IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST?
I was too optimistic. Enthralled by my discovery. Desperate to provide my people with a language of self defense.
People had used the supernatural frame for more than 1500 years, and the supernormal frame before that. Look at what it took to overthrow the church’s lies. It took the restoration of commercial civilization, so that we could sufficiently practice law that once again our contractualism dominated the thought of the classes that possessed any semblance of literacy and agency; and then it took the restoration of greek knowledge, the restoration of greek heroic literature, the restoration of mathematics, and its use on the heavens (scale) to falsify supernaturalism, and a tidal wave of discoveries from descartes’ rediscovery that the universe was open to our comprehension via instruments both physical and logical through darwin, watson, and crick.
And there are still those who deny Darwin, advance or follow conspiracy theory, informational pseudoscience, social pseudoscience, physical pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism, and the (nihilistic) occult and (optimistic) new age. And our academy, our public intellectuals, and our politicians are as guilty of pseudo-everything as the most vociferous proletarian adamant about the virtues of communism.
People can’t imagine a world where people speak truthfully because that is the norm, and the grammar of truthful speech is the norm, any more than they could imagine a world free of supernaturalism, any more than they could imagine a world free of shamanism. But we converted from a world of supernaturalism to a world of reason. Even if we were subsequently converted to pseudoscience.
We still make use of supernatural context, ratio-moral contexts, pseudoscientific contexts, and rarely, scientific contexts.
It’s not that a people need to be particularly intelligent in order to prosper, to defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and to transform the earth if not the universe into an eden. It’s that the formal, informal, informational, and normative institutions that supply the majority of *calculative* power (positive knowledge and negative reduction of ignorance) through the presence of *context*, and the removal of those who cannot use and therefore competitively survive (calculate) under that context that is the problem.
Truth is disruptive. Because lies create opportunities for discounts and rents. And man excels and identifying and exploiting opportunities for rents.
So, is it possible to require truthful speech via formal institutional means and from that requirement evolve contexts both informal, informational, and normative?
Of course it is. It may not seem so to those who don’t practice the discipline every day but it’s rather obvious to me and those others that do use it. I mean, just as we improve tools to improve precision, and improve logical tools (math, programming, simulations, general theories and laws) we improve various institutional and normative contexts – admittedly at a long lag, and sometimes generations. (Meanwhile others improve upon statements of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit which we must also defeat).
Is it desirable, preferable, utilitarian to demand truth?
If it will defeat Semiticism (judaism, islam)
If it will save your civilization?
if it will save mankind?
I think so.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Is The Utility of Truthfulness Worth The Cost?
IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST? I was too optimistic. Enthralled by my discovery. Desperate to provide my people with a language of self defense. People had used the supernatural frame for more than 1500 years, and the supernormal frame before that. Look at what it took to overthrow the church’s lies. It took the restoration of commercial civilization, so that we could sufficiently practice law that once again our contractualism dominated the thought of the classes that possessed any semblance of literacy and agency; and then it took the restoration of greek knowledge, the restoration of greek heroic literature, the restoration of mathematics, and its use on the heavens (scale) to falsify supernaturalism, and a tidal wave of discoveries from descartes’ rediscovery that the universe was open to our comprehension via instruments both physical and logical through darwin, watson, and crick. And there are still those who deny Darwin, advance or follow conspiracy theory, informational pseudoscience, social pseudoscience, physical pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism, and the (nihilistic) occult and (optimistic) new age. And our academy, our public intellectuals, and our politicians are as guilty of pseudo-everything as the most vociferous proletarian adamant about the virtues of communism. People can’t imagine a world where people speak truthfully because that is the norm, and the grammar of truthful speech is the norm, any more than they could imagine a world free of supernaturalism, any more than they could imagine a world free of shamanism. But we converted from a world of supernaturalism to a world of reason. Even if we were subsequently converted to pseudoscience. We still make use of supernatural context, ratio-moral contexts, pseudoscientific contexts, and rarely, scientific contexts. It’s not that a people need to be particularly intelligent in order to prosper, to defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and to transform the earth if not the universe into an eden. It’s that the formal, informal, informational, and normative institutions that supply the majority of *calculative* power (positive knowledge and negative reduction of ignorance) through the presence of *context*, and the removal of those who cannot use and therefore competitively survive (calculate) under that context that is the problem. Truth is disruptive. Because lies create opportunities for discounts and rents. And man excels and identifying and exploiting opportunities for rents. So, is it possible to require truthful speech via formal institutional means and from that requirement evolve contexts both informal, informational, and normative? Of course it is. It may not seem so to those who don’t practice the discipline every day but it’s rather obvious to me and those others that do use it. I mean, just as we improve tools to improve precision, and improve logical tools (math, programming, simulations, general theories and laws) we improve various institutional and normative contexts – admittedly at a long lag, and sometimes generations. (Meanwhile others improve upon statements of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit which we must also defeat). Is it desirable, preferable, utilitarian to demand truth? If it will defeat Semiticism (judaism, islam) If it will save your civilization? if it will save mankind? I think so. -
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
Why Do We Hate Keynesians?
WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”— If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.
-
Why Do We Hate Keynesians?
WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”— If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.
-
The Burden of Immigrants
One parasitic burden immigrants often impose is overconsumption. Prosperity requires productivity. Productivity requires accumulated capital. Capital requires savings and investment. When a people become prosperous on account of their propensity to save and invest, that attracts immigrants from less prosperous areas, with less prosperous qualities. Even if they only consume what they produce, (that is, even absent redistribution and entitlements) they did not accumulate the capital which now enables them to produce. And if they do not save and invest at rates comparable to the natives, but consume all of their produce (or more) then they are not adding to the capital structure of their new home, but depreciating it, and eroding the conditions which temporarily allow them to enjoy higher incomes and standards of living than they formerly did. Without those immigrants, the native people could retain exclusive use of that capital structure, and its full productive output, in the form of higher wages for their labor, while continuing to add to it.
-
The Burden of Immigrants
One parasitic burden immigrants often impose is overconsumption. Prosperity requires productivity. Productivity requires accumulated capital. Capital requires savings and investment. When a people become prosperous on account of their propensity to save and invest, that attracts immigrants from less prosperous areas, with less prosperous qualities. Even if they only consume what they produce, (that is, even absent redistribution and entitlements) they did not accumulate the capital which now enables them to produce. And if they do not save and invest at rates comparable to the natives, but consume all of their produce (or more) then they are not adding to the capital structure of their new home, but depreciating it, and eroding the conditions which temporarily allow them to enjoy higher incomes and standards of living than they formerly did. Without those immigrants, the native people could retain exclusive use of that capital structure, and its full productive output, in the form of higher wages for their labor, while continuing to add to it.
-
More “What’s Wrong With the Keynesian World?”
Deficit spending on infrastructure that produces returns, and is somehow quantifiable, doesn’t seem to be a problem. I don’t see a problem borrowing against the future for the purposes of production (capital increases). In fact, history is very optimistic about both research investment, infrastructure investment, export market investment, and trade route investment (including conquest). It’s just very pessimistic about funding rents, subsidies, and vote-bribes. OTOH, Destruction of intergenerational lending, is informationally destructive. Distortion of the interest rate is informationally destructive. Flooding the economy with money is informationally destructive. And cumulatively that destruction appears to be more than even the combination of innovation and productivity can compensate for, even in a period of gold rush created by the technology booms. I mean, if it isn’t working from 1990 to the present, it’s not going to work in more common periods. Interest is necessary for the purposes of measurement, and to make use of information by those with demonstrated ability to make judgements. I don’t understand why we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves (the treasury). I don’t understand why we care about our status as a reserve currency except as a means of financing the military empire. And I no longer see much advantage to the preservation of the empire (power projection), only our defense of territory and trade. In fact, the empire has dominated our domestic policy for a century now. Lets take it further: I would see no problem in distributing liquidity (dilution of the money supply) if distributed annually or quarterly to consumers on debit cards – other than the moral hazard it would create. This causes industry to fight for consumer dollars, and gives consumers the option to consume or reduce debt. Right now the distortion by financialization (gambling) rather than capitalization is so …. vast … no one has any idea how to measure it. Other than we can see that ‘something isn’t right here’ and we cant find a target that will correct whatever is wrong. (productivity). Targets are pretty simple really: how many hours to the 66% of people on either side of the median have to work to pay for all non-signal private goods? As far as I know, all interest on consumption of non-signal private goods is money lost from the treasury and capital-producing industry. And that looks like trillions to me.
-
More “What’s Wrong With the Keynesian World?”
Deficit spending on infrastructure that produces returns, and is somehow quantifiable, doesn’t seem to be a problem. I don’t see a problem borrowing against the future for the purposes of production (capital increases). In fact, history is very optimistic about both research investment, infrastructure investment, export market investment, and trade route investment (including conquest). It’s just very pessimistic about funding rents, subsidies, and vote-bribes. OTOH, Destruction of intergenerational lending, is informationally destructive. Distortion of the interest rate is informationally destructive. Flooding the economy with money is informationally destructive. And cumulatively that destruction appears to be more than even the combination of innovation and productivity can compensate for, even in a period of gold rush created by the technology booms. I mean, if it isn’t working from 1990 to the present, it’s not going to work in more common periods. Interest is necessary for the purposes of measurement, and to make use of information by those with demonstrated ability to make judgements. I don’t understand why we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves (the treasury). I don’t understand why we care about our status as a reserve currency except as a means of financing the military empire. And I no longer see much advantage to the preservation of the empire (power projection), only our defense of territory and trade. In fact, the empire has dominated our domestic policy for a century now. Lets take it further: I would see no problem in distributing liquidity (dilution of the money supply) if distributed annually or quarterly to consumers on debit cards – other than the moral hazard it would create. This causes industry to fight for consumer dollars, and gives consumers the option to consume or reduce debt. Right now the distortion by financialization (gambling) rather than capitalization is so …. vast … no one has any idea how to measure it. Other than we can see that ‘something isn’t right here’ and we cant find a target that will correct whatever is wrong. (productivity). Targets are pretty simple really: how many hours to the 66% of people on either side of the median have to work to pay for all non-signal private goods? As far as I know, all interest on consumption of non-signal private goods is money lost from the treasury and capital-producing industry. And that looks like trillions to me.