http://opontobase.com.br/kondratiev-a-irresistivel-forca-gravitacional-dos-ciclos-longos/I LOVE KONDRATIEV CYCLES:
A great post by Helio Beltrão (Use google translate if you need to. It will do a fair job.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-30 07:55:00 UTC
http://opontobase.com.br/kondratiev-a-irresistivel-forca-gravitacional-dos-ciclos-longos/I LOVE KONDRATIEV CYCLES:
A great post by Helio Beltrão (Use google translate if you need to. It will do a fair job.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-30 07:55:00 UTC
LIBERTARIANISM, FREE MARKETS AND GOVERNMENT?
In response to a criticism of the free market, under the question: “Libertarianism: What reservations do you have about libertarian principles?”
First (a) the free market described by libertarians of all stripes includes prohibitions on Violence, theft, fraud and monopoly (Because monopolies can only be created by governments.) (b) governments prohibit you and I from suing companies and controlling their behavior both by court and market, so the problem is government, not corporations. (c) environmental problems are caused by the government grant of companies special privileges and the elimination of the common law right to sue for pollution and misuse. Again, this is caused by government. (d) None of (the common) criticisms are examples of free market activity – they are examples of corporatist activity that was created by the government.
GOVERNMENT IS THE CAUSE OF PROBLEMS YOU STATE.
Property rights, the common law, rule of law, and the courts are our protection against negatives, and boycotts in the market are our protection against poor behavior. THere is a difference between poor behavior, and corporatism, fraud, theft, and violence.
THE GOVERNMENT in practice (always has) CREATED CORPORATIONS and given them PRIVILEGES. This was done BY DESIGN, in order to eliminate the right that the common man had under the common law to use the courts to control organizations and powerful individuals. The governments took away our rights, and left us the market (boycotts) as a control in order to decrease unemployement and increase tax revenue. (Yes, this is history. Government did this.)
I will venture that there is NOTHING YOU CAN THINK OF that causes CORPORATISM (which is what you’re arguing against) that was not caused by government. The courts and the market must equally bear responsibility for controlling both the government and companies. The common law is our only defense against government abuses via social groups (SOCIALISM) or corporate groups (CORPORATISM). And the common law can only function if private property is articulated in law, and the state cannot override private property in theory or in practice. And when the courts administer the law by the common law, and the common law alone.
ON GOVERNMENT
The NECESSARY properties of of a government are
1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.)
2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights.
3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.)
4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons.
These are the minimum properties of a government.
In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following:
5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes.
6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency.
7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes.
These are advantageous properties of government.
In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES:
8) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments.
9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.)
These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation.
HOPEFULLY THIS HELPED YOU SOMEWHAT
The government is not the source of the good things. The courts under the common law of property rights is the source of good things. The government has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and crated both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-30 07:51:00 UTC
Americans fear government more than terror
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-29 02:43:00 UTC
UKRAINE: ALL WOMEN ARE BEAUTIFUL
I mean, that’s what beauty means, right? Fertility? Whether it’s an undiscovered country, a bountiful table, a garden, an architectural model. Beauty is the presence of resources – of potential, and fertility is potential.
I just… can’t get over it. Almost every woman in this country is desirable. They aren’t weak. They aren’t victims. They aren’t masculine. They pretty much run everything except the military and heavy industry – which is saying more about who can manage certain demographic populations of males than anything else.
Femininity is beautiful. It’s an attitude. And body image isn’t a problem when the standard is femininity and grace, not genetic perfection.
I love this country. Even the crazy bullshit macho nonsense is beautiful.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-28 09:49:00 UTC
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/Photos/global-genetic-distances-map.jpgMAP OF OUR GENETIC DIFFERENCES
(How Closely Or Distantly We’re Related)
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-28 05:59:00 UTC
THE CULTURE OF NON-SUBMISSION : HEROISM
The indo european peoples, as sky-worshipping, technology-adapting, meat-eating pastoralists, invented heroic, aristocratic, egalitarianism, and managed to survive only in northern Europe. This value system, which we call heroism, is the very antithesis – the opposite – of the ideology of submission that is the identifying characteristic of islamic and Chinese civilizations.
The western high trust ethic is incompatible with postmodernism just as it was incompatible with socialism and early christianity. And it’s even more incompatible with Islam.
Aristocracy is pagan, egalitarian, and the antithesis of submission.
Libertarians are commercially aristocratic, in the same way that conservatives are militarily aristocratic. But while our concepts of excellence vary, our embrace of heroic, egalitarian, excellence is the same.
Liberty is property. And property and liberty are aristocratic virtues.
The rest of people want nothing to do with them.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-27 12:40:00 UTC
LIBERTARIANISM AS A CLASS PHILOSOPHY
All philosophy is class philosophy. Libertarianism is a class philosophy. All philosophies give precedence to one class or another.
Just as socialism suggests that all are better off if we give primacy to the objective of equality, and political power to the lower classes; just as postmodernism suggests that we will all be better off if we give primacy to equality and political power to the academic and public intellectual classes; just as clssical liberalism suggests that we will be better off if we give primacy to the institution of the family to conduct the family as a business without the interference of the state, and give power to family property owners; libertarianism suggests that we will be better off if we give primacy to individuals who pursue commercial innovation, and political power to the rule of law (contracts) that allow this innovation to persist unfettered.
Libertarianism is an economic philosophy that states that (a) we all demonstrate a preference for having our own choices (b) that wealth makes possible our choices (c) that wealth is the product of innovation (creating inequalities which we then pay to equilibrate.)
Libertarianism as a political philosophy that states that (a) all monopolies are bad because people cannot use competition to constrain the bad behavior of people in monopolies (b) all bureaucracies are bad because people in bureaucracies pursue the interest of the bureaucracy at the expense of those it purports to serve (c) government is a monopoly and a bureaucracy that pursues its interests at the expense of those who do ‘real work’ of innovating, producing, risking.
Libertarianism is not against ‘government’. It is against monopoly and bureaucracy which hinder individual innovation and competition, and the creating of ‘differences’ (inequalities) which we then seek to eliminate.
Libertarianism allows us to form our own communities with our own rules and norms, in a balance of power between communities with similar interests. These communities will then compete with one another for population, talent, and services. And people can choose which community to belong to. In this model there is no ‘state’. There are just collections of people who form contractual alliances. Just as we make voluntary commercial organizations, we can make voluntary civic organizations.
Libertarianism is not a prohibition on government. IT IS A PROHIBITION ON A MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY that we call the STATE, that is able to issue COMMANDS under the guise of LAWS, because it maintains a monopoly on th euse of violence to enforce those commands, because that state is isolated from competition, and as such, can pursue the interests of the bureaucracy, or become a tool of special interests that likewise desire monopoly privileges, at the expense of the citizenry.
Consumers arre very important. Without consumers and credit it is impossible for commercial organizations to make money, and without the ability to make money there is no ability for people to organize into groups. The lower classes are consumers, and quite honestly, produce very little of value other than their consumption. Lower classes in the libertarian model will either exchange adoption to norms for redistributions in wealthy communities, or organize into their own organizations and charge fees for access to their consumers, which can then be redistributed, thereby minimizing profit.
The market for competition lets us compete toward different ends and preferences, even if we cooperate on means of achieving them. Monopoly government forces us to compete in government in a win-lose battle for control of the monopoly bureaucracy. Humans have been cooperating in the market on means, despite having disparate ends, for millennia There is no reason that we cannot take this insight as far as possible.
That is, unless your desire is to STEAL rather than EXCHANGE. And you are most likely to want to STEAL rather than exchange if governmetn provides a systematic means of stealing from others. And that’s what government does. It provides a systematic means of stealing. THe common law and property rights provide a systematic means of exchanging instead of stealing.
ANARCHISM, or anarcho capitalism (a branch of libertarianism) is a RESEARCH PROGRAM that seeks to find solutions to political problems without the use of the monopolistic bureaucratic state. Libertarian writers have done a thorough job of solving all but one or two very large problems (I think I may have solved those remaning issues in my work but I am not yet certain.)
ROTHBARDIAN Libertarianism, which is prominent on the web, was designed to be an ideological religion based upon rigorously defended philosophy combining jewish ethics of resistance (the ghetto) with christian legal and moral arguments (natural law) as a means of resisting both socialism and postmodernism. As and ideology he reduced that philosophy to very simple moral principles that can function as an ideology (generating emotion) rather than as an institutional prescription (generating arguments.) This is because Rothbard and his generation understood that the communists had produced a significant literature but could not win the hearts and minds of ordinary voters unless this philosophy was reduced to policy (the ten planks) and ideology (simple, repeatable, emotionally moralistic statements that would incite people to talk and act in support of those ideas. So Rothbardian libertarianism is an ideological philosophy not a prescription for institutional solutions to the problems of politics.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-27 04:00:00 UTC
REGARDING WHITE MALES AND LIBERTARIANISM
White males (the european, or perhaps germanic, race) seek status under the ancient indo-european proscription for heroism via competition. The west is unique for having produced this philosophy of aristocratic egalitarianism – inclusion in equalitarian leadership, and therefore obtaining the reward of property rights, by demonstrated heroism. And the high trust society of the west is the result of aristocratic egalitarianism (heroic achievement, demonstrated excellence, virtue).
For most of history, and pre-history, males could achieve this only through combat. With the advent of manorialism, males could demonstrate their fitness through hard work. With the advent of chivalry males could demonstrate their heroic status by charitable service. With the advent of consumer capitalism, males could demonstrate their heroic fitness in commerce.
Heroic achievemnet grants access to mates (we have a lof of data on this now that confirms this fact – to the point where we know how many dollars in income per inch of height under 5’10” you must earn to gain the same quality of attractive woman…. Really.) Women are as shallow about status as men are about physical attraction – and the data is the data.
As such, white males are intuitively attracted to libertarianism if they see in libertarianism a means of pursuing traditional signals for mating, social status, and wealth.
That libertarianism is a rigorous philospohy equalled in detail only by Marxism, and is articulated in economic language and analytical philosophy. It is accessible only to those people with both incentive to learn it, and the ability to understand it. This is why libertarianism is a minority white male philosophy. It is an aristocratic philosophy and difficult to access.
Other cultures lack both the mythology and cultural values for heroism and egalitarianism Which is why other cultures also cannot produce the high trust society. And without the high trust society, the wealth necessary for redistribution (charity) is impossible to achieve at scale.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-27 03:57:00 UTC
IN A BAR. A GUY FROM COMPUWARE. HE TRIES TO START A FIGHT WITH ME. AND UNTIL TODAY I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHY.
Three years ago, or so, maybe four. I’m in a bar at a fashionable restaurant with some friends. And this drunk guy from two tables over comes up to me and says “do you remember me?” and sticks out his hand.
Now, I never forget a face. Ever. I recognized his face. But I couldn’t place him. And honestly, I was just stumped. So, as usual, I shook his hand, and stalled for time while I tried to remember where I knew him from.
He says “I know what you did”. Now, when a drunk guy says something like that to me, I gotta tell you that this particular farm boy’s first instinct is to hit as hard and as fast as I can – ’cause nothing good is likely to follow.
However, I’m also with four guys, the place is packed, I’m a regular, and there are really good bouncers. Besides, even if he gets going I’m not sure he’s too threatening in his current state, and I’m not sure it’s clear yet to others that he’s begging for a fight – and I don’t like unnecessary imperial entanglements.
I still can’t place the guy. Until he tells me he’s a salesman from Compuware, that we cancelled a deal with when the credit crash picked up steam. And so I get this confused look on my face – because I’m genuinely confused.
Now, you know, you can abuse me all you want. I know who I am. I know how and why I make decisions and I’m ok with the decisions that I make. And god knows that I’m not exactly a nice negotiator – I’m ruthless about money. And I have a mercenary view of ethics in negotiations. But if you come after one of my partners, both of whom are virtuous to such a fault that I want to wring their necks at times, all bets are off, and so are all barriers.
My partner Steven is about as level headed as god has made a human being. And he has told me, maybe a month or two earlier, that the Compuware software can’t do what we need. And that we’re going to have to back out of it. Not only can’t they do it but we’re starting to get really nervous about revenue and sales, and it’s expensive software. So we don’t want to be in a position where we have trouble paying for it either. So it’s just better right now if we make a few mods to our own code and suffer through the current crisis.
So the next thing I say is that “Steven is the most honest man I know, and if he says it won’t do it, then it won’t do it, and that’s all I know, all I want to know, and all I need to know.”
At which point he starts coming at me with F-bombs, and one of the guys he works with starts pulling him backwards away from me.
I know I have got him now, and it’s evident to everyone in the bar that he’s loaded and violent, so I have moral authority to find his jaw if necessary. But his friends prevail, and drag him out of the place.
Unfortunately, I never really understood why he was so pissed. I just discounted it out of hand as losing a commission and being drunk. But, this morning, sitting here, I realize that he thought we were playing them for information so that we could develop our internal software on our own. It never occurred to me before, and I feel stupid for not getting it.
At least that makes sense. Of course, it’s not true. But then, that’s one of the problems with ethics and asymmetry of knowledge. It also one of the problems of assuming that you understand the motivations and incentives of others.
Even if their software would have done the job (it wouldn’t) It would have been far cheaper to buy their software than to develop our software ourselves – that this is logically self evident is why it didn’t occur to me. But the cash flow impact of modifying our fragile and aged existing software ourselves albiet very slowly was less risky than trying to heavily modify an already expensive piece of software using external consultants, and the cash flow impact of a liability of that size on the balance sheet given that our bank had just failed, and our customers were spending less money.
Unfortunately, had he talked to me as a gentleman, I would have explained this. But he talked to me as an impassioned drunk. And I never had the opportunity.
I don’t so much mind if people dislike or are angry with me when I screw up. But it really bothers me when people dislike or are angry with me for things that I don’t do.
We go back to Montaigne: In life it seems that we are disliked by people who blame us for accidents, but are forgiven or ignored by those whom we have done intentional injustice.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-26 02:54:00 UTC
DATA ON TRUST VS PACK INSTINCT?
We have a lot of data describing the different levels of trust between cultures. But does anyone know of any data that deals with the different levels of pack (group) instinct between cultures. Aboriginal Americans, and East Asians seem at the extreme. Turkic, semitic peoples, in the middle and Indo Europeans in the middle and africans at the low end.
For example, we know that as babies, asians are more pliable, whites in the middle and africans at the lowest. That’s a pretty good data set, even if it’s certainly open to criticism.
It’s all good to intuit this. But how can I test it? Any data anywhere?
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-26 02:02:00 UTC