—“One of the better things you’ve written is that our Western culture sanctions the bravest and boldest of us to use our egotism to serve the group. We have developed what Kant called “sociable anti-socialibility’. We like the bad boy who is redeemed by fighting for a good cause”—Josh Jeppson
.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 18:07:00 UTC
(math)
—“Curt: Someone said:”The closest you can get to objective truth is maths, which is apriori, analytic and not empirical whatsoever” Is this a lie? I’m having difficulties understanding that since maths is axiomatic.”—
This is one of the great intellectual problems that we must deal with. And it’s as old as the Greeks at least. It is better to say, that if you can describe something in *certain mathematical equations* then you have the lowest chance of misinterpretation of description.
However, as we see in statistics daily, economics weekly, and physics monthly, mathematics is a tool limited to describing certain things. It does not for example, describe causality or sequence. And it can be misused more easily than used.
Mathematics depends upon constant categories and constant relations, at scale independence. And so it is good for expression of deterministic phenomenon. However, in economics and in sentience, we have only inconstant categories, and fungible relations. We can think of it this way: the physical world can’t decide to change categories and relations; we can cause changes in the physical world if we want at some cost or other. The economic world can change categories and relations, but at some cost and effort; and the sentient world can change categories and relations with only exposure to information, and very near zero cost to the individual, but at very, very, very high cost to groups.
This does not mean we cannot make true statements about economics at some degree of precision. Just as we cannot make true statements about subatomic world yet beyond some degree of precision. The reason being that at the subatomic level, and in the economic and sentient levels, the causal density is so high and categorical variation so high that mathematics has proven little use in direct prediction of consequences – and almost none at all. At the sentient level we have no way at all of expressing in mathematical terms the information necessary to change state.
What we have seen is that there is a point at which we can model sufficient causal density of systems that we can observe intermediary phenomenon (patterns) that assist us in defining limits of consequent patterns (ends we want to observe). So we may not be able to predict the location of molecules of gas, prices of a good at a location, or the information necessary to form an idea. But that does not mean that we cannot make truthful (parsimonious and descriptive) statements about those phenomenon.
And this is the current limit of our understanding of what we may be able to do with mathematics. In other words, while there may be an unmeasurable and unpredictable set of end states due to causal density and rapid heuristics that change our actions or associations, it appears that whatever limits humans are limited by, just as whatever limits the universe is limited by, cause patterns that appear, and these patterns may in fact assist us in predicting end states.
The problem, as usual, will be at some point, the information necessary to perform a calculation is equal to reality itself.
So, the response to your friend is that math is good at measuring simple things, that does not mean all things that we need measure are simple.
Math works because it is trivial. But we have, until the 1800’s only used it to measure trivial things.
We are just beginning to touch upon complicated things.
-Curt
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:48:00 UTC
QUARTERLY REPEAT: CURT, WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ARE WORTH READING REALLY? NONE. BUT IF YOU MUST….
—“Curt: Which philosophers are worth reading? I take it Hume, Newton and Aristotle are among the ones who avoided engaging in falsehoods?— Alex
You know, to be honest, I don’t think much of philosophers other than to get a feel for how the history of thought evolved into science.
I would suggest reading about philosophers rather than philosophers themselves. I would rather someone read the SEP than any given philosopher. (Seriously. Encyclopedias prevent you from anchoring. )
That said, it is hard to say no to:
1 – Aristotle/Aurelius,
2 – Machiavelli/Durkheim/Pareto/Hayek,
3 – Bacon/Locke/Smith/Hume/Jefferson,
4 – Galileo/Newton/Darwin/Maxwell.
5 – The Greek tragedies, Dostoyevsky, Checkov, and Nietzche.
6 – The Greek and Roman myths, the whole corpus of Christiandom’s myths that survived christianity as folk myths of the hearth. And perhaps most importantly homer, and the entire european (including Russian) great myths that evolved from that set of myths.
And whichever of my followers had the genius bit to add, that it is only through tragedy that we can communicate to all classes, is something that I think bears knowing.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:19:00 UTC
—“Does the Overton window even exist?”– Maxim V Filimonov
Great Question. Do opportunities exist for the seizure of power? I am pretty sure they exist. Is Overton Window a pseudoscientific statement rather than a colloquialism? Yes. Is it true? No. Is it meaningful? Yes.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 13:32:00 UTC
WHERE WILL THE OVERTON WINDOW SWING NEXT?
—“But where will the Overton Window swing to next?!!!?”—Juhani Järvinen
Romans: Cycles. Every four living generations, with the fifth forgetting everything learned by the first. Or the more recently, ‘events modify behavior only so long as people are a live that experienced them’ (and in proportion to the number who were alive then.) In other words, memories dilute with time.
Via Strauss and Howe: the millennials will crash, be blamed like the Victorians blamed the Edwardians, and the next Generation will be conservative.
Each generation reacts to the status quo. The boomers followed the Greatest (war) generation – and dismantled the martial state.
The Jones and X generation – taking advantage of the consumption made possible by Nixon/Regan’s Petro-Dollar. (me).
The Millennial/”Infantile”/”Pet” generation followed Jones-X Generations made possible by end of world communism, and the fed’s excessive liquidity to keep the economy afloat given the new competitors.
The economy of the west will lose its position and collapse the children of the Pet Generation will despise their parents, just as the boomers despised the war generation.
Our primary function is to protect assets so that recovery is possible.
My mission is to punish the criminals of the (((20th century))) and their french and anglo conspirators so that it is the equivalent of the french revolution or the battle of marathon: so that it never happens again.
We need to do a lot of killing.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 12:30:00 UTC
—I have been meaning to ask what you think about MMT for some time now. So, have you heard of MMT before and what do you think?—
Curt Doolittle
What I’ve stated in the previous few posts is pure Keynesianism, however, I used it in the New Keynesian model, directed at growth rather than just employment.
The criticism we should levy is of Fiat Money that in issuing these stocks (fiat money) the interest is privatized rather than retained as one of the primary income sources of the state.
This was an intention, in the original design, as fear that the state would destroy the economy as it has in the past if legislation made possible the runaway issuance of currency.
MMT makes claims I disagree with, and creates hazards I disagree with. In particular, that no government can go bankrupt – which while LEGALLY true – doesn’t mean it’s PRACTICALLY true, as we have seen many sovereign nations with fiat money produce runaway inflation and in the case of venezuela at present, starvation.
The problem with fiat money is lack of rule of law. In other words, the constitution needs to forbid the state from arbitrary (discretionary) use of money.
In some sense, one of the principle problems of 21st century economics has been to attempt to discover some ‘target’ (measurement) that would allow us to reduce the issuance of money to rule of law (a formula) and place it into the constitution, thereby removing discretion over its use.
In some sense, this is an example of the the conversion by the (((socialists))) from rule of law (non-discretionary rule) to majority rule (discretionary rule): it is even harder to trust a government with fiat money than it was when first issued.
The solution isn’t very difficult. There are no provisions in the constitution against even suggesting certain acts as there were for treason. And it is this certainty of punishment alone that will prevent this kind of behavior in the market for information, legislation and regulation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:00:00 UTC
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life. I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man. I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’. This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life. I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man. I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’. This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
Q&A: —“Would you mind detailing the hard currency problem? I still can’t get my head around why a fixed amount of currency is problematic.”— Bob Moran
Curt Doolittle
Lets say that the only currency you have to work with is gold and silver coin. Now, if, as a country, you are a net exporter, you will accumulate coins in exchange for your exports. But if you are a net importer (you’re wealthy) you will low on coins, the cost of coins will increase, and therefore the cost of imported goods will increase, and your economy will stall. Those are two extremes. In the middle, coins circulate and credit circulates, and consumption slows because prices increase, simply because the cost of coins themselves – that are necessary for trade – increases. This continues until some niche markets resort to barter. Now barter is a high risk, because it isn’t liquid like money (coin) is.
Instead of coin, all governments slowly moved to ‘shares’. Paper money is not money per se (a commodity, or a token exchangeable for a commodity), but a share in the economy of the issuer. And like commercial shares, its dilutable. So when the price of money increases (interest rates), the government issues more shares to maintain a stable price of money (shares), so that there is no artificial shortage of money (money substitute: shares) so that productivity isn’t going to pay for the scarcity of money, and continues to pay for consumption and trade, and the economy continues.
Governments (federal reserves, central banks, etc) function for the simple purpose of ensuring relative price stability of money, by maintaining a money supply at levels that hold it steady.
The problem is, governments, once they have this power, spend money they don’t and can’t have, which creates a constant rate of inflation as well. Inflation destroys prices and savings and assets.
The only way to preserve savings then, is to invest in things that appreciate over time (land, stocks, etc) but in general it is nearly impossible to stay ahead of the rate of inflation. so you must work constantly to prevent your money from evaporating.
This creates the treadmill that we live under.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 15:44:00 UTC
MY POSITION ON THE SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE
Dick, (regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare)
Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)?
1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only.
2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it.
3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently.
4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure.
5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.)
6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing.
7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country.
My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have.
This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 15:05:00 UTC