WHAT IS THE HAJNAL LINE?
It is the line the separates the germanic manorial marriage pattern (late marriage, fewer children) from the early marriage cultures.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Because the manorial system seems to have increased northern european IQ.
Source date (UTC): 2012-02-10 10:06:00 UTC
On Economix at the NYT, Bruce Bartlett writes that it’s difficult to count who’s ‘rich’.
The first thing to know is that there is no formal definition of who is rich, middle class or poor. Of course, there is an official definition for the poverty rate, but that figure is just a back of the envelope calculation that has simply been increased by the inflation rate since the 1960s. There are many other ways of calculating the poverty rate that could either raise the poverty threshold or reduce it. Another problem is that one’s social class is a function of both income and wealth. There are many among the elderly who have little income but may have fairly substantial wealth by, for example, owning a home free and clear. At the other end, there are those with high incomes who are, nevertheless, deeply in debt, perhaps even having a negative net worth.
It is certainly possible to calculate who is ‘rich’. The goal of every individual is to exit the market. Whether that individual studies hard to get a good (protected) job in big company, or works for the government which by definition is extra-market (and protected), or seeks a (protected) union job, or whether that person does none of that rent-seeking, and instead, exits the market through saving or investment. “Rich” means ‘exiting the market’. To exit the market one needs roughly on hundred times the median income, or about 4.5-5M today. It used to be that a million dollars meant something meaningful, but it doesn’t. You can easily burn through it if you’re the kind of person that can make it in the first place. Rich is a balance sheet calculation, not an income calculation. If a person’s balance sheet exceeds about one hundred times the median income (which is by definition, the 1%) then realistically, it doesn’t matter how much of their income you tax. I suspect that the various means of calculating maximum utility taxation is closer to 60 or 65% based upon what I can find. But if you tax the income of a small business person who is trying to exit the market, then we certainly have the right to wipe out social security, wipe out pension programs, fire federal workers and wipe out their savings. Because unless those assets are counted, the definition of ‘rich’ is asymmetrically used to punish people who participate in the market.
On Economix at the NYT, Bruce Bartlett writes that it’s difficult to count who’s ‘rich’.
The first thing to know is that there is no formal definition of who is rich, middle class or poor. Of course, there is an official definition for the poverty rate, but that figure is just a back of the envelope calculation that has simply been increased by the inflation rate since the 1960s. There are many other ways of calculating the poverty rate that could either raise the poverty threshold or reduce it. Another problem is that one’s social class is a function of both income and wealth. There are many among the elderly who have little income but may have fairly substantial wealth by, for example, owning a home free and clear. At the other end, there are those with high incomes who are, nevertheless, deeply in debt, perhaps even having a negative net worth.
It is certainly possible to calculate who is ‘rich’. The goal of every individual is to exit the market. Whether that individual studies hard to get a good (protected) job in big company, or works for the government which by definition is extra-market (and protected), or seeks a (protected) union job, or whether that person does none of that rent-seeking, and instead, exits the market through saving or investment. “Rich” means ‘exiting the market’. To exit the market one needs roughly on hundred times the median income, or about 4.5-5M today. It used to be that a million dollars meant something meaningful, but it doesn’t. You can easily burn through it if you’re the kind of person that can make it in the first place. Rich is a balance sheet calculation, not an income calculation. If a person’s balance sheet exceeds about one hundred times the median income (which is by definition, the 1%) then realistically, it doesn’t matter how much of their income you tax. I suspect that the various means of calculating maximum utility taxation is closer to 60 or 65% based upon what I can find. But if you tax the income of a small business person who is trying to exit the market, then we certainly have the right to wipe out social security, wipe out pension programs, fire federal workers and wipe out their savings. Because unless those assets are counted, the definition of ‘rich’ is asymmetrically used to punish people who participate in the market.
“Capitalism as it is used in common discourse, refers to a decision making-methodology in it’s narrowest form, and a general bias in it’s broader form, that is used by members of a population that describes a broad spectrum of property definitions from the most several (individual) property, to the most shareholder (collective) forms of property, the entire spectrum of which requires calculable means of planning production, and the transfer between individuals by voluntary means — and which specifically prohibits transfer by involuntary means. This institutional bias, it’s property definitions, the modes of transfer, and the means of dispute resolution, can be represented along a second axis describing a broad spectrum of enforcement mechanisms from the most informal and voluntary, which rely entirely upon the power of ostracization and opportunity deprivation, to the most formal and involuntary, which rely upon a contract called a constitution that enumerates property rights and exceptions, either written and explicit or oral and traditional, and that includes a judiciary that resolves disputes according to those enumerated rights and exceptions no matter how they are encoded.’ X-Axis: Individual ->Shareholder Y-Axis: Informal -> Formal (Diagram Attached)
An anarchist might argue that capitalism consists of individual property rights (informal+individual). A classical liberal would argue that capitalism consists of individual property rights that are constitutionally administered (Individual+Formal). A communist would argue that property is entirely shareholder driven and at least according to marx, rules would be unnecessary under communism (Shareholder + informal). A democratic socialist would argue that property is communal, and divided up for purely utilitarian purposes, and that laws and administration are needed (Shareholder + Formal). All current political philosophies incorporate the notion of property rights, since economic calculation is impossible without them. The current argument is that all individuals in an economy are shareholders (which is hard to refute), and that because they are shareholders they are due dividends. Our ancestors solved this problem by suggesting that freedom was sufficient compensation for shareholders. ‘Input freedom’ or ‘freedom of opportunity’. This means that there are no involuntary transfers allowed. Property requires institutions because institutions are required to defend property. The private law society, and it’s progenitor the monarchy, are superior forms of government. They are perhaps the best form of government ever invented.
Power: “The opportunity to alter the probability of outcomes”.
Sovereignty: “Power”
Will to Power: “The Human Desire For Sovereignty”
Given the diversity of individual ability, the diversity of individual knowledge, and the diversity of the social classes, all desire for sovereignty is constant, but the expression of it varies almost infinitely. Those at the bottom desiring sovereignty from constraints of scarcity and status deprivation, and those at the top desiring sovereignty of expression over that of their competitors for the ultimate in status attainment. Amidst this vast chaos of wills, the public intellectual attempts to define status – a re-distributor and appropriator of not just money, but status and power.
Make no mistake. It’s all about money, status and power.
Source date (UTC): 2011-10-13 11:51:00 UTC
http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=3302Any definition of “Equitable” requires we understand ALL the transfers involved, and the ALL consequences of those transfers.
Source date (UTC): 2011-07-18 08:56:00 UTC
http://www.capitalismv3.com/?page_id=2874A Glossary for use in evaluating political arguments. (Given that almost all political debate is Eristic, it’s useful to know what ‘Eristic’ means.)
Source date (UTC): 2011-06-18 18:36:00 UTC
Monarchy = Nationalism.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-16 17:20:00 UTC
An Ideology: Any reasonably coherent set of social, cultural, moral and political ideas that can be used to obtain and hold political power on the behalf of a part of a population that perceives it has similar interests. Monarchy needs a sufficient ideological base. The people have abandoned the church. The church has abandoned christendom. Economics has replaced cultural nationalism, and empirical tools have replaced the moral sentiments. For monarchy to prevail in the post-mystical age, we must remake it’s foundations so that they rely upon economic and cultural superiorities, not desire to return to the past.
Monarchs are superior to elected ministers because they have a longer time preference, and with a longer time preference they can more wisely veto those changes which will, in the long term, harm the society – because they are not subject to the fashions of the people.
There are three basic western philosophical traditions: 1) Aristocratic and Conservative with the longest time preference. 2) Middle Class and Classical Liberal with medium time preference 3) Proletarian and socialist with short time preference. These three philosophies loosely correspond to social class sentiments and perceptions of social order. THey also loosely correspond to the Monarchy, the Senate, and House of Commons. The insight of the british model was to give each social class it’s house, and to force the houses to collaborate in order to enact laws.
This model was sufficient until the american and french revolutions attempted to break the class model and transfer full power to either the middle or lower classes. And was further exacerbated by the Russian and chinese revolutions which (regrettably) succeeded in transferring political power to the proletariat. After the world wars, Europe was broken and rejected the aristocratic model entirely. (Wrongly. Germany was right. German social order is the most economically productive yet discovered because it mobilizes the working class to produce quality exports.) Instead, governments sought solace in socialist doctrine and universal enfranchisement, while authoritarian and military control was absorbed by the Americans along with the British navy and port system. Americans used this period of economic prosperity to assert their inherited global military power to undermine communism – successfully, but is not largely bankrupt and unable to fund it’s existing military structure as well as it’s redistributionist benefit system. Instead, Americans export debt instead of taxing other countries, and they use that debt to finance the cost of running the world trade system. Unfortunately, in the process of running the empire, Americans have now become a fractured society, with race, culture and class divisions, as well as somewhere between four and ten different ‘nations’ within the USA, operating under the administration of an international imperial government. The US economy is now so dependent upon the value of the dollar, and the use of military force to determine the means by which trade is administered, that the citizenry will suffer if these obligations are reduced.
This series of events shows the danger of empire building, whether it is done on purpose as in the case of Britain defending herself from spain and france, or by accident, in the case of the USA, trying to maintain stability during and after the war period.
The optimum government must reflect the class structure of society in one way or another, so that the classes that do exist can use the government to cooperate rather than regress into class warfare.
A constitution enumerating the specific powers of the government. A hereditary monarch with veto power. A senate of commerce and banking whose members must meet rigid criteria, and who are chosen by lottery. A house of redistribution that is democratically elected. An independent judiciary operating on the common law. And most importantly, 1) issuing loans not laws – loans are calculable and forecastable. 2) the senate borrowing money from the house and repaying interest for use in redistribution to the house, 3) the privatization of all offices of government, so that a bureaucracy cannot form and seize power. 4) electronic presentation of all house legislation, and direct democratic voting on individual bills. 5) Immigration requires cultural assimilation and language adoption, as well as purchased right of entry, and accountable sponsorship of the individual. 6) The return of the majority of political power to the states, and the limitation of the federal government to money, insurance, and defense. 7) the right of nullification and secession is inviolate.
Money, Insurance, War are global but all trade and culture is local. — And that’s how people want it. Classes exist and in any society will either cooperate and prosper, or in conflict, they will undermine that society and it’s government.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-12 15:18:00 UTC
Today, someone, in an obscure little news group, expressed his libertarian sentiments by saying:
“Common law is good enough for all: You must not cause harm, damage or loss, infringe on the rights of others or use mischief in business. To be accused you must have a flesh and blood accuser who can provide proof of claim against you.A jury of 12 decide your fate.”
Which is true, albeit insufficient. And that insufficiency warrants a little scrutiny. Starting with the fact that the other distinguishing factor of common law is that judges ‘discover’ new properties of dispute resolution as need arises. Men do not make laws. They discover them in the habits and conventions used by real people in the process of developing written and unwritten contracts with one another. But more importantly, the common law, because it is reactive, and evolutionary, and organic, rather than intentional and proscriptive prevents “legal plunder”: the use of the violence of POSITIVE LAW (law enacted versus discovered) to plunder the population. In other words, our freedom depends upon the common law, and our prosperity depends upon our freedom. But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. THE WEAKNESS OF COMMON LAW The weakness in common law is this: When the rate of expansion of an economy results in new entrants into the middle class, new forms of business, new forms of contract, and new technologies, then the evolutionary process of adaptation embodied in the common law comes under duress, since patterns of similarity are difficult for judges to identify. This judicial epistemic delay and lack of coordination can result in return to the perceptoin of ‘arbitrariness’ on behalf of the population which in turn can lead to ‘regime uncertainty’ (fear of trade and exchange due to fear of legal action) which decreases the volume of economic activity and subjects the population to economic vulnerability from external competition. Furthermore, ‘regime uncertainty’ may drive entrepreneurs to seek jurisdictions more favorable to business, which results in capital flight, and a loss of jobs. LAW AND THE COMPLEXITY OF MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS Law becomes cumbersome and incalculable when the competing interests of:
compete with the organically driven properties of:
These two sets create no less than is six dimensions of complexity. Unfortunately, human beings are almost never capable of making more than a single-axis comparison. Property rights are the only clear epistemological device for creating a legal system that is calculable. Every other layer of dimensional complexity will lead to (the opposite) Instead of “regime uncertainty”. TERMINOLOGY IN CONTEXT – AND NEW TERMS TO REPLACE THE OLD When our English ancestors, and our Founders, fought for ‘their rights as englishmen’, they fought for common law, and the personal sovereignty over their property that must accompany the common law in order for the common law to have coordinated purpose, rather than chaotic result. Only property rights allow rational adjudication of differences between men. All else is chaos. For these reasons you should never surrender your sovereignty to the state. That we need a government in order to resolve differences among us is one thing. That we should surrender our nobility (rights to allocate our own property) to others is not only illogical, it is impoverishing. We generally use the terms ‘Freedom’ and ‘Property Rights’. But Freedom has become an ‘appropriated term’ and Property ‘rights’ has become a ‘laundered term’. The more precise and utilitarian terms, that preserve rational debate are:
**[glossary:Sovereignty]**
2) **[glossary:Calculability]** for the purpose of cooperation and coordination instead of ‘rights’. (Rights are now an abused appropriated term. Something can only be a ‘right’ if it can be given by each individual to each other individual equally. Therefore, we can only NOT do things, not DO things, in order to grant one another ‘rights’. There can be no ‘positive’ rights without fiat law.) 3) **[glossary:Property]** (or several property) instead of property rights. 4) **[glossary:Foregone Opportunity Costs]** instead of duties or obligations. 5) **[glossary:Portfolio of Forgone Opportunity Costs]*** instead of cultural values Since these terms, Self-Sovereignity, Calculatibity, and Several-Property are NECESSARY properties of human cooperation, rather than indistinct, appropriated, logically inconsistent or emotionally loaded terms, (n-dimensional terms: those that contain unarticulated dimensions for the purpose of distorting causality –ie: fraud — and most commonly for the purpose of mixing emotional reaction, which is a property of the past, with epistemic necessity, which is a property of the future). USEFUL DEFINITIONS: 0) LAWS
1) COMMON LAWS:
2) FIAT LAWS:
Manners, Ethics, Morals and the Common Law are a “self evolving, organic system” of rules for coordinating the actions of people in large numbers. As long as judges are allowed to use manners, ethics and morals in concert with the common law, in adjudicating differences. THE RESULT OF MULTICULTURALISM For this reason alone – ‘common law competition’, multiculturalism is an extremely high burden on an economy when combined with Fiat laws. Political Multiculturalism causes competition between common law systems, that may only be resolved through fiat law. Multiculturalism is then, “The Other Road To Serfdom”.