Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE BASIC THEORIES OF ECONOMICS You should be at least casually aware of them. I

    THE BASIC THEORIES OF ECONOMICS

    You should be at least casually aware of them.

    I recommend just reading Investopedia from front to back (it’s what I did to make sure I could translate all the terms into propertarian language)

    -Schools of Thought-

    Classical

    Marxism

    Keynesian (positive)

    Neoclassical synthesis

    Austrian School

    -Economic Systems-

    Free market capitalism

    Market socialism

    Central planning

    Mercantilism

    Shock therapy

    Washington consensus

    -Economic Cycles-

    Keynesian (normative)

    Monetarism

    The Phillips curve

    Permanent income hypothesis

    Rational expectations

    Time consistency

    Financial accelerator

    Financial instability hypothesis

    Lender of last resort

    -Growth-

    Neoclassical growth

    New growth theory

    Creative destruction

    Human capital

    The rule of law

    Limits to growth

    -Global Trade-

    Comparative advantage

    Heckscher-Ohlin trade model

    New trade theory

    Optimal currency area

    The impossible trinity

    Purchasing power parity

    -Choice-

    Rational choice

    Game theory

    Public choice

    Expected utility theory

    Prospect theory

    -Tax & Spend Policies-

    Tax incidence

    Excess burden

    Supply-side economics

    Crowding out

    -Markets-

    The invisible hand

    Marginalism

    The tragedy of the commons

    Property rights

    Polluter pays principle

    Adverse selection

    Moral hazard

    Efficient market hypothesis

    Rent seeking

    -MORE Theories To Get You Started-

    Supply and Demand (Invisible Hand)

    Neo-Malthusian (Resource Scarcity)

    Solow Model (growth comes from capital, labor, and technology)

    New Growth Theory (Romer & endogenous growth)

    Institutions and Growth (rule of law, property rights, etc.)

    Efficient Markets Hypothesis

    Permanent Income / Life Cycle Hypothesis

    Something Behavioral (e.g., Prospect Theory)

    Adverse Selection and the Lemons Problem

    Moral Hazard

    Tragedy of the Commons

    Property Rights as a solution to the Tragedy of the Commons

    Game Theory (e.g., Prisoner’s Dilemma)

    Comparative Advantage

    New Trade Theory

    The Trilemma (exchange rates, capital flows, and monetary policy)

    -EVEN More Theories-

    Washington Consensus

    Financial Accelerator

    Theory of Independent Central Banks

    Bagehot Theory of Central Bank Lending

    Creative Destruction (Schumpeter)

    Ricardian Equivalence

    Dynamic Consistency

    Diversification and Investment Portfolio Design

    Capital Asset Pricing Model

    Option Valuation (Black-Scholes et al.)

    Austrian Economics

    Speculative Bubbles (e.g., Minsky)

    Liquidationist View of Downturns

    Time Value of Money (incredibly important but very old)

    Public Choice / Economic Theory of Regulation (politicians and government workers as self-interested maximizers)

    Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem

    Welfare Theorems

    Veblen and Conspicuous Consumption

    Polluter Pays Principle (e.g., Piouvian Taxes)

    Offsetting Behavior (e.g., people drive safe cars more aggressively)

    Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory

    Optimal currency areas

    Exchange Rates and Purchasing Power Parity

    Mercantilism

    Rubinomics

    Supply-side Economics

    Laffer Curve

    Phillips Curve

    Theories of Economic Geography

    Fisher Theory of Interest Rates

    Liquidity Traps

    Resource Curse (Dutch Disease)

    Exchange Rate Overshooting (Dornbusch)

    Auctions

    Mechanism Design

    Principal-Agent Theory (e.g., separation of management and ownership)

    Theory of Optimal Taxation (e.g., broad base, low rate, tax less-elastic activities)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 12:40:00 UTC

  • LANGUAGE MATTERS English and German, in particular, but indo european languages

    LANGUAGE MATTERS

    English and German, in particular, but indo european languages in general are analytic (meaning low context high precision). English uses a huge vocabulary and very precise grammar to increase precision further than the original german. But that said, german is a precise descriptive language.

    Semitic languages are synthetic (meaning high context low precision). So these languages require a great deal of interpretation, and are open to suggestion, allegory, and multiple meanings.

    Chinese is absurdly synthetic (extremely high context, and extremely low precision), and requires deduction from context to extract meaning. When you directly translate Chinese it sounds poetic. Not because it’s poetic but because it’s so imprecise that we interpret it as poetic.

    The west developed law and science, east reasoning and evidence, and the center superstition, parable, and deceitfulness. Why is it that the semitic peoples choose to lie to each other – and themselves? Why are they so low trust? Why could not even the ottomans produce a bureaucracy?

    Heterogeneity (diversity), Higher aggression. etc….

    —note—

    (Problems of disciplinary cross over. Analytic/Synthetic divide in philosophy, in linguistics(Grammar), vs vocabulary(Semantics) vs. … well you get the idea. I pull from multiple disciplines to create commensurable terminology. Misinterpretation by newbs is predictable.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 11:05:00 UTC

  • THE FUTURE CULT Restoration of Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Markets in E

    THE FUTURE CULT

    Restoration of Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Markets in Everything, ends Abrahamism (Pilpul, Justificationism, Platonism) and all the Abrahamic religions and eliminates the Abrahamic Dark Age. It also eliminates Marxism, Boasianism, Freudianism, Frankfurt school Fictionalism and Postmodernism – which together constitute the second attempt at an Abrahamic Dark Age. And with it the fantasy of the aristocracy of everyone (monopoly) – restoring Tripartism (markets between the classes).

    The question is only how to we replace the supernatural lies (Abrahamic Dark Age One), and the pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies (Abrahamic Dark Age Two) with Truths: Man, Nature, Transcendence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Markets in Everything. And the answer is pretty simple: the truth is enough. our history is itself so wondrous and our defeat of time, ignorance, and abrahamism(deceit) so profound, that there is nothing superior to be thankful for than nature and our ancestors and heroes. History as Mythology. The oath as oath. Remembrance as Ritual and Sacrifice, and Festival as Feast and celebration.

    We are the gods we once worshipped. And we have our ancestors, nature, and the universe to thank.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 10:51:00 UTC

  • WHY OUR RELIGIONS LOST – IT’S OBVIOUS…. —Why did we lose?—Justus Bryce Bec

    WHY OUR RELIGIONS LOST – IT’S OBVIOUS….

    —Why did we lose?—Justus Bryce

    Because the left beat us to a pseudoscientific pseudorational religion faster than we reformed our existing religion. The church had more malincentives. It had built a bigger network of lies. It could not work its way out of those lies.

    Marxism/Feminism/Postmodernism is a secular religion that defeated supernatural religion. They abandoned the church, took over the academy, and replaced the church with the academy.

    And they did it with pseudoscience – the counter-enlightenment against Maxwell, Menger, Darwin, Pareto/Weber/Durkheim, Spencer, Nietzsche, Vagner and the Romantics.

    That’s why we lost.

    They out-invented us.

    How do we out invent them?

    Truth. Intolerant truth. Extremely intolerant truth.

    We have plenty to be thankful for that is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 09:08:00 UTC

  • RELIGIONS ARE EASILY CONSTRUCTABLE BY TRUTHFUL MEANS. I don’t believe in equalit

    RELIGIONS ARE EASILY CONSTRUCTABLE BY TRUTHFUL MEANS.

    I don’t believe in equality (monopoly) of men, or monopoly religion, or monopoly government, or the strategy of the herd (monopoly). Just the opposite.

    We all need a ‘cult’ but that cult needn’t be one of semitic evil, and we certainly have our original cult (germanic-greco-roman) to retunr to as well as our real heroes. Myth, oath, ritual, festival, gathering place. That’s what makes a cult. That’s what provides the ‘programming’. THere are many ways of doing it. And there is no evidence our way is good. Just the opposite. It’s bad. and judaism and islam are worse, and so is hinduism and buddhism. We had it right. Why we keep fucking it up is something we can explain now. But hero-ancestor-nature worship(appreciation/thankfulness) and stoicism (self-authoring in the virtues that produces mindfulness), and celebration of the seasons and cycles of life appears to be better than ‘all the lies’ of abrahamism.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 09:01:00 UTC

  • REVERENCE I don’t revere anything because that would mean I lacked the reason to

    REVERENCE

    I don’t revere anything because that would mean I lacked the reason to judge it without reliance on emotion for decidability.

    There is no difficulty (for me) between talking to a god (which I do daily) and understanding the composition of that god, for the simple reason that talking to a god works. Lots of us talking to gods works better. Just as fitness is a substitute for physical labor, talking to gods is a substitute for talking to our “headmen”, or “Grandparents”.

    I understand that very few of us lack that degree of agency. Which is why I’m trying to find a way to produce the same results without the semitic nonsense.

    Very few people can be entirely dependent upon reason. It’s possible that we can train the majority of the population to have a more rational kind of faith than the evil statist or evil supernatural kinds.

    The problem is finding a narrative that makes it tolerable without making a lot of people ‘disappear’ first.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 06:59:00 UTC

  • WHY IS (WAS) PSYCHOLOGY A PSEUDOSCIENCE —“You said Psychology is not a science

    WHY IS (WAS) PSYCHOLOGY A PSEUDOSCIENCE

    —“You said Psychology is not a science. Can you explain this argument as you have done with Marxism? Thanks”—Jamie Watson

    PSEUDOSCIENCE (AND RELIGION – THE FEMININE)

    (a) based entirely upon projection – with no empirical content (meaning ‘no system of measurement’),

    (b) framed as authoritarian (monopoly) demand for homogeneity as its system of measurement

    (c) framed as deviation from a non-existent but feminine norm:

    (d) framed as guilt for deviation from the authoritarian, feminine, norm.

    (e) The scary one: Freud (using oppression into baseline) was trying to reverse Nietzsche (using freedom to exit baseline). Freud was just creating a pseudoscientific counter-revolution for the female mind(collectivism) against the restoration of the male mind(individualism) by Nietzsche. (Just as Marx and Boaz were creating a counter-revolution against Darwin. Just as Rousseau and Kant a counter-revolution against Locke/Smith/Hume/Newton.)

    SCIENCE (AND LAW – THE MASCULINE )

    (a) all behavior is in pursuit of acquisitions (“man is acquisitive”) of every possible utility – “discounts on risk and calories”.

    (b) all emotions are reactions to changes in state of past, present, and future acquisitions – nothing more. Rewards for training a brain that can learn to acquire.

    (c) all emotions, personality traits, all cognition, and therefore all behavior are biased by the different reproductive strategies of males and females. (wolves(M-eugenic) vs deer(F-dysgenic))

    (d) all acquisition-seeking is biased by class (familial, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value) to others – in other words, the classes demonstrate biases that reflect the needs of their classes in competition-and-cooperation with the other classes.

    (e) We have a limited number of biological reward systems, and those reward systems appear to map to stages of the prey drive (our operational lifecycle) intersecting with our reproductive drives. We describe these variations in reward systems as personality factors and traits.

    (f) ….. (more in an hour…. need to play chauffeur for my niece – my favorite munchkin.)….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:01:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO NEUTRAL TERRITORY FOR GODS The strong do not start from the position

    THERE IS NO NEUTRAL TERRITORY FOR GODS

    The strong do not start from the position of equality, or of desire for cooperation, but from the presumption that either you and yours create value via a productive exchange, or one’s you and yours are better punished, enserfed, enslaved, imprisoned, or killed. We deprive enemies of boycott. Either trade productively or die. Otherwise you are consuming the world’s resources which could be put to better use.

    Once you undrestand that our presumption is between extermination, enslavement, or productive exchange, you understand the folly of leaving open the option for boycott, resistance, or parasitism.

    There is no neutral territory for gods.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 13:50:00 UTC

  • SCIENTISM IS SHAMING UNLESS YOU MEAN POSITIVISM – I DON’T. I DO TESTIMONIALISM.

    SCIENTISM IS SHAMING UNLESS YOU MEAN POSITIVISM – I DON’T. I DO TESTIMONIALISM.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin

    Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood.

    As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases.

    We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act).

    Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration).

    No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference.

    Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 12:27:00 UTC

  • THE GRAMMAR OF PSEUDOSCIENCE (Sorry for interjecting on your post but it’s such

    THE GRAMMAR OF PSEUDOSCIENCE

    (Sorry for interjecting on your post but it’s such a great example of psychologism versus incentives, it’s hard to let the opportunity pass.)

    INTERSECTIONALITY: The study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination.

    Or in economics (real social science, not pseudoscience) we call it the study of formal and informal institutions, and the competition between heterogeneous interests, in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies.

    IDENTITY POLITICS: A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

    Or in economics (real social science, not pseudoscience) we call it ‘kin selection’ and ‘rational self interest’ because the cost of in-group cooperation(opportunity) is lower and the return on in-group signaling higher. The long term consequences result either in small populations and nationalism or large populations and castes. This is because our biological differences are extraordinarily differentiating in all markets for cooperation.

    THE GRAMMAR OF INTELLECTUAL FRAUD

    If suggestion, loading and framing are present in a discourse then it’s not science, it’s pseudoscience. All human behavior is reducible to the same laws as that of the physical universe: defeat of entropy. Emotions are just our reward or punishment for success or failure in fulfillment of those laws. All speech is either descriptive (in economic terms) or coercive (in psychological terms). And therefore truthful or fraudulent.

    There are only three methods of organizing human beings (coercion). 1) Force, 2) Compensation, 3) Ostracization (guilt, shaming, rallying).

    Truth is the only reciprocal compensation among those choices. Everything else is ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud, or predation.

    Cheers

    -Curt.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 09:18:00 UTC