Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • CAPITALISM: WHAT YOU CAN DO AND PEOPLE NEED YOU TO DO. Capitalism (via the prici

    CAPITALISM: WHAT YOU CAN DO AND PEOPLE NEED YOU TO DO.

    Capitalism (via the pricing system) merely informs us of what we CAN do to serve the needs of others. It says nothing about the needs of others, or whether one likes to perform those duties.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-20 13:11:00 UTC

  • CHOICE WORDS AGAINST SOCIALISM (expanded) In the context of intellectual history

    CHOICE WORDS AGAINST SOCIALISM

    (expanded)

    In the context of intellectual history, the argument against socialism was framed as the viability of the “socialist mode of production”.

    The central argument against socialism is the impossibility of that mode of production on two points: calculation and incentives – with the debate only over the relative importance of each.

    Second, it is non-logical to disconnect the notion of production from economy. Because that is the function of an economy: production, distribution and exchange, in patterns of sustainable specialization and trade. An economy is a means of production. Otherwise the term has no rational meaning.

    Third -and this is important – socialist, postmodern and totalitarian humanist dogma is constructed in obscurant language by intent for the purpose of deception.

    So by stating economic concepts in operational language, as is required by the canons of science, we illustrate the difference between belief and action, and between the irrational and the rational, and between the impossible and the possible.

    The socialist method or mode of production is impossible both logically and demonstrably.

    The vague term ‘economic system’ is a form of deception.

    The capitalist means of production is possible because both the incentives to do what we do not wish to do, and the means of calculating how to do so, are available to us; such that by doing what we may not wish to do, we do what we are capable of doing, and by doing so satisfy the wants of others, such that we may finally satisfy our own wants.

    The socialist means of production is not possible. It is impossible because neither the means of calculation, nor the incentive to do what we do not desire to, exists in that method of production.

    Marxism is the biggest organized systemic set of lies since the invention of scriptural monotheism. It is the most murderous religion ever created by man – by replacing mystical allegory with verbal obscurantism and pseudoscience.

    If you cannot explain an economic argument in operational language you are either engaged in ignorance or deception or perpetuating deception out of ignorance.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-20 07:50:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER NAIL IN THE ROTHBARDIAN COFFIN: NAP FAILS ON TRANSACTION COSTS ALONE –“

    ANOTHER NAIL IN THE ROTHBARDIAN COFFIN: NAP FAILS ON TRANSACTION COSTS ALONE

    –“Yes…transaction costs exist. But that simply means that a market can potentially give sub-optimal outcomes. It does nothing to undermine the internal coherence of NAP.”–

    It does everything to undermine the willingness of individuals to reduce their demand for the state.

    Science requires external correspondence not internal consistency. Internal consistency is a property of our logic not of reality. It is not materially useful if something is internally consistent if it fails the test of external correspondence.

    So if you feel that the NAP is sufficient for the rational reduction of demand for the state, you can make all the internally consistent statements that you wish, but unless you can empirically demonstrate that people will do so, your internally consistent argument is false.

    NAP is not false, but insufficient. It is insufficient because people attribute greater resistance to risk and therefore transaction costs, then they to do third party intervention.

    For example: Does the NAP forbid blackmail? Rothbard doesn’t forbid blackmail in his books. Walter block doesn’t either.

    Each marginal improvement in the trust necessary for marginal reduction in demand for the state, requires disproportionate suppression of additional means of cheating (involuntary transfer). The progression is not linear. We can measure it. We have.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-20 06:42:00 UTC

  • Do Libertarians Believe There Should Be Federally Funded Interstate Highways?

    • That it was invented for war. (It was)
    • That it led to the decline of rail (it did)
    • That it led to the rise of trucks (it did)
    • That it led to the expansion of automotive use. (It did)
    • That it eliminated demand for public transportation (it did)
    • That it contributed to sprawl (it did)

    https://www.quora.com/Do-libertarians-believe-there-should-be-federally-funded-interstate-highways

  • Do Libertarians Believe There Should Be Federally Funded Interstate Highways?

    • That it was invented for war. (It was)
    • That it led to the decline of rail (it did)
    • That it led to the rise of trucks (it did)
    • That it led to the expansion of automotive use. (It did)
    • That it eliminated demand for public transportation (it did)
    • That it contributed to sprawl (it did)

    https://www.quora.com/Do-libertarians-believe-there-should-be-federally-funded-interstate-highways

  • LEFT VS RIGHT WING ECONOMICS? NOPE. There are no ‘wings’ to economics. We can ar

    LEFT VS RIGHT WING ECONOMICS? NOPE.

    There are no ‘wings’ to economics.

    We can argue good economics or bad economics. Using economics, one can advocate left, redistributive, dysgenic policies, or right concentrating, and eugenic policies.

    But economics is just a science. It is a science of inconstant relations. But it is still a science.

    Left and right are preferences. Economists demonstrate that they advocate a pretty normal distribution of policy biases.

    Science doesn’t have preferences.

    People do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 13:55:00 UTC

  • LABOR IS MEANINGLESS – CONSUMERS ARE NOT Obvious but interesting, is that marxis

    LABOR IS MEANINGLESS – CONSUMERS ARE NOT

    Obvious but interesting, is that marxist labor theory of value, and even their supposed social value of ‘labor’ are both in fact valueless and non-logical. But the presence of a ‘consumer’ is not.

    It’s not that business value labor. It’s that business and capitalists need CUSTOMERS in order to organize production.

    The challenge in expanding any economy, and in the satisfaction of consumer wants, is not production – it is voluntarily organization production for the satisfaction of demonstrated consumer wants.

    Money supplies us with information that represents the accumulated savings of time, created by the division of knowledge and labor.

    I know this is pretty obvious (and incomplete as an argument) but I still am amazed at how the marxist zombie simply continues to walk the face of the earth.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 08:49:00 UTC

  • When they guy pumping your gas asks you how what stocks he should invest in, it’

    When they guy pumping your gas asks you how what stocks he should invest in, it’s time to cash out of the market.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-15 08:03:00 UTC

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy