Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Stiglitz Joins In On Keynesian Spending In Order To Expand The Oppressive State

    The Keynesian debate promoted by such writers as Krugman, Delong, Thoma, Smith, and Stiglitz is misleading. Human beings are well aware that spending can increase demand, and that demand will improve the economy. The problem is, that we’re also aware of the externalities that are caused by that spending: the increase in government interference in our lives, the expansion of government’s size, the corruption created by the use of the funds, the use of the funds to support one’s opposition, the destruction of our savings, and the near prohibition on the institution of saving. These negative consequences all support the secondary Keynesian objectives: the strong and increasingly egalitarian state. So Keynesians promote spending as much because of it’s externalities as for its impact on the economy. Just as we oppose those externalities because we desire freedom from an oppressive state, even if we must pay a high cost for doing so. The germans resent supporting the greeks, italians and spanish just as much as americans resent supporting their liberal leaning underclasses. And while it may be true that the scale of our economy allows us to print money, that is not to say that each of us could not be more free, more prosperous, more secure and more competitive, as smaller collections of states rather than a continental federation of states oppressed by the coasts. The Keynesian arguments are convincing on first blush. But they are only convincing because in their simplicity they ignore the true costs of government spending – the externalities that come from empowering the state: it is not debt alone that we face. It’s the destruction of meritocracy and the submission to the state. The germans and the americans are right to oppose it.

  • Political Rhetoric: What Subjects Should Not Be Politicized?

    Politics is the process of creating and using institutions to issue orders, codified as laws, to commit organized violence to coerce others to alter their behavior, and to separate them from their property.  There is no subject that is free from political criticism. Because there are no limits to human desires to alter the behavior of others, or to take property from them.

    If we wish instead, to be free people, we must define the term freedom in both the negative forms in which we forbid actions and thefts and the positive forms, in which we mandate actions and thefts. Once possessed of that definition we can construct a constitution consisting of rules that we are forbidden to circumvent. 

    In doing so we outlaw political action within a particular system.

    Unfortunately, our system of laws and institutions were not strong enough to resist the attacks on them by the left. And our constitution has been rendered meaningless.  Hence why our people begin to abandon it.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Rhetoric-What-subjects-should-not-be-politicized

  • Political Rhetoric: What Subjects Should Not Be Politicized?

    Politics is the process of creating and using institutions to issue orders, codified as laws, to commit organized violence to coerce others to alter their behavior, and to separate them from their property.  There is no subject that is free from political criticism. Because there are no limits to human desires to alter the behavior of others, or to take property from them.

    If we wish instead, to be free people, we must define the term freedom in both the negative forms in which we forbid actions and thefts and the positive forms, in which we mandate actions and thefts. Once possessed of that definition we can construct a constitution consisting of rules that we are forbidden to circumvent. 

    In doing so we outlaw political action within a particular system.

    Unfortunately, our system of laws and institutions were not strong enough to resist the attacks on them by the left. And our constitution has been rendered meaningless.  Hence why our people begin to abandon it.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Rhetoric-What-subjects-should-not-be-politicized

  • Why Are Many Muslim Countries Run By Dictators?

    The Muslim countries were part of the Ottoman empire.  The Ottomans could not modernize for complex reasons, and could not compete with western expansion.

    When the empire fell, the westerners attempted to establish order in the conquered territories, by creating small states. And they promoted leaders in those states.

    Oil has been a strategic necessity in the 20th century and Muslim countries are sitting on it.

    The west was concerned about the expansion of world communism into the Muslim countries and thereby an alliance between those oil producers and Russia and china.  This would have dramatically endangered the west.

    The west attempted successfully to suppress the world communist movement in the Muslim countries by supporting leaders who could hold the popular communist movements at bay, while permitting oil to trade on the market.

    Dictatorship is a natural and common form of government and the idea that it is not is a modern contrivance.  Democracy as we understand it is a luxury that is the product of our technological development. Not the other way around  It is an intellectual mistake to think of it otherwise.  The rest of the world has decided that western democracy is for westerners. THe reason the west is different, and less corrupt, is that we managed to break family bonds of loyalty that are the very reason for existence in the rest of the world. The rest of the world may not achieve our form of democracy because corruption is endemic because they retain the primacy of tribal and familial bonds over that of the collective.

    The USA’s strategy since the second world war has been to prevent the rise of communist and socialist governments until the middle classes in each country can become developed enough to desire capitalism and democratic government, at which point they believe that most countries will become peaceful and predictable members of the world system of trade. 

    The USA pays for and administers the world system of trade.  In exchange we are able to print money and sell it, while deflating it. The rest of the world then uses these dollars to buy oil. I this way we tax the rest of the world for paying for our military program that defends the system of trade.  This is coming to an end.  The USA is seeking to prolong the need for the  dollar for the average American will experience a dramatic decline in his standard of living if the dollar is no longer in demand for oil purchases.

    Iran and Russia are attempting to create alternative oil exchanges not using dollars in order to undermine the ability of the USA to economically finance it’s military and therefore control oil prices.

    Muslim people understand this and it is what is driving their desire to oust dictators and restore their ’empire’ to its former prominence.  They are stifled by corruption, ignorance and poverty.

    The USA does not care who emerges as the leader of that civilization but it would prefer that it was Turkey and not Iran. Iran sees it as its destiny. And if successful iran will unite syria, iraq, iran and pakistan into a political and military block that will control world oil prices.  Russia believes that it will have control over this region, and so are allies. But they are likely mistaken that they will have anything other than a militant neighbor on their southern borders.

    If you can understand this you will understand the world we live in.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-many-Muslim-countries-run-by-dictators

  • Is The “old Left” Still A Viable Force Anywhere In Left-wing Politics?

    No, the effort today has changed from arguing in favor of labor, to arguing in favor of the poor and minorities. And from arguing for rents, to arguing for direct redistribution.
    • Marxism and the managed economy have been discredited.
    • In no small part, Labor is no longer a significant force in society, they are less profitable to run, and Labor Unions have been successfully discredited due to their abuses.
    • Public works projects other than infastructural necessity do not produce the returns anticipated.
    • Much of the Great Society (housing) turns out to be a recipe for poverty and crime. Large central projects turn out to be ineffective (see Detroit, MI.)
    So the movement has focused on direct redistribution. There are many reasons for this change but I would need a more specific question in order to avoid writing a ten thousand words to cover the entire suite of reasons. The left leaning economists desperately want to change this, but the public won’t have it. They are done with additional taxes.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Old-Left-still-a-viable-force-anywhere-in-left-wing-politics

  • Why Is Socialism Such A Bogeyman?

    You would need to understand the term “Socialism”
    1) Original meaning: central control of the means of production.
    2) Current meaning: redistributive democracy -central ownership of the profits from individual actions.

    The first It has a bad name because:
    In the name of socialism nearly a hundred million people died (disruption of incentives). Because it’s economically impossible (economic calculation debate).  And because it held people in poverty.

    The second is just a slow means of achieving the first.

    Small homogenous Germanic countries who’s strategic needs are subsidized by the united states or whose economies are subsidized by natural resources appear to be egalitarian. (It’s called ‘getting to denmark’ in political economy.) This is because they have a rigid normative structure and the different groups are not large enough to create a bloc.  The usa is a large heterogeneous economy with many factions in direct opposition, and unenforced norms, racial and cultural conflicts, facing both internal and external strategic threats that subsidizes much of the world, and where access to government allows access to power over other groups. The USA also has dramatic redistribution through inefficient benefit programs rather than directly via money.   People are not charitable to others who they feel they are in competition with.

    (And before you get too impressed with those countries go live there for a year. It is extremely expensive and you will be able to consume only a fraction of  what you do in the states.)

    It is entirely possible to have a great deal of redistribution if norms are consistent and there is no access to poliitcal power.  But that means ‘small is good’.  And ‘small is good’ is what you should learn from the nordic countries.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-socialism-such-a-bogeyman

  • What Happened To Occupy Wall Street?

    OWS and The tea party are both likely to be long term phenomena caused by structural changes in the USA, and in the world economy.

    OWS still exists as a movement of sorts, but declined for two reasons:
    1) A failure to develop a platform of specific actions.  Movements need policy objectives and they didn’t propose them.  And leadership never emerged that could drive and negotiate them.
    2) The behavior of the members was deemed unacceptable:  In the 60’s the underclasses were emerging as a numeric force sufficient to create both a political and consumer class. Further, their behavior was a rejection of the war, the postwar strategic nuclear threats, and the rigidity of their parent’s disciplined ‘war’ generation.  These other factors are not in play at this time, so while the movement succeeded in propagating the 1% message, they discredited themselves by what the majority consider ‘uncivic’ behavior.

    https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-Occupy-Wall-Street

  • What Happened To Occupy Wall Street?

    OWS and The tea party are both likely to be long term phenomena caused by structural changes in the USA, and in the world economy.

    OWS still exists as a movement of sorts, but declined for two reasons:
    1) A failure to develop a platform of specific actions.  Movements need policy objectives and they didn’t propose them.  And leadership never emerged that could drive and negotiate them.
    2) The behavior of the members was deemed unacceptable:  In the 60’s the underclasses were emerging as a numeric force sufficient to create both a political and consumer class. Further, their behavior was a rejection of the war, the postwar strategic nuclear threats, and the rigidity of their parent’s disciplined ‘war’ generation.  These other factors are not in play at this time, so while the movement succeeded in propagating the 1% message, they discredited themselves by what the majority consider ‘uncivic’ behavior.

    https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-Occupy-Wall-Street

  • How Is An Economic Stimulus Package Supposed To Work?

    There are a series of possible stimuli available from the short term to the long term.
    1) Spending – Fiscal Policy: the government borrows money, then spends it on any number of projects.  This puts money in the hands of consumers, consumers spend on things not related to the projects, and businesses respond in order to serve demand. Their employees spend too, and the cycle expands.  Problem? It takes a long time for money to move into the economy.
    2) Monetary Policy: the government borrows money and then auctions it off at low rates.  Bankers buy this ‘cheap’ money and sell it as lower cost loans to business and the public.  Problem? Sometimes (now) no matter how low you make the cost of credit (effectively zero) people will not borrow it.
    3) Trade Policy. Sometimes you can tax or reduce taxes on goods and services to make them cheaper or more expensive. So, for example, if you want to create jobs in say, clothing manufacture, you highly tax clothing imports.  Problem: this just makes goods and services more expensive for consumers, so it has to be paired with monetary policy.
    4) Industrial policy: what we did with the auto companies. You find a way to create or expand industries that create jobs or create demand.
    5) Education policy: train or retrain your population to produce goods and services that are desired, when the goods and services they produce are no longer as desirable.

    Most of the time, governments quickly adjust monetary policy then they try spending policy.  The argument today is that we should spend more. The problem is that people don’t trust their government to spend it wisely, and they therefore prefer to suffer a slower economy than fund bad behavior in government.

    https://www.quora.com/How-is-an-economic-stimulus-package-supposed-to-work

  • Why Do Libertarians Treat Social Order And Civil Society As Free Goods?

    They don’t. While it costs nothing to abstain from theft, fraud and violence, it costs something to administer defense and disputes.  The libertarian argument is that these things can be produced by private organizations. They have produced a great deal of work that demonstrates how and why that private production of defense is both possible and preferable.

    The European monarchies were private governments, and there were political parties and labor unions and a great deal of diversity, with many cities having different neighborhoods for each ethnic group.  The monarchies were less warlike, taxed people much less, provided public services and had active civil societies.   Not that we should return to monarchies but the point is that these things can, and have worked.

    The problem with government is a bureaucracy. If you were to privatize everything, you would come close the the libertarian idea.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-libertarians-treat-social-order-and-civil-society-as-free-goods