our property by defense of it. Not private property which is a contractual expression of which disputes a community will organize to apply violence against and which not.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 04:59:00 UTC

  • Rents.

    Economic Rents create lost opportunities for exchange. A cost.  They grant a privilege whose results are incalculable (unavailable because profit and loss are externalized) and therefore unmeasurable (comparable with other investments) and invisible (they are forgotten and never rise again), instead of creating a calculable, measurable, investment and return for the polity.

    Unfortunately, democracy – majority rule – forces us to create these lost opportunities to exchange rents and privileges which are incalculable.

    Furthermore, the pooling of taxes into general funds,  rather than charging fees for services, for the payments of debts, and collecting returns on investments, create opportunities for rents. It is this system of rents that we systemically MUST construct under democracy. Democracy does not let us do otherwise.

    Worse, it is this system of rents, that allows the predatory and parasitic rent-seeking bureaucracy to exist, and expand like a cancer uncontrollably.

    Conversely, if we enforced (a) a universal requirement for operational calculability, (b)universal standing for the prosecution of rent seeking, (c) and the negotiation of contracts, rather than the competition for rents in order to obtain power necessary to issue laws (commands), then it is impossible to seek rents. And even if rents are somehow obtained, impossible to hold them.

    Yet enforcing (a)(b)(c) does not require that we abandon the construction of commons. Only that we abandon the rentiers. So while it was necessary to centralize rents in order to extinguish family, guild and tribal rents, it is now equally necessary to ban rents permanently.

    All that is required is contracts instead of laws, universal standing, and operational calculability.

  • Rents.

    Economic Rents create lost opportunities for exchange. A cost.  They grant a privilege whose results are incalculable (unavailable because profit and loss are externalized) and therefore unmeasurable (comparable with other investments) and invisible (they are forgotten and never rise again), instead of creating a calculable, measurable, investment and return for the polity.

    Unfortunately, democracy – majority rule – forces us to create these lost opportunities to exchange rents and privileges which are incalculable.

    Furthermore, the pooling of taxes into general funds,  rather than charging fees for services, for the payments of debts, and collecting returns on investments, create opportunities for rents. It is this system of rents that we systemically MUST construct under democracy. Democracy does not let us do otherwise.

    Worse, it is this system of rents, that allows the predatory and parasitic rent-seeking bureaucracy to exist, and expand like a cancer uncontrollably.

    Conversely, if we enforced (a) a universal requirement for operational calculability, (b)universal standing for the prosecution of rent seeking, (c) and the negotiation of contracts, rather than the competition for rents in order to obtain power necessary to issue laws (commands), then it is impossible to seek rents. And even if rents are somehow obtained, impossible to hold them.

    Yet enforcing (a)(b)(c) does not require that we abandon the construction of commons. Only that we abandon the rentiers. So while it was necessary to centralize rents in order to extinguish family, guild and tribal rents, it is now equally necessary to ban rents permanently.

    All that is required is contracts instead of laws, universal standing, and operational calculability.

  • (regarding previous post) The Libertine(Rothbardian) argument is to abandon all

    (regarding previous post)

    The Libertine(Rothbardian) argument is to abandon all consideration of the competitive production of commons and to return to a low trust levantine polity of pervasively unethical and immoral conditions. (Rothbard, Rockwell, and Block).

    However, the propertarian solution is to eliminate the possibility of rents and free riding on the production of commons using competing houses and private production of commons, by requiring contracts, strict construction and original intent, operational calculability, transparency and universal standing. (Methods and procedures that are common in businesses world wide).

    I am having a very hard time determining what commons can honestly be demonstrated to be victims of free riding, even if many are subject to privatization and socialization. This is well covered in the literature, and as far as I know, regulation and rent seeking are the cause of most difficulties.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 13:26:00 UTC