Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Keynesian Absurd Optimism

    From Modeled Behavior

    The desire of the expanders to expand is always exponential. In the end you only need one of them and they will attempt to take over the entire economy. What’s stops them is competition, scarce real resources and financing. Thus if you are in a world where no one else is looking to expand, and real resources are slack, financing is all that’s holding one of these folks back. Practically speaking the price of slack resources also matters because if they actually collapsed in price then at some point you could simply self-finance your empire. But, there is never a shortage of empire builders. There is only a shortage of people willing to lend to empire builders.

    Well, first lets understand that it is entirely possible to saturate all opportunity within any economy unless there is some sort of asymmetry of either resources, information, or technology. The typical keynesian assumption is that we will continue to discover opportunities by the application of technology. And that we can keep doing so forever. I’ll have to answer that obviously historical falsehood in a later posting. But the choice sentence elsewhere in the article was this one:

    “If people genuinely couldn’t find good ways to employ resources then everyone would get poorer but as long as financing is available there need be no recession.”

    That’s the whole point now, isn’t it? Are you sure you understand the implications of that sentence? I don’t think so. Whenever one group of people (a) flocks to an opportunity in significant numbers that they deny access to another group of people (b), the group (b) will work against the interests of group (a) in order to gain their own opportunity. If you view society as a collective consisting of a community of common interests, then perhaps you might favor your progressive bias. However, if you see society as consisting of groups engaged in perpetual and unrelenting class and cultural warfare over the distribution and means of obtaining status and opportunity — where each group uses the state to apply coercion against other sects, then one would develop an entirely different conclusion. Furthermore, if you view yourself as a minority competing with foreign groups, then you would increase your bias in favor group persistence. And from that position, you would see people who ally with the state as your competitors, not members of your community. You (Keynesians) assume the state is a benefit, and apply a methodology that confirms that the state is a benefit, because it serves to confirm your bias. But that benefit is working AGAINST as many preferences as it is in FAVOR of it. Because we have no community of common interest. There is no community of common interest in an empire. The meaning of empire is precisely that people do not share common interests. Small homogenous states are egalitarian because of the status economy – which determines access to mates, people, and opportunity. The status economy is also the natural accounting system of many. People value money and culture, morals,ethics and manners, (that set of forgone opportunity costs we all pay in each moment of our day) as well as different I don’t think you grasp the importance of the fact that almost all decisions consist of far more than prices. In fact, at any given point, market prices are only one factor in any transaction. People actively seek circumstances where they can avoid price consideration – either to demonstrate their status, or to gain human attention, or to simply avoid existing in the monetary economy. In complex decisions, all sorts of different biases are ‘funded’ by choices between one provider of goods and another whenever prices are not marginally different. Assuming all prices are equal for a particular good or service, people generally do business with those people with whom they can exchange status signals, or options on future discounts due to loyalty. It’s not that you’re mistaken in your understanding of the monetary models, or the benefit of monetary policy. It’s that you’re not accounting for the friction in that model that is determined by the signaling economy. And that friction can approach the infinite whenever you do not have a homogenous society. And if you have a homogenous society, you then need a common currency. Because a currency is the means of shared investment, risk and reward among a people with a set of common interests. (Homogenous: meaning the shared mythology, the shared methods of signaling within the methodology, the shared definitions of property, the shared methods of paying for the informal institutions that perpetuate those property definitions: manners, ethics, and morals, the shared institutions for resolving conflicts over the transfer of property, and the shared institutions for concentrating and applying capital toward shared ends. All of which is bounded by the complexity of the division of labor in in turn which is determined by the percentage of the population with an of IQ over 105.) 🙂 Curt

  • Ask Men is conducting it’s annual top 99 survey. But you can’t nominate anyone.

    Ask Men is conducting it’s annual top 99 survey. But you can’t nominate anyone. Sure, you can vote for the obvious Nicole Kidman and Ann Hathaway. But what good is a survey without Emily De Ravin and Sienna Miller, or even Gwyneth Paltrow? (And what is Pippa doing on that list?) I’ve been working on a long essay on beauty for the past couple of years, on and off. (Did you know people are actually getting better looking?) But like fashion, beauty is becoming a domain of the lower classes, just as have become the arts. Sigh. More vulgar and sexual than representative of human excellence, perfection and grace. … I follow The Sartorialist daily. (Everyone who loves fashion should.) But he captures, better than anyone, the reality that it is a product all too often of the lower middle, and proletarian classes. On the other hand, Ralph Lauren and Gucci pretty much have a creative monopoly on influencing elegance. Fashion is signaling. And from an economic perspective, it’s fascinating.

    Source date (UTC): 2011-11-18 20:50:00 UTC

  • Krugman Watch: Culture Is A Status Economy

    The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. … The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But .. the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well — if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer… Meanwhile, before the crisis … spending on welfare-state programs … was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany… Oh, and Canada … has weathered the crisis better than we have.

    ( Sweden is a small homogenous protestant germanic country. It is an outlier. ) No one argues that highly redistributive societies are possible. We argue that large redistributive empires are impossible. This impossibility is caused by the fact that the social ‘economy’ that consists of opportunities, habits, manners, ethics and morals consists of a set of ‘costs’ that people must bear by ‘forgoing opportunity for privatization’. This forgone opportunity economy’s currency is status and this status economy rewards people for paying the fees of forgone opportunities. Money is the tool by which people pursue status by competing in the market. In any economy, racial and cultural (linguistic) diversity creates diverse sets of status signals cause economic competition that discourages redistribution. Therefore a redistributive economy can only persist in a homogenous society. And a rich, redistributive economy is only LIKELY to persist in a country where people are homogenous — culturally and racially. So, all external factors being equal, because of signaling, all empires are under constant pressure to fragment into tribes, and all tribes are under pressure to develop competitive institutions. Nationalism then is a prerequisite for wealth and redistribution. As Taleb states, the Levantines thought they were special too. Until there weren’t enough christians… Germanic protestants resent Northern germanic-italians resent souther greco-italians. And public intellectuals resent the status of both politicians and entrepreneurs and seek to alther the status economy for their benefit — just as Schumpeter said they would. 🙂

  • Watch: framing the debate by tactics not strategy as a means of undermining the

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/10/krugman-watch-austerity-class-or-is-it-a-starve-the-beast-class/Krugman Watch: framing the debate by tactics not strategy as a means of undermining the argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2011-10-21 15:12:00 UTC

  • is propagating The Myth Of The General Strike, and the Myth of the Revolution. H

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/22/michael_moore_threatens_the_rich_lets_deal_with_it_nonviolently_now.html#.TnyZi-cKTyA.facebookMoore is propagating The Myth Of The General Strike, and the Myth of the Revolution. He puts this silly threat out there, that violence will come from the proletariat, when in fact, history shows quite clearly that it is very easy for the wealthy to conquer and oppress the proletariat. In fact, it’s pretty much the way government is done. The only times that the proletariat has succeeded have been when it’s been led by the upper middle class. So, while I think Moore is disgusting – as a human being he’s disgusting -but aside from that emotional response, he’s also just plain wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2011-09-23 10:53:00 UTC

  • Why I’m Harping On Karl Smith

    There are only two people who make rational arguments on the ‘left’. They’re you and Krugman. We all know he’s a political shill. I’m in the camp that says you’re a moral man, and just missing the point of it all. But if you don’t understand the disastrous externalities created by our statism (re: Nial Ferguson, Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek), then it may not matter if you are a moral man or not. The time frame of data that you mine so carefully (and so well) is too short to incorporate the consequences of long term expansion of the state. Only history will show you that. And the history of political economy is pretty clear on these matters. On my side of the fence, we’ve given up on Krugman. Myself, I’m looking for the people who unify the two points of view – who use macro without the disastrous externalities of expanding the state. You might be that man. On the other hand, I might just have false hopes. It might be impossible to find someone who can put out a daily column in a major newspaper uniting both sides and creating a political movement that gets us out of permanent political decline. Someone emailed me yesterday to lighten up on you. I would. But the stakes are too high. I have hope that you’re “neo” so to speak. 🙂 You are articulate enough. You’re skeptical enough. You’re fast enough. You’re humble enough. You understand the data. And you rely upon moral sentiments. A decent editor and you’re there. Or rather, you’re there if you understand that the state bureaucracy creates ‘bads’. 🙂 Curt

  • Karl Smith Says The Boom Wasnt All That Big, But The Bust Has Been Huge

    Karl Smith wants us to push money into the economy through redistribution. That’s his hammer and everything looks like a nail. In today’s posting, he finds another nail:

    This is a theme I talk about it a lot so I can go into it more but the boom in housing construction was not actually that big. It peaked around 2005. It was offset by a decline weakness in commercial construction. That picked up in 2005 but was in decline by 2007. And public construction ran low right up until 2007. Combine that with the fact that construction is not that big a part of the economy to begin with and the bubble wasn’t really that big. It looks big in part because prices were so distorting and because single family suburban construction really was moving like gangbusters. That’s where a lot of us live but its not where all Americans live and its not where most Americans work. Urban and rural construction was in the dumpster. There is a strong argument that this was classic crowding-out though I am not totally convinced. In any case the boom was small and nothing compared to the bust.

    Karl, People are not only price oriented, but future (opportunity) oriented. Their willingness to spend is based not only on prices but on meta-level discourse, and their ability to flock or school to opportunities. I know you know this, but how does that play into your model? If people see an uncertain future (like before an expected war, or loss of national competitiveness) then simply reducing interest rates won’t work. If they don’t trust their government (from either pole) then they won’t allow government to grow. The only thing left is a great deal of strategic spending on competitive industries that people will politically support. There are plenty of avenues for that investment. And simply channeling the political discourse to direct investment will eliminate both the irritation with the government and the uncertainty, allowing people to flock/school toward those investments (creating new patterns of sustainable specialization and trade so to speak), and creating demand. Demand comes from schooling/flocking toward opportunities. I realize that in a neutral polity, lower rates allow people to chase status-oriented consumption. But in a non-neutral, hostile polity, status-chasing can come from destroying the economy itself. You’re right that we need stimulus. You’re wrong that we can take the lazy way out. That stimulus must go into increasing the international competitiveness of the private sector and productive returns. The population will support that. They wont support aggregate spending, or political expansion. THey just won’t and you won’t convince them. So what’s stopping you from solving the problem through the third axis? Is it knowledge of what to invest in? (Maybe.) Is it time (you’re losing time anyway by tilting at the political windmill). SO WHO IS BEING IRRATIONAL? In effect, you are. THe people have decided. And no, your desire for totalitarianism so that you can use your two preferred methods in stead of the third is just not a good idea in the long term. Curt

  • Karl Smith Says The Boom Wasnt All That Big, But The Bust Has Been Huge

    Karl Smith wants us to push money into the economy through redistribution. That’s his hammer and everything looks like a nail. In today’s posting, he finds another nail:

    This is a theme I talk about it a lot so I can go into it more but the boom in housing construction was not actually that big. It peaked around 2005. It was offset by a decline weakness in commercial construction. That picked up in 2005 but was in decline by 2007. And public construction ran low right up until 2007. Combine that with the fact that construction is not that big a part of the economy to begin with and the bubble wasn’t really that big. It looks big in part because prices were so distorting and because single family suburban construction really was moving like gangbusters. That’s where a lot of us live but its not where all Americans live and its not where most Americans work. Urban and rural construction was in the dumpster. There is a strong argument that this was classic crowding-out though I am not totally convinced. In any case the boom was small and nothing compared to the bust.

    Karl, People are not only price oriented, but future (opportunity) oriented. Their willingness to spend is based not only on prices but on meta-level discourse, and their ability to flock or school to opportunities. I know you know this, but how does that play into your model? If people see an uncertain future (like before an expected war, or loss of national competitiveness) then simply reducing interest rates won’t work. If they don’t trust their government (from either pole) then they won’t allow government to grow. The only thing left is a great deal of strategic spending on competitive industries that people will politically support. There are plenty of avenues for that investment. And simply channeling the political discourse to direct investment will eliminate both the irritation with the government and the uncertainty, allowing people to flock/school toward those investments (creating new patterns of sustainable specialization and trade so to speak), and creating demand. Demand comes from schooling/flocking toward opportunities. I realize that in a neutral polity, lower rates allow people to chase status-oriented consumption. But in a non-neutral, hostile polity, status-chasing can come from destroying the economy itself. You’re right that we need stimulus. You’re wrong that we can take the lazy way out. That stimulus must go into increasing the international competitiveness of the private sector and productive returns. The population will support that. They wont support aggregate spending, or political expansion. THey just won’t and you won’t convince them. So what’s stopping you from solving the problem through the third axis? Is it knowledge of what to invest in? (Maybe.) Is it time (you’re losing time anyway by tilting at the political windmill). SO WHO IS BEING IRRATIONAL? In effect, you are. THe people have decided. And no, your desire for totalitarianism so that you can use your two preferred methods in stead of the third is just not a good idea in the long term. Curt

  • Walter Russel Meade Falsely Calls Me A Racist And A Troll

    Comments were shut down on Walther Russell Meade’s site, and they called me a Racist and a Troll. I get called every name in the book. I’m a frequent critic of opposing viewpoints, more than a popularizer of existing libertarian ideas. So I interject opposing viewpoints into all sorts of silly online discussions. And in these interjections I use propertarian analysis rather than so called ‘moral arguments’. This tends to expose arguments for what they really are: forms of theft, or deception. It’s a more complex version of ‘follow the money’. And, I’m not out to avoid offense. Economics and politics are not matters for nicety. They’re too serious. I’m trying to get at the truth. And that’s upsetting to people. Meade invited criticism not just from myself but others, by posting a self=congratulatory article about the anniversary of Mein Kampf and then pandering to conservatives and jews by stating how ostensibly high-minded we have become. This nonsense attracted criticism from a number of us. ( Obviously they don’t get referenced on the Drudge Report or they would have been overwhelmed by comments similar to mine. ) I absolutely despise self congratulatory nonsense that is a cover for transfers of wealth, status and power. And I made it clear I wasn’t alone. After a few back and forth comments, they shut down the comments section and (I think) dropped the article from the site. I can’t find it any longer. LABELS AS A FALURE OF IDEAS Casting labels at people such as ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semitic’ so that you can shut down an argument is a convenient tactic. It’s very convenient. Especially when it’s not true. If I state that men vote conservatively, and woman progressively. Or that women vote heavily on looks rather than policy. Those are true empirical statements. If I argue that jews as a block are predominantly progressive, then that’s simply factual. Here is what they said:

    Writing about race and religion brings out the trolls; Via Meadia‘s normally urbane and civilized comment pages have been invaded recently by two groups of posters. One wants to argue simultaneously that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist and that it is caused by the bad behavior of Jews. The other wants to turn discussions of urban policy into an argument over alleged genetic differences between the races. We have already trashed many of the worst of these comments. Readers can imagine what some of them were like.

    In this sentence, the “group” in question is me.

    One wants to argue simultaneously that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist and that it is caused by the bad behavior of Jews.

    Which is not what I said. I said that:

      That’s What I Said. And it’s true. (See my other articles on the subject.) The tea party is the most obvious evidence that whites are acting as a minority. IRRATIONAL RACISM If someone is biased against a gene pool, that is simply ridiculous behavior. It is irrational to judge an individual by the properties of his or her class. It’s just idiocy. It is not however, irrational to judge a class by the properties of its individuals. That is just rational. Every marketer in the country, and every pollster, does it every single day. RATIONAL STATEMENTS ABOUT RACE To economically disenfranchise people from a market is clearly racism. To criticize their beliefs, particularly if those beliefs are racially motivated, is simply honest discourse. These are just facts that explain behavior. I would argue that white male christians would be very happy if jewish males voted more conservatively. So, I do not see why it’s anti-semitic (racist) to make these observations. It’s just TRUE. And if it were not true then there would be laws protecting the rights of white men, rather than a vast array of laws stacked against them. But there aren’t. And therefore people ACT racially, and the government acts racially. So we cannot both have racial policies and deny they exist. PEOPLE DEMONSTRATE RACIAL PREFERENCES Female dating and marriage preferences demonstrate overwhelming adherence to racial lines. (From large empirical studies of dating sites.) Friendship circles demonstrate a racial preference. Moving and housing patterns reflect dramatic preferences for same race (U-Haul rental patterns). Voting patterns match racial distributions. Work environments demonstrate racial preferences. Race is a motivating factor in associations. Racial issues are common in political discourse. Some races are expressly racist (North Koreans and Jews.) RACE IS A FACTOR IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Politics is the art and science of obtaining political power for the purpose of obtaining a) rents (see [glossary:rent-seeking] for non economists) b) redistributions, c) privileges (economic opportunities) d) and most importantly, redistributing SOCIAL STATUS. Social status controls access to mates and access to opportunities. People ACT as racial blocks when voting. That’s just data. It is what it is. WHY ARE PEOPLE RACIALLY MOTIVATED? 1) because status signals are superior within racial group than out of group – except under marginal circumstances. That’s the single most important reason why racial groups stick together. 2) And, because human beings do attach a hierarchy to the different races, and to skin color within each race. This is just true. Plain and simple. LIMITS We should not enact policy that does anything other than treat all people equally regardless of race. Furthermore, we should not fear political discourse about races, since people ACT racially. RACIAL PREFERENCES ARE GROUNDS FOR LEGITIMATE CRITICISM It’s the ideas in people’s head’s that’s problematic in political discourse, not their genes. If members of a gene pool demonstrate political preferences, if they form political organizations, if they write, speak and demonstrate their political preferences, and if those preferences are controversial, then it is simply honest to criticize them. It isn’t racism. It’s simply FACT. And in turn if those people hide under the cover of racism, then that’s simply dishonest political discourse. But these [glossary:schumpeterian intellectuals] feel perfectly happy to pat themselves on the head for high mindedness, when it’s really just pandering. As a conservative libertarian I pick away daily at those [glossary:schumpeterian intellectuals] on the web who abuse the sentiments, traditions, ideals motivations of those who would continue to deprive us of our freedom. I criticize the double standard. I am, like many white males, tired of bias against us in news and the courts. I am tired of having my rights taken, rather than rights granted to others. And I am very protective of our freedom. And the most important way of protecting that freedom is to protect the culture and the constitution that promotes it. So if you want to get into name calling as a means of providing yourself with cover by which to attack people with the same values I do, then I’ll be there with a hundred others to refute you. Because that is honest political discourse. Curt

    • only people that think about Marxism any longer are silly people in the liberal

      http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=3112The only people that think about Marxism any longer are silly people in the liberal arts who are so invested in the Marxian fantasy that they cannot change even if they wanted to, and simply haven’t died off yet. Marxism, like the French Rationalism that Marx took his inspiration from, is anti-empirical: contrary to the evidence. It’s too bad that the French and Marx failed to understand that English Liberalism w

      Source date (UTC): 2011-07-02 12:19:00 UTC