COMPETITION AS VIRTUE
The only moral duty I can be sure of, is to produce goods and services for the market, that are free from involuntary transfer, and to do so at a profit.
It’s the only empirical test that my ideas are proven beneficial to, and by, my fellow man.
Everything else is fantasy. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-20 08:55:00 UTC
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/conservatives-and-sewers/?smid=fb-shareFALSE
1) It doesn’t follow that a one time expense, followed by fees for use is the same as redistribution that creates dependencies. the first requires action, the second does not. THe free-rider problem is different from the progressive-fees problem. Free riding is a negative signal that says free riding is a ‘right’, progressive fees illustrate that this is not a ‘right’, but a ‘charity’. This sends ‘truthful’ signals to both parties. And truthful signals are necessary to prohibit involuntary transfers.
2) It doesn’t follow that investment in a commons is the same as state-mandated redistribution. If that was true, there wouldn’t be factories, universities, churches and roads.
3) It doesn’t follow that investment in a universal commons is not conservative. Only that to do so out of charity at a cost, is different than to do so out of opportunity for profit.
4) it doesn’t follow that taxes must be levied other than fees. (They don’t need to be.)
5) It doesn’t follow that taxes should be put into a general pool and open to use OTHER than the purpose levied. (they shouldn’t)
6) It doesn’t follow that the monopolistic state is more efficient than competitive private administration (it’s not)
7) It doesn’t follow that funding the bureaucracy doesn’t produce externalities that are of intolerable cost. (it does – one of which is forcing us to spend time defending ourselves against other people’s political movements, as they seek to control the predatory state)
Conservatism is a metaphorical language. Conservatives have one ‘curse word’ with multiple meanings: “Socialism” – state control of property and production and b) “Democratic redistributive socialism” – state ownership of the proceeds from limited private control of property. This ‘curse word’ is a catch-all for ‘those people that use the state to destroy aristocratic individualism and the status signals that I get from individualism regardless of my rank. And this is important. Conservatives do not feel victims because they obtain positive status signals from other conservatives regardless of their economic rank. This is obtainable in human societies only through religious conformity and it’s consequences, or economic conformity and its consequences.
Conservatives do not object to investment in the commons. Conservatism places higher value on delaying gratification than immediate gratification – the formation of moral capital – which is an inarticulate expression meaning training human beings to enforce a prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds.
Conservatism is the argument that we should not fund the expansionary bureaucratic state that out of deterministic necessity subverts our property rights and therefore our freedom, and therefore our ‘character’ – a euphemism for the prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds – because it is our universal prohibition on involuntary transfers both within our families and tribes and without, that is the source of western exceptionalism: the high trust society.
Our high trust society is unique because we CAN trust others to avoid involuntary transfers, because of the pervasive prohibition on involuntary transfer that we developed under Manorailism by demonstrating fitness needed to obtain land to rent. Partly as a rebellion against the Catholic Church, partly because the church forbid cousin marriage and granted women property rights, in order to break up the tribes and large land holding families. Partly as an ancient indo-european tradition of personal sovereignty in the nobility, which became a status signal, and, thankfully remains a status signal in conservatives.
Small homogenous polities are redistributive. Large heterogeneous polities are not. This is because trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities. And trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities because of the different signals used by different groups, and the fact that signals in-group are ‘cheaper’ (discounted) that signals across groups with differing signals. A strong state in a small homogenous polity that functions as an extended family and therefore with high redistribution, is entirely possible. But by creating a powerful state in a heterogeneous polity, it becomes necessary and useful for people to compete via extra-market means using the state by seeking redistributions and limited monopoly (legal) rights in order to advance their signaling strategy. (Which is what Dr. Krugman does, daily – advance an alternative strategy. A strategy that he does not recognize is from the Ghetto. And would cause a return to the low trust society. And **IS*** right now, causing a return to the low trust society.
Because the low trust society is natural to man. Thats why it exists everywhere but the aristocratic west.
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-16 01:26:00 UTC
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/08/left_s_big_mistake_about_real_wages_and_the_economy.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky_bottom
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-14 02:18:00 UTC
RENT SEEKING In public choice theory as well as in economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one’s share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Simple Version: “Corruption from outside the government inside of inside the government.”
NOUN 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. “cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business”
ADJECTIVE 1. engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. “rent-seeking lobbyists” Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth-creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality, and potential national decline. [I]n its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial ownership of land in order to gain control of a part of its production. In government it is the act of gaining privileges, redistribution or partial monopolies. In its broadest sense it is the act of obtaining some sort if claim on the productivity of others rather than producing something ones self, or through voluntary exchange. We all seek rents. We all seek opportunity for benefitting from either the actions of our organizations, the actions of others, or the grant of state state monopolies. Women seek mates as monetary rents and men to ease the burden of childrearing. We all seek rents. We could argue that rent seeking is the primary incentive for cooperation. Because so few of us are productive enough through direct exchange of our efforts. The only rent thats totally moral is interest. Interest is free of involuntary transfer. Interest, in the sense that we rent money to others, contrary to our superstitions, is moral. Now, It is possible to seek rents via interest. Either through usury or through leveraging the state’s fiat money. One can collect interest on production. On can collect interest on consumption. Neither of these things is necessary. Both are voluntary. Neither produce negative externalities. They create whole sequences of positive externalities. But collecting interest on externalities is immoral if it creates externalities that produce involuntary transfers. Rothbards ghetto ethics actually encourage involuntary transfers. Under the false presumption that the market will solve the problem through competition. But Since all things being equal, profit from externalities is greater than the same loan without externalities, just the opposite is true. The market will encourage externalities. Also, ghetto ethics assume that judges will not hold people accountable for those externalities and require restitution of them. But they have and will. Because it is consistent with the ethics of property to do so.
http://theeurovigilante.com/2013/03/08/get-your-own-swiss-bank-account/?fb_source=pubv1
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-08 08:49:00 UTC
THE FUTURE ECONOMY
“…From 1780 to 1840, output per worker rose 46% and the real wage index rose by only about 12%, noting that none of these numbers are close to exact. … The significant real wage gains come after 1840 and — in my view — even more after 1870. After 1830 TFP is growing at the higher rate of about 1% a year, still not impressive by the standards of the early 20th century however.
During the early 19th century, there is much creative ferment, but much less in terms of products which translate into gains in living standards for the average person.
…
Eventually all of the creative ferment of the industrial revolution pays off in a big “whoosh,” but it takes many decades, depending on where you draw the starting line of course. A look at the early 19th century is sobering, or should be, for anyone doing fiscal budgeting today. But it is also optimistic in terms of the larger picture facing humanity over the longer run.”. – Tyler Cowen
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-04 15:50:00 UTC
RENT SEEKING
In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial ownership of land in order to gain control of a part of its production.
In government it is the act of gaining privileges, redistribution or partial monopolies.
In its broadest sense it is the act of obtaining some sort if claim on the productivity of others rather than producing something ones self, or through voluntary exchange.
We all seek rents. We all seek opportunity for benefitting from either the actions of our organizations, the actions of others, or the grant of state state monopolies. Women seek mates as monetary rents and men to ease the burden of childrearing. We all seek rents. We could argue that rent seeking is the primary incentive for cooperation. Because so few of us are productive enough through direct exchange of our efforts.
The only rent thats totally moral is interest. Interest is free of involuntary transfer.
Interest, in the sense that we rent money to others, contrary to our superstitions, is moral.
Now, It is possible to seek rents via interest. Either through usury or through leveraging the state’s fiat money.
One can collect interest on production. On can collect interest on consumption. Neither of these things is necessary. Both are voluntary. Neither produce negative externalities. They create whole sequences of positive externalities.
But collecting interest on externalities is immoral if it creates externalities that produce involuntary transfers.
Rothbards ghetto ethics actually encourage involuntary transfers. Under the false presumption that the market will solve the problem through competition. But Since all things being equal, profit from externalities is greater than the same loan without externalities, just the opposite is true. The market will encourage externalities.
Also, ghetto ethics assume that judges will not hold people accountable for those externalities and require restitution of them. But they have and will. Because it is consistent with the ethics of property to do so.
Source date (UTC): 2013-02-24 11:56:00 UTC
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/armen-alchian.htmlPrivate Property: “..the three [necessary] elements of private property are:
(1) exclusivity of rights to choose the use of a resource,
(2) exclusivity of rights to the services of a resource, and
(3) rights to exchange the resource at mutually agreeable terms.”
(We libertarians tend to say that Private property is a monopoly on the use of the self, those things that are homesteaded, or which are obtained by voluntary exchange.)
The Third Law of Demand: (Shipping Out The Good Apples): “…when the prices of two substitute goods, such as high and low grades of the same product, are both increased by a fixed per-unit amount such as a transportation cost or a lump-sum tax, consumption will shift toward the higher-grade product. This is true because the added per-unit amount decreases the relative price of the higher-grade product.”
(For those who don’t know the three laws of Demand, here are 1 and 2.)
The Second Law Of Demand: (Price Elasticity Over Time) “…demand is more responsive to price in the long run than in the short run.”
The First Law Of Demand: (Supply vs Demand) : “..all else being equal, as the price of a product increases, a lower quantity will be demanded; likewise, as the price of a product decreases, a higher quantity will be demanded.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-02-20 02:32:00 UTC
“The rich have a moral duty and obligation to help ‘the poor’ ‘better’ themselves whether the poor want the help or not.”
Um. Redistribution isn’t bettering anyone. “Better” is a description of behavior, not state.
Source date (UTC): 2013-02-16 13:45:00 UTC
HOW FAST YOU CAN BECOME A MILLIONAIRE, BY COUNTRY
Source date (UTC): 2013-02-14 03:20:00 UTC