Source: Facebook

WHERE DID ECONOMICS GO WRONG?

As far as I know, economics ‘went wrong’ when “the republican income statement no longer propagated to the monarchical balance sheet.” In other words, when we failed to account for ALL capital changes, including territorial, genetic, cultural, normative, knowledge, and institutional, and therefore treated economics as a means of pseudo-scientific cherry-picking of measurements, under the pretense that such capital was being mobilized rather than consumed (or simply lost or destroyed).

The postwar era, by the pseudoscientific taboo against the darwinian revolution and the necessity of continuing 3500 years of environmental eugenics, and 1600 years of manorial eugenics, and 800 years of juridical eugenics, converted the discipline into the means by which to conduct war against civilization: the incremental domestication of animal man into equilibrium with his productive technologies, and his means of calculating a survivable future with them: sovereignty, reciprocity, law (tort), markets in everything, property, money, prices.

Economics is either a measure of cooperation, and therefore, reciprocity, and therefore political economy, and as such Law (tort – dispute resolution), Legislation (commons production and defense), and regulation (prior restraint by the insurer of last resort), and attendant standards of measurement, or it is merely an innumerate pseudoscience to justify the consumption of accumulated capital in pursuit of slow reversal of eugenic evolution, regression to the ancient mean, and the source of the justification for the consequente devolution of civilization and man.

Efficiency is a rather ridiculous pursuit unbound by justification for less visible capital destruction , just as is legislation is a pursuit unbound by rules of contract.

The Market Failure hypothesis is rather ridiculous since if the market produces proceeds sufficient to subsidize goods services and information, and distorting that market harmful to it.

And a hundred other nonsense-schemes we use to obscure the reversal of eugenic evolution, or the returns on conquest and sale of continents, or the conversion of intergenerational lending to temporal redistribution and the price of that risk, or the transition from physical money to digital record of credit and debt, and the end of necessity or value of distribution of liquidity through the financial system, and the inability to reconstruct that capital without such chaos we dare not speak of it.

Science is not kind. We have yet to have the necessary revolution in economics by its reunification with the law. As far as I know there is only one social science – the law (tort), legislation (contracts for the commons) and regulation (insurance) and the rest is measurement of its consequence.

This was the difference between the austrian (rule of law), chicago (rule of law insured) and saltwater (return to arbitrary rule of man) schools of economics. Today, post 2008, it is very difficult to see much more than “I dunno what to do know” from the profession, except to permute as do the physicists on dark matter, because we lack the instrumentation necessary to obtain the information sufficient to correct our theories, and therefore limited to failure (collapse) and therefore desperate incentive to correct these errors, rather than falsify the 20th century social pseudosciences in economics as we are doing in psychology and sociology, with cognitive sciences and genetics.

The Worm Turns, and as Hayek warned but could not himself answer: the 20th will be remembered as an era of the restoration of mysticism – which we more correctly state as platonism, idealism, sophism, innumeracy, and pseudoscience.

Cheers