Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Losing The Habit: We Will Not Return To The Consumer Economy.

    Loved this little paragraph today on “extend and pretend”. Although I can’t remember where I found it.

    The government has been playing “extend-and-pretend” based entirely on the idea that pent up demand in consumers would grow until it busted out and the recovery would be on – [a recovery] fueled by consumers. What has happened is the exact opposite. This is very serious. We are running into 3 years now, and 4 if you look at what commodity speculation did to consumers starting back in early 2007. …. And so the concern should be whether or not we have a permanent shift in consumer behaviors. Three or four years is plenty of time to break old habits and establish new ones.

    Three weeks and you can develop a new habit. Nine months and you can change your system of habits. Three years and you can forget what life was like in the past. In four years you can even forget a bad divorce, death or tragedy. The bonds that create an economy are perishables. People forget. They forget skills, relationships, ambitions, ways of thinking. They forget.

  • All Costs Are Opportunity Costs. Projections Do Not Include The Alternatives.

    This article by a local democratic group led me to this CBPP article, which is a response to a paper by the Heritage foundation.

    Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years

    Which is another example of pretending that the long-cycle view of the republicans, from the sixties through the previous administration is selfishness rather than a REACTION to the socialist policies and socialist social system that conservatives were fighting for the majority of the 20th century. It was the conservative perception that without reinvigorating business and in particular entrepreneurship, that the american quality of life would perish, as it had appeared to by the 1970’s. If you think the european model is better, go live there for a while. Life in europe is expensive, cramped, dirty and urban. People look, act, and feel poor by comparison. The pretty part of europe seen by tourists was built in prior centuries under the great monarchies. It has nothing to do with the post war model. European cities are vast rings of urban blight, Los Angeles style, around small downtown cores of ancient monarchical elegance. By and large, no matter what social class you live in, america has offered better opportunities to its citizens. People have more choices. Add to their costs the necessity of rearming, and that they have a social problem with muslims on the scale of our post-slavery problem with blacks, and they have tremendous future costs to bear for their model. So go live there. Really. For a while. Life in europe is expensive. An expensive life neutralizes many class status differences. And that’s really the point of those models. But that aside, what bothers me most about the CBBP analysis, regardless of the figures presented by the heritage foundation, is the belief that our country would not endure OTHER costs, often strategic costs, that are NOT expressed in the numbers, if republican policies were not undertaken. We have accomplished much of our ambitions with the wars, which is to neutralize Iraqi expansionism, and punish afghans for hoteling terrorists. that we continue to attempt to create democracies is an ideological problem. It would be cheaper to reduce pakistan and iranian capabilities as we have iraqi and afghani capabilities. But we will not do that because we feel that we must be ‘nice’ to people who attack us, rather than punish people who attack us. But unless we forecast the republican view of the future, which was one in which even worse outcomes existed for the USA’s budget, and in particular, energy costs and decreased entrepreneurship, and decreased competitiveness, The dirty secret underneath our lack of competitiveness is our education system. We are paying vast competitive costs by forcing education into the private sector, and producing inferior goods, because we do not teach disciplined excellence in schools as do the germans. We don’t teach it for political reasons. We’re dumbing down our citizens. And it’s that cost that republicans are trying to fight as well. So most of the forecasts based upon assumptions made by both sides are complete nonsense. All that said, I responded with: I have absolutely no idea how you are coming up with this chart, and what assumptions it’s based upon. But it’s correspondence with reality approaches zero. Our tax revenue problem is far deeper and far more structural than whatever assumptions you’re relying upon. These include the dollar, the world economy, structural unemployment, and demographic changes. Most importantly they involve the class and race issues involved with different occupational distributions, and the resulting difficulty in putting vast numbers of our population (in particular, males) into industries that are permanently lost to us. We have expanded enough of the bottom end of the labor force through immigration, that we cannot push down our existing labor force into less interesting, but certainly productive, jobs. No society can survive 20% of the male population living in frustration. This anxiety will be directed somewhere. The country, as both a domestic and international empire, is too insufficiently homogenous to permit higher taxation and redistribution. It is contrary to human nature. There is no evidence of it in history. There is no evidence of it in behavioral testing. The costs of conducting these poorly managed external wars do not account for the cost of not prosecuting them, which are not insubstantial, and perhaps greater. Our domestic political mythology is a conflict between the erroneous assumptions of the twentieth century, and the expired political technologies of the eighteenth century. Neither side is going to get their desired future. We are headed toward the south american model of class and racial segregation of urban centers and a powerless central government. This pattern is evident in immigration and emigration moving patterns, demographic changes, domestic trade, domestic cash movement, re-regionalization of identity, and a loss of confidence in both the government and the nation itself. Conservatives live in a fantasy that the colonial republic is possible to reinstitute. Liberals live in a fantasy of the homogenous egalitarian society. But democratic republican government cannot function at our current scale for the same reason socialism cannot function at scale – information and incentive problems. Even if politicians want to make good decisions, law and taxes are insufficient tools for doing so. Only credit and banking and provide sufficient granularity of management, and our state is not structured any longer to assist in building the economy, only in resolving conflicts between interest groups. Furthermore human beings do not, never have, and never will operate in an egalitarian fashion across status class and race boundaries because status is more liquid and valuable in-group than extra-group. And because epistemologically, human beings do not possess sufficient perception, information, and intelligence to operate as creatures without status signals to tell them which actions are good and bad for them, any more than they can cooperate in large numbers without pricing signals to tell them what actions are good and bad for them. I am sorry if this is to complex an analysis for a posting on tax and spending policy. But I am speaking to the false assumptions that underly the graph that you presented here. I would love to live in an egalitarian redistributive society. But to accomplish that goal, you will have to fragment the empire into regions, reduce the federal government to banking and military functions, return the legislative control to the localities, and allow the natural preference that people express to associate within race and class. And that is antithetical to the underclass fantasy – a fantasy which is more concerned with status than it is with money. But every society is composed of classes. Not just economic classes, but social classes, and ‘greater and lesser productive classes’. And each of these groups pursues its own interests. And because those interests are epistemological in nature ( people need to know how to act ) they are permanent. And as permanent features, they will, especially under prolonged economic duress, be expressed by citizens. Either openly or in black markets, racism, and corruption. You will never achieve equality outside of a few million people of very similar racial and cultural preferences, with very similar economic interests. Otherwise, The only equality is in poverty. And that set of problems underlies the reason why people will become more conservative. ie: they will express sentiments of group persistence and attempt to implement those sentiments by legislation. So, we are destined to decades of political hostility. Because the US is now an empire, both domestically and internationally. And while internationally the government has lost legitimacy. THat is irrelevant compared to the loss of legitimacy of the government here at home. The only thing we can do is contract the empire and attempt to get our people employed in, while getting the upper and middle classes to try to create jobs and we may have permanently displaced our society by trade policy. THe germans build their society to produce disciplined craftsmen. This is important, because craftsmen can create exportable hard goods. But we have tried to create a service economy. And a service economy must bring people INTO the country in order to serve them. We can create a medical tourism industry. But that is not sufficient. We can close our educational system to foreigners. but that is not sufficient. We can devote vast labor to building nuclear power plants, a new power grid, and electric automobiles. And that might be enough. But we can never put people back into building houses. It creates expensive sprawl. But most importantly, it doesn’t make people ‘skilled’. It’s the intellectual equivalent of ditch digging, and as such it is a vast loss of human capital. Thats the reality of it. So your deficit prediction is based on the assumption that the nation was not at a structural crossroads by the fall of socialism in 1989. It is based upon the assumption that american productivity will continue as it has. But neither the society we call america, or the advantage that was western, or the advantage that was american, persists any longer. We are in for another decade of this economy, and if history is any measure, we are also in for something unpleasantly disruptive in the next generation. And neither side has a plan for getting us out of it.

  • Krugman Watch: Barking Up The Wrong Tree

    Paul Krugman writes, in Permanently High Unemployment

    I really don’t think people appreciate the huge dangers posed by a weak response to 9 1/2 percent unemployment, and the highest rate of long-term unemployment ever recorded

    Paul, You will not get consensus on general liquidity (unbridled credit). You will not get consensus on government spending (expansion of the bureaucracy). You will not get consensus on redistributive infrastructure (city projects). But you will get consensus on investment in strategic competitive advantages if you can identify them. We are going to have long term structural employment. These people are not going to go back to work in their previous careers. You’re right that government can provide a solution. but that solution is to concentrate capital behind investments in competitive production that the market cannot create largely because of regulatory hinderances, or regulatory uncertainty, or regulatory competition. The greatest benefit to the country will be to invest in a new grid, triple the number of nuclear plants, and to convert as much infrastructure from hydrocarbons as possible. There is no mystery why this is a competitive advantage. It will create millions of jobs, especially in skilled trades. You’re just recommending the wrong platform for getting money into the economy. And no one is buying it.

  • High Unemployment, or Normal Employment? It Depends On The Scope Of History You’re Considering.

    Over on Questions and Observations, Bruce McQuain questions whether we’re having another “Great Depression” or just a very slow recovery. An unnamed visitor pointed to a graphic from The Atlantic and commented:

    “The median duration of unemployment is higher today than any time in the last 50 years. That’s an understatement. It is more than twice as high today than any time in the last 50 years.”

    Which is a true statement that leads to false conclusions. Instead, how about you increase the period of time you’re considering even further and say, that: “The unnaturally low rate of employment for the past century, and in particular the past fifty years, has been largely do to the combination of selling off north america to immigrants and their children, the increase in consumer products consumed by these people, the collapse of european war economies, followed by the results of the monopolization of the world monetary system. The current unemployment level is the natural consequence of the loss of the US’s temporary economic advantage, as europe caught up, and china, india, russia and other developing countries have developed similar economic models and levels of production.” That’s the analysis that has meaning. Not medium term unemployment. The monetary policy since Reagan was an attempt to revitalize american entrepreneurship and individualism by using the US’s unique position in world history to borrow against future production. However, the winning of the war against ideological managed-economies made that borrowing impossible to maintain. Furthermore, the unregulated use of that credit to fund unproductive investment (housing) rather than relative competitive investment (innovation) led to a bubble, which has now compounded the overall problem. This is not to say that we had an alternative to the revitalization of the country. Or that the european model would have yielded better results in the domestic american empire than it did in the homogenous nation states. But we are now headed toward the south american model : the exact opposite of what both the left and right desired.

  • Straight Dope: Would Communal Ownership Result In Fewer Oil Spills?

    No. But increased liability would. I found the Straight Dope forums and they’re full of fairly good libertarian thinking. So I’m going to add them to my crawler’s roundtable. This is the second or third posting I”ve made there. And in it I’m making a bold claim in response to this statement:

    And I think you’ll find it makes a difference to the wider community, too. It’s hard to imagine a worker-owned oil company, with broad shopfloor participation in decisionmaking, making the kind of decisions that led to the BP oil spill — and got several BP workers killed.

    That’s an interesting statement. The problem is, that such an organization would never be able to exist at any size in order to make that kind of decision, and without that size could not concentrate enough capital to create and combine sufficient technologies to get into the position in the first place.

    [callout]**In general there will be no case that you can contrive of where the above sequence of logic does not apply.**[/callout]

    Why? Because of the very reason we have markets, corporations, organizations, political systems: because while people can agree upon the sentimental ends, they cannot agree upon the requisite means, cannot do so in time to sieze opportunities, and they cannot do so in large numbers, and as the complexity of the division of labor increases, necessary ignorance intervenes on the part of all people involved such that additional opinions actually REGRESS back to the mean. This fact in turns results in the “Iron Law Of Oligarchy” wherein decisions making is delegated in every form of voluntary organization to an elite, which upon attaining the ability to make decisions, always seeks to preserve it, expand it, and to expand it to the point of their necessary ignorance and incompetence.

    [callout] while people can agree upon the sentimental ends, they cannot agree upon the requisite means, cannot do so in time to sieze opportunities, and they cannot do so in large numbers, and as the complexity of the division of labor increases, necessary ignorance intervenes on the part of all people involved such that additional opinions actually REGRESS back to the mean. This fact in turns results in the “Iron Law Of Oligarchy” wherein decisions making is delegated in every form of voluntary organization to an elite, which upon attaining the ability to make decisions, always seeks to preserve it, expand it, and to expand it to the point of their necessary ignorance and incompetence.[/callout]

    The problem isn’t the corporation’s size, or the worker interest, it’s the limits of liability granted to the executives, and the limit of liability given to the insurers. These limits were GIVEN by GOVERNMENT with KNOWING INTENT to these companies precisely to avoid the principle of responsibility inherent in Capitalism, to ensure that we would have oil supplies. In other words, the state became the insurer, and did a bad job of quality control, and the insurer, the state (the people) have to pay for taking that risk. WHen they should have maintained liability of all involved. This would have dramatically increased the costs, and made the drilling unprofitable, and it would not have occurred. We transfer risk all over society. Between age groups, between classes, between races. IN fact, that has become the purpose of 20th century government. Transfer. We grant people all sorts of special rights as a means of mutual insurance. THe most controversial is free speech. Much free speech is theft of abstract forms from one person or another (libel and slander). Much of it is erroneous, deceptive, ignorant or intentionally harmful, for the purpose of transferring property from one group to another (Political). We allow one group rights of expression but deny another group the same expression. (Political) Most news opinion for example, upon analysis, is patently false. (Profitable) Most advertising is targeted at the proletariat and middle class, for the purpose of selling the consumer fantasy by appealing to human status senses. We have not (as an absurd example) sued the Bank Of Sweden for awarding Nobel prizes to purveyors of the use of probabilistic Gaussian mathematics in economic theory, which in turn was used to create this debacle of an economy over the past half century or more. So the Nobel Prize was issued and used as a political lever and caused vast harm. The Academy ‘insured’ these theories, and then marketed them. Yet we do not hold them accountable for this damage to society, as we do any other product like hot coffee or ladders. Because we grant them the freedom to err, under the assumption that we are better off this way than the opposite. Capitalism and markets exist to provide calculative capacity to the mediocrity of human minds. Socialist should focus on redistribution and avoid the fallacy of believing their own opinion. Ignorance is mandatory for all human beings. And it is nothing but a childish vanity to think otherwise, and is demonstrable in all fields of human activity. it is even MEASURABLE in most fields of human activity. (in particular, the horrid errors in academic research.) Property rights allow for accountability, because they require risk in order to obtain the rewards from the use of them. It is when we do not respect those rights and their liabilities, and grant limits to the liability for those rights that we have oil spills. **In general there will be no case that you can contrive of where the above sequence of logic does not apply.** That is why the world has adopted capitalism. TOtalitarian capitalism. But capitalism none the less. It’s democracy that’s being abandoned as a goal. Worldwide.

  • Question: “Can you be anti-capitalist and pro market?”

    On Straight Dope, there is a thread on whether one can be anti-capitalist but pro-market. I’ve captured my response below. DEFINITIONS 1) Capitalism (distributed planning and control using the technologies of property and the pricing system). Or politically: a bias toward letting the market solve problems of production. 2) Socialism (centralized planning and control in the necessary absence of the pricing system). Or politically: a bias toward political centralization of solving problems of production. 3) Mixed Economy ( distributed planning and control using property and pricing system, with redistribution of wealth through taxation). Or politically, letting the market solve problems of production, while centralizing some amount of the wealth generated for redistribution and investment in outcomes where the market process is unable to concentrate capital. 4) Market: the voluntary production of property for the purpose of speculating on it’s voluntary trade. The speculative pricing assigned to the goods or services. The reliance upon prices to determine the products to be produced, and the factors of production to be consumed. Implies the regulation of products into the market. and implies the defense of property rights and conflict resolution within the market of goods and services by a third party. 5) Trade: the voluntary transfer of property from one individual to another. (which implies knowledge of the purchaser, and the irrelevance of third parties) DISCUSSION Early Leftist were traditional luddites who confused the necessity of ownership of the means of production (property) with the ability to redistribute the results of that system of ownership: It is not necessary to control the means of production in order to redistribute wealth. While property and prices are necessary for complex production, and incentives are necessary to encourage people to produce, it appears that we can determine rules of property use, and we can determine some level of redistribution while maintaining sufficient incentives to produce. At least, that has been the general course of events over the past century. Contrarily, unstated but implied in that statement, such a redistribution will affect the ability to consume, but not ‘organized control over’ what is produced. This may disappoint some. However, since all groups are led by elites and elites must make decisions on production, the such centralized control creates only the illusion of proletariat control over what is produced. You cannot have a market (speculative production in anticipation of trade wherein prices communicate relative demand) without prices and property. This is logically impossible. While communists have forever posited the opposite, people will not produce excess for market purposes without the incentive to do so (and will resort to black markets, and therefore recreate the market). If what you define as “anti-capitalist” (i suspect) is having a number of people with knowledge and relationships and control of property concentrate resources toward productive ends that you disagree with, then you can indeed be “anti-capitalist”. If you define anti-capitalist as a status-criticism, wherein you dislike the fact that you are most likely a permanent member of the proletariat, which decreases your access to mates and opportunity, then you indeed can be an ant-capitalist. Those are sentimental objections. (Despite the fact that our society is largely run by the middle class and upper proletariat.) But if you mean that you dislike the nature of prices and property, then you’re just illogical, and the result of your beliefs would result in destitute poverty, murder and war. The market evolved because of the limitation of the human mind. We cannot replace it without making the human mind far better than it is. And perhaps far better than it can be. Redistribution is a biological sentiment in the human animal that evolved because it is necessary for group-persistence: to retain competitive ability against other groups, and to insure the group’s survival. Universal egalitarian equality, which is a member of the set of leftist sentiment of “harm/care/nurture” or the sentiment of eliminating the sensation of status differences, or the sentiment eliminating the material differences between people’s access to resources, is simply an illogical construct regardless of which sentiment is being applied: Because we need incentives to produce, and we must over produce and divide our labor to reduce prices. (“We are not wealthier than cave men, everything is just infinitely cheaper due to the division of labor”) Because people will always seek status differences even under socialism. Because the iron law of oligarchy mandates that elites and leaders emerge, and once they emerge they form a self-serving bureaucracy. Because it is impossible for more than a family sized group of people to agree on both the means and ends of doing anything meaningful in a division of labor sufficient to produce low prices. (this last, is the virtue of what we call the market). Participating in the market is also voluntary. One can consume the goods of the market without participating in the market one’s self. Some people, in fact, a majority of people, are not sufficiently competitive in any form of production that they can conceive of, or afford to speculate in the market. So they TRADE their productivity rather than SPECULATE on by producing goods or services for the market. To be a member of a market economy, one only needs to refrain from theft. To be a ‘good’ member of a market economy, once needs additionally to refrain from fraud and deception. But these are the means by which we obtain citizenship in the market, not participate in the market. To enter the market itself, means that you risk capital and compete in the arena that is the market, and are willing and able to accept losses. The problem for the proletariat is that their value-system is predicated on self-production for consumption purposes, and trading for goods that cannot be self produced. People only a century ago would put to market only their over-production, and purchase from the market only for goods that they could not produce themselves. Except there is precious little in modern society that a person can produce himself, let alone, produce for market consumption himself. This necessitates an uncomfortable uncertainty for those people who must speculate in order to survive in the market. Hence leftist sentiments of the family, epistemology of the family, organization of the family, production of the family must compete with rightist sentiments of the market.

    [callout]It is quite likely that the right and left will both fail. That we will instead of succeeding in incorporating all people into the market (the error of the right) or incorporating all people into the luddite familial structure (the error of the left) that we will adopt the european and south american models of a wealthy urban and rural groups, and a ring of abject destitute hyper-breeding poverty around the urban cores, wherein the upper and middle classes pay the permanent proletariat just enough to subsist, and we emerge with a tiered society both geographically, genetically, and materially. [/callout]

    It is quite likely that the right and left will both fail. That we will instead of succeeding in incorporating all people into the market (the error of the right) or incorporating all people into the luddite familial structure (the error of the left) that we will adopt the european and south american models of a wealthy urban and rural groups, and a ring of abject destitute hyper-breeding poverty around the urban cores, wherein the upper and middle classes pay the permanent proletariat just enough to subsist, and we emerge with a tiered society both geographically, genetically, and materially. And this end result will in no small part be due to the christian error of egalitarianism sentiments that deny the productive differences of human beings in the real and material world – the majority of which differences derive from the ability and rate at which one can learn and apply abstractions (IQ) in a dynamic and rapidly moving economy. While neither left or right can achieve it’s idealistic ends, leftism is an attempt to enslave the productive (innovative) class’s attempt to increase production and increase prices for the purpose of status enhancement. But by that restraint doom all people to poverty. This is the strategy behind all monotheistic religions. They are resistance movements that attempt to make status among the proletariat a spiritual rather than material construct. Capitalism (or right-ism) on the other hand is an attempt to keep sufficient productive resources in the hands of market producers that all society benefits, despite the fact that the proletariat feels increasingly left behind and deprived of status because of the accelerating rate at which the productive classes (those who take speculative risks and thereby increase choices and decrease prices) seemingly depart from the lower classes, despite the fact that in all but the rarest circumstances (catastrophic health care) that the difference between the quintiles is one of symbolic status and diversity of forms of entertainment, rather than differences in material well being. As it stands Quantitative Keynesianism is the socialist research program, and Anarcho capitalism is the capitalist research program. The difference between these methods lies in both their ambitions and their methods. By applying 19th century advances in the mathematics of the natural world (closed probabilism) to the aggregate symbols of production of the economy (monetary values), it became possible to try to fulfill some methods of the socialist program by using capitalism for socialistic ends. The problem for the capitalists, and the reason for the failure of the Austrian (qualitative) program’s emphasis on micro-economic behavior, is that they do not have a method of mathematics to provide sufficient explanatory power equal to the left’s program, despite knowing, with absolute certainty, that the Keynesian program must fail. This is because despite the efforts of Poincare, Mandelbrot, Hayek, Popper, Mises, and Parsons, more recently Taleb, and a host of others, there appears to be no symbolic language that can represent the plasticity and organic behavior of the property-pricing system and how it reacts to human knowledge. (This is typically called ‘Hume’s Problem’ of Induction.) It appears, at least at this point in time, that we will need a vast amount of data, on the order of many times that of the Google indexes, to provide us with enough of a basis from which to derive the patterns in that symbolic information. Even if we could find that information, we could find the patterns, and develop a mathematics of economics and the social sciences, the question would remain whether these innovations would have any material impact on the fact that humans are of pedagogical NECESSITY, epistemic status seekers, and that there are those who lead that pack of humanity and those who are forever followers in it, and the envy of the followers, and the arrogance of the leaders mandate that we will remain competitive, and that the problem of human difference is both permanent and valuable to the division of knowledge and labor.

  • The Economics Of Spies: What Spies Really Do

    via What Spies Really Do | Capital Gains and Games. Bruce Bartlett, in reference to the recent Russian spy case, uses an example from his past to pick on the behavioral economics of spying.  But I think, like anything else, there is more to be understood here than meets the eye. He writes:

    I remembered all this some years later when I was working at the Treasury Department and was on the distribution for some CIA raw material relating to economic issues. Almost all of it was worthless. It involved conversations some CIA agent had with a prominent foreign businessman or economist relaying information that could easily be gleaned from that day’s Financial Times.
    Suddenly, I understood what [the spy who had been interviewing me] had been up to. He could have written a memo to his bosses just regurgitating what was in the daily papers, news magazines and other public sources, but that wouldn’t have been very spy-like. It undoubtedly sounded so much better if he could relay the same identical information but say that it had been secured from a high-level congressional staffer. That’s what spies do.

    Bruce, You’re right in part. But there are other factors that might change your opinion of that experience: 0) Yes, a spy is often a bureaucrat, because he exists in a bureaucracy. Often with dismay, frustration and resignation. 1) Spies try a lot of trial-and-error relationship building. In fact, trial and error are a very important part of the business. 2) While Spies are largely from that social group we call ‘nerds’, US spies are usually amazing, wonderful, engaging, intelligent people. But they are, like everyone else, expressions of a bell curve. There are good spies and bad spies and smarter spies and dumber spies. 3) Being a spy is not necessarily doing interesting things and meeting interesting people. And these days, it is a lot more about using relationships to get access to data than it is about human opinion, which is fraught with eror and deception. When a spy talks to you, he is generally looking, like MOST ECONOMISTS ARE, for sources of data, not sources of opinion. And this is very important. Data is more valuable than opinion. They are looking for relationships that will give them access to data. So any conversational content is irrelevant. Your opinion is only a measure of the trustworthiness of the relationship.  The data on the other hand is the reward he is looking for. 4) The value in human intelligence on economic opinion, is not to be found in what you tell them. It’s to be found in the SET of ALL economic opinions found by ALL spies speaking to ALL contacts in any administration and by looking for POLITICAL patterns among the participants. It is not in what you tell them. In fact, a spy will NEVER ask you a direct question regarding his real intentions. This information is then fed to Analysts (Super nerds) who try to obtain value from it. This is a round-about way of saying that you were just a cog in a wheel. And spying is an art of subtlety. And you shouldn’t try to deduce too much about spying from your experience. A spy is, in general, engaged in the trial and error process of creating a large number of relationships while looking for opportunities to gain access to some sort of data. It is a very nerdy business. Forensic accounting and forensic communication data are considered valuable to the trade. By contrast, relationships that are valuable are ‘lottery winnings’. Sure, they target specific people and specific industries, but all the good data is actually in the private sector, and it’s far easier to get there than it is from “another bureaucratic wonk in another bureaucracy who is even more ignorant about that is going on in his country than I am”.

  • The Humble Libertarian And Flat Taxes.

    The humble libertarian makes an argument for flat taxes in order to quell the state’s tendency to foster class warfare.

    with a flat tax, they can’t just pick on the winners anymore. In order to get more revenue, their best tactic would be to incentivize overall growth. Lower trade barriers. Lower the costs of doing business. Encourage real growth.

    Exactly. Flat taxes are superior in a democratic government for two reasons 1) they must be kept small, and the lower half of society will make sure that they are kept small. 2) the government must foster growth in order to increase revenues. Secondly, our rhetoric treats people as if they are in permanent classes, yet we tax income which is highly variable. If we are to tax anything progressively, it should not be income, but balance sheets. Lastly, there is a point at which one’s possession of and use of capital is a distortion of the market (The Silver Debacle, or George Soros’s Abuses). This appears, at least in round numbers, to occur at its lowest, somewhere near 1000 times the median income, and accelerates from there. Above that position, people are no longer participating in the market. They are governing it. (This debate is a bit complicated for a comment on a blog post.) So, if our taxes are to include those that are progressive, they should be against balance sheets, with the purpose of getting as many people into the capitalist class late in life as possible. At least, unless you want private capitalist government rather than a market run by market participants for the benefit of market participants. Large capital concentrations in combination with individual knowledge cannot be applied to ‘the market’ as we understand it, and justify it in the classical liberal sense, as a ‘social good’.

  • The Economist: Why Are Companies Hoarding Cash? My Answer: Uncertainty.

    THERE is a new question posed to our panel in the Economics by Invitation section:

    Much of the recent increase in private-sector saving comes from businesses. What explains the rise in corporate thrift? How long will it last, and what policies might reduce it?

    As an article in this week’s edition explains, the build-up of cash by the private sector can affect the recovery.

    If cautious firms pile up more savings, the prospects for recovery are poor. Economies will be stuck in the current—and odd—configuration where corporate surpluses fund government deficits. If firms loosen their purse-strings to hire workers and to invest, that will allow governments to scale back their borrowing.

    Economist Xavier Gabaix believes that the fear of another shock down the road is making firms cautious. Hal Varian thinks that firms are not investing because they see no signs of demand picking up anytime soon.

    Firms are not investing because they don’t see much demand for their products now or in the near-term future. And, of course, we end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy. One possible strategy would be to offer a temporary investment tax credit or accelerated depreciation allowance.

    They are hoarding cash be cause of uncertainty. Regime uncertainty. Economic Uncertainty. Even cultural uncertainty. There are so many layers of uncertainty that businesses don’t even know how to advertise. What products to bring to market. What trends can or might emerge if they help them.

    [callout]Big businesses are starting to spend BECAUSE they have cash. But recessions and job recovery are led by SMALL BUSINESS and small business cannot get credit. Credit for small business is speculative. It’s all speculative. And small business owners have nothing to borrow against. Nothing. Any hard asset is now questionable in value.[/callout]

    Big businesses are starting to spend BECAUSE they have cash. But recessions and job recovery are led by SMALL BUSINESS and small business cannot get credit. Credit for small business is speculative. It’s all speculative. And small business owners have nothing to borrow against. Nothing. Any hard asset is now questionable in value. To move the economy, consumers have to show that they’re spending. Companies have to show that they’re taking risks (investing). Any reference to demand is an antiquated method of looking at an economy. There isnt’ a demand problem unless there isn’t an uncertainty problem. Right now there is an uncertainty problem, so there isn’t room for a demand problem. To eliminate uncertainty, and to create jobs, we have to loan to small business despite their weak balance sheets. That’s the problem. In a nutshell. That’s the problem. Some of us are trying to figure out how to fund small businesses. But politically,, it seems impossible.

  • The Nonsense Alternative Called “Solidarity.” Throwing The Peasants A Bone.

    This bit of ridiculously regressive Luddism was posted on a left leaning blog. It touts “A Solidarity Economy”. Which is a nice name for voluntary organizations that circumvent the pricing system. Yet another example of enduring marxist silliness.

    There is no alternative to free-market capitalism, Margaret Thatcher used to say, and about this, like so many things, she was wrong. … What is the Solidarity Economy? It’s a movement that has brought hope to a world disillusioned by capitalism and too often unaware that economic activity can be conducted with respect for human decency and the planet on which we live. Its five key principles are solidarity, sustainability, equity in all dimensions, participatory democracy and pluralism. … The role of these initiatives is certainly up for debate. Consumer cooperatives are vulnerable to criticism as being somewhat exclusive. Some models of cooperative housing are not particularly sustainable. But the wide variety of Solidarity Economy practices ensures that successful models are emerging, with success based not just on economic viability, but on social and ecological responsibility. … The transformative power of the Solidarity Economy is that it can grow within the current economic system, eventually replacing it with a more human way of providing for society’s needs. …

    You can use meaningless terms yet conveniently rely on a lack of detail to gloss over yet another permutation of communal sentiments. But no matter how many times you rephrase the same tired fantasies, you will not alter the hard reality that will face any participants in this fanciful silly Marxist doctrine: 1) A lack of incentives. 2) a lack of competitiveness 3) human limits to consensus on means and methods 4) human tendency towards bureaucratic corruption 5) the natural slowness of the system. Essentially you would doom everyone involved to perpetual poverty.

    [callout]But make no mistake that such fantastic extra-market lifestyles are luxuries provided BY THE MARKET, not alternatives to it.[/callout]

    These are good models for knitting circles, volunteer organizations, the uncompetitive, and the dull and ignorant, for whom market signals in the form of prices are too abstract to synthesize, and who do not have to manage scarce resources. In other words they are good for small networks within a capitalist system for the purpose of organizing members of a permanent submissive underclass. Any system capable of the current productive diversity must be of necessity incomprehensible. The market exists to handle incomprehensibility. And it functions despite incomprehensibility, anonymity, compassion or care. Within the wealth that is generated by capitalism, it is certainly possible to carry vast numbers of people who consume the benefits of the market without participating in it. But make no mistake that such fantastic extra-market lifestyles are luxuries provided BY THE MARKET, not alternatives to it. But if you want to throw the poor kiddies a bone so that the can lie to themselves that they’re special and principled rather than impotent and subsidized i suppose amidst the political discourse its no more harmless or harmful than any other drivel.