Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Use Stimulus by Rate of Response and Effect

    Mar 18, 2020, 9:04 PM There’s never been a worse time for fiscal stimulus – Econlib econlib.org

    There’s never been a worse time for fiscal stimulus
    STIMULUS BY RATE OF RESPONSE AND EFFECT MONETARY stimulus refers to lowering interest rates, quantitative easing, or other ways of increasing the amount of money or credit. DIRECT stimulus (my term) refers to direct distribution of cash to consumers who can then alter the structure of production with collective (‘state’,’environmental’) indirect debt rather than individual, family, business and industry debt. this is the ONLY method of preventing exaggerated worldwide demand, network, and price recalculation, in the face of ignorance. Giving consumers liquidity removes IGNORANCE (uncertainty) while the economy changes. It is ignorance, uncertainty, and recalculation by trial and error under duress that causes undesirable economic contractions rather than desirable economic adaptations. DEBT NATIONALIZATION (my term) refers to paying down consumer credit all mortgages and granting credit to those with paid or substantially paid mortgages. RESCUE INVESTMENT (my term) – Providing loans directly to business industry in response to shocks, so that they can survive or even motball during recessions. NATIONALIZATION refers to the state taking over the ownership of a STRATEGIC industry, providing necessary cash reserves and cash-flow while the necessary organization adapts to shocks (temporary) or change (permanent). However, investors must be zeroed during this time and may only buy back their interest for having failed to preserve enough liquidity to insure against shocks. In this case the state buys the company for nothing, and resells it. FISCAL stimulus refers to increasing government consumption or transfers or lowering taxes. Effectively this means increasing the rate of growth of public debt, except that particularly Keynesians often assume that the stimulus will cause sufficient economic growth to fill that gap partially or completely. See multiplier (economics).

  • No It”s Just a Normal Tort Case – Parents Don”t Have Special Privilege

    —“Curt, is this interesting or am I reading too much into it? From what I’ve read on UK property rights (past and present), the idea that pleas of injustice or “hey, no fair” could overrule the express wishes of the property owner is a significant shift away from the standard individualist approach to ownership rights. This is a move towards collectivist, ‘property is owned by the extended family’ principles.”— @lisa outhwaite

    No it’s a normal tort case, wherein a man spent his life working on a farm under the oft discussed promise he would inherit it, and the family broke the demonstrated contract.

    —“”Andrew’s parents put in place a series of measures which were designed to leave Andrew, in his fifties, with no home, no job, no savings, and no pension, despite a lifetime’s worth of work.”— —“his parents went back on promises they had made that he would inherit a substantial share of the family farm, which he had worked on for 32 years since the age of 16.”—

    In other words, if you and your parents stop talking to one another for some reason, well, sure they can will inheritance to anyone they choose. But if they stop talking that doesn’t break the contract that both parties invested in regardless of whether they are parents.

  • No It”s Just a Normal Tort Case – Parents Don”t Have Special Privilege

    —“Curt, is this interesting or am I reading too much into it? From what I’ve read on UK property rights (past and present), the idea that pleas of injustice or “hey, no fair” could overrule the express wishes of the property owner is a significant shift away from the standard individualist approach to ownership rights. This is a move towards collectivist, ‘property is owned by the extended family’ principles.”— @lisa outhwaite

    No it’s a normal tort case, wherein a man spent his life working on a farm under the oft discussed promise he would inherit it, and the family broke the demonstrated contract.

    —“”Andrew’s parents put in place a series of measures which were designed to leave Andrew, in his fifties, with no home, no job, no savings, and no pension, despite a lifetime’s worth of work.”— —“his parents went back on promises they had made that he would inherit a substantial share of the family farm, which he had worked on for 32 years since the age of 16.”—

    In other words, if you and your parents stop talking to one another for some reason, well, sure they can will inheritance to anyone they choose. But if they stop talking that doesn’t break the contract that both parties invested in regardless of whether they are parents.

  • Questions on Falsification

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:29 PM

    —“Greetings, …. I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: … A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”—

    We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.

    —“What do you mean by underdetermination making no sense?’—

    Underdetermination means (critical rationalism) that all scientific statements are incomplete (open to increase in parsimony), and reorganization into the most parsimonious paradigm.

    —“The problem as I see it is that from what I’ve seen from posts by propertarians, the notion of falsification is heavily depended upon. Now I understand that notion as saying that we can be sure about what’s false even though we’re never sure about what’s true, is that accurate for the term as P uses it? And if it is, I’m not sure how the Quinean point has been answered. Given that the scientist can always either abandon his current theory /or/ change some other one of his theories, the best he can do is to make an “educated guess”. But not only with regards to what’s true (as you rightly point out), but also with regards to what’s false. … As an example: The addition of the deferent and epicycles are revisions or tweaks of the geocentric theory since(among other reasons) it preservers the centrality of the earth and so on(instead of taking retrograde movement as a falsification of the Ptolomeic model, the scientists chose to tweak their theory). They are revision of external rather than internal nodes: “well the planets do spin around the earth but they also have an epicycle and geometrically the earth is not really the center(deferent)”. Likewise when testing a theory that accounts for the movement of some particle, an incongruous result could cause the scientist to abandon his theory(or tweak it somewhat) or he could alter some of his other theories (say, his understanding of what that particle is in the first place).”—

    What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking? What you are doing is trying to get me to educate you by criticism under the pretense that there is any legitimacy at all to justificationism, rather than asking how the method functions by falsification, parsimony, and competition. Testimony requires due diligence against ignorance error bias wishful thinking, loading, framaing, suggestion, obscurantism, sophistry, the fictionalisms, and deceit. There are a limited number of testifiable dimensions against which we can perform due diligence. We enumerate those tests:

    Consistency under: realism, naturalism, identity, logical, operational, rational, reciprocal, empirical, within stated limits, fully accounted within those limits, reversible (restitutable), and within your ability to perform restitution, thereby satisfying the demand for infallibility, Because truth must satisfy the demand for infallibility. If it survives those tests then we have a truth candidate. If not then you may not make a truth claim, nor advocate for the imposition of costs upon others dependent upon the truth of that claim. This test absolves you from restitution punishment and prevention if you err. Theories consist of two components: the search criteria (explanation) and the set of operations (formula). If you state your explanation, state limits, and state formula you are speaking truthfully. The market in application will determine if it is in fact true. Most of the time, as we have seen, and still pursue, gravity is continuously improved (refined) but the direction since ancient times has been correct. Even dramatic failures like humours (phlogiston) was not entirely false, just too imprecise. So, we seek to eliminate error. Because that is all we can do. Because the only method of investigation (epistemology) is free association. That’s the lesson of the 20th century. And while it pains me to say so Wittgenstein was right: philosophy is finally correctly relegated to the analysis of speech. And I would take it further, that philosophy is of no value other than speech regarding the pursuit of preferences. Otherwise Transcendence Law (Evolution), Natural Law (cooperation) and Physical law (sciences: formal-logical, physical, and cognitive) have replaced philosophy. With law (testimony) usurping (or restoring) its role of arbiter of truth.

  • Questions on Falsification

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:29 PM

    —“Greetings, …. I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: … A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”—

    We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.

    —“What do you mean by underdetermination making no sense?’—

    Underdetermination means (critical rationalism) that all scientific statements are incomplete (open to increase in parsimony), and reorganization into the most parsimonious paradigm.

    —“The problem as I see it is that from what I’ve seen from posts by propertarians, the notion of falsification is heavily depended upon. Now I understand that notion as saying that we can be sure about what’s false even though we’re never sure about what’s true, is that accurate for the term as P uses it? And if it is, I’m not sure how the Quinean point has been answered. Given that the scientist can always either abandon his current theory /or/ change some other one of his theories, the best he can do is to make an “educated guess”. But not only with regards to what’s true (as you rightly point out), but also with regards to what’s false. … As an example: The addition of the deferent and epicycles are revisions or tweaks of the geocentric theory since(among other reasons) it preservers the centrality of the earth and so on(instead of taking retrograde movement as a falsification of the Ptolomeic model, the scientists chose to tweak their theory). They are revision of external rather than internal nodes: “well the planets do spin around the earth but they also have an epicycle and geometrically the earth is not really the center(deferent)”. Likewise when testing a theory that accounts for the movement of some particle, an incongruous result could cause the scientist to abandon his theory(or tweak it somewhat) or he could alter some of his other theories (say, his understanding of what that particle is in the first place).”—

    What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking? What you are doing is trying to get me to educate you by criticism under the pretense that there is any legitimacy at all to justificationism, rather than asking how the method functions by falsification, parsimony, and competition. Testimony requires due diligence against ignorance error bias wishful thinking, loading, framaing, suggestion, obscurantism, sophistry, the fictionalisms, and deceit. There are a limited number of testifiable dimensions against which we can perform due diligence. We enumerate those tests:

    Consistency under: realism, naturalism, identity, logical, operational, rational, reciprocal, empirical, within stated limits, fully accounted within those limits, reversible (restitutable), and within your ability to perform restitution, thereby satisfying the demand for infallibility, Because truth must satisfy the demand for infallibility. If it survives those tests then we have a truth candidate. If not then you may not make a truth claim, nor advocate for the imposition of costs upon others dependent upon the truth of that claim. This test absolves you from restitution punishment and prevention if you err. Theories consist of two components: the search criteria (explanation) and the set of operations (formula). If you state your explanation, state limits, and state formula you are speaking truthfully. The market in application will determine if it is in fact true. Most of the time, as we have seen, and still pursue, gravity is continuously improved (refined) but the direction since ancient times has been correct. Even dramatic failures like humours (phlogiston) was not entirely false, just too imprecise. So, we seek to eliminate error. Because that is all we can do. Because the only method of investigation (epistemology) is free association. That’s the lesson of the 20th century. And while it pains me to say so Wittgenstein was right: philosophy is finally correctly relegated to the analysis of speech. And I would take it further, that philosophy is of no value other than speech regarding the pursuit of preferences. Otherwise Transcendence Law (Evolution), Natural Law (cooperation) and Physical law (sciences: formal-logical, physical, and cognitive) have replaced philosophy. With law (testimony) usurping (or restoring) its role of arbiter of truth.

  • The Foundation of All Philosophy

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:36 PM You can appropriate language, philosophy, and theology for your purposes, in order to justify your priors. Sure. You can’t steal the LAWS to justify your priors. Sorry. That’s the whole point of laws. THERE ARE THREE QUESTIONS THAT DECIDE ALL PHILOSOPHY 1 – CHOICE: “Why should I not suicide?” 2 – ETHICS: “Why should I not kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – POLITICS: “Why should we not kill you and take your stuff?” The only answer is “If the proceeds from cooperation past present and future are more valuable than not. Otherwise predation, parasitism or avoidance are preferable to cooperation.” THERE ARE THREE LAWS THAT DECIDE ALL CONFLICTS UNDER THE ANSWER TO THAT PHILOSOPHY 1 – The Physical Laws of Nature 2 – The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity 3 – The Evolutionary Law of Transcendence. All questions are decidable by those three sets of laws. THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL PHILOSOPHY. Really. That’s all there is.

  • The Foundation of All Philosophy

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:36 PM You can appropriate language, philosophy, and theology for your purposes, in order to justify your priors. Sure. You can’t steal the LAWS to justify your priors. Sorry. That’s the whole point of laws. THERE ARE THREE QUESTIONS THAT DECIDE ALL PHILOSOPHY 1 – CHOICE: “Why should I not suicide?” 2 – ETHICS: “Why should I not kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – POLITICS: “Why should we not kill you and take your stuff?” The only answer is “If the proceeds from cooperation past present and future are more valuable than not. Otherwise predation, parasitism or avoidance are preferable to cooperation.” THERE ARE THREE LAWS THAT DECIDE ALL CONFLICTS UNDER THE ANSWER TO THAT PHILOSOPHY 1 – The Physical Laws of Nature 2 – The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity 3 – The Evolutionary Law of Transcendence. All questions are decidable by those three sets of laws. THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL PHILOSOPHY. Really. That’s all there is.

  • How Can a Falsehood Be Reciprocal?

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:46 PM 1) So the restoration of reciprocity between the genders is what you are objecting to? 2) The equal suppression of the female means of deceit and undermining so that it equals the male suppression of deceit and undermining is irreciprocal? 3) The granting of women a separate and equal political house is irreciprocal? 4) Ending community property is irreciprocal? 5) Researching artificial wombs so that males are no longer dependent upon females for reproduction is irreciprocal? 6) What civilization is more feminine than the western, and less coercive to women and the feminine than the western? (a) historically women were almost entirely uneducated, notorious gossips, shrills, and psychotics, consider the source of all evil, and it was the victorians that works to reverse that image and elevate women. (a) women were ‘convinced’ is simply counter to the historical evidence. Women wanted the vote. (b) women were liberated by men’s industrialization. (c) women displaced men in clerical and service work (easy work). (d) women spend 70% of combined income and consume 70% of government resources, while only men over 30 are net contributors to the economy. (e) women are responsible for backing and funding and advocating every major left wing pseudoscientific movement. (f) women are responsible for the continuous voting of the left, funding the left universities. HOW CAN A FALSEHOOD BE RECIPROCAL?

  • How Can a Falsehood Be Reciprocal?

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:46 PM 1) So the restoration of reciprocity between the genders is what you are objecting to? 2) The equal suppression of the female means of deceit and undermining so that it equals the male suppression of deceit and undermining is irreciprocal? 3) The granting of women a separate and equal political house is irreciprocal? 4) Ending community property is irreciprocal? 5) Researching artificial wombs so that males are no longer dependent upon females for reproduction is irreciprocal? 6) What civilization is more feminine than the western, and less coercive to women and the feminine than the western? (a) historically women were almost entirely uneducated, notorious gossips, shrills, and psychotics, consider the source of all evil, and it was the victorians that works to reverse that image and elevate women. (a) women were ‘convinced’ is simply counter to the historical evidence. Women wanted the vote. (b) women were liberated by men’s industrialization. (c) women displaced men in clerical and service work (easy work). (d) women spend 70% of combined income and consume 70% of government resources, while only men over 30 are net contributors to the economy. (e) women are responsible for backing and funding and advocating every major left wing pseudoscientific movement. (f) women are responsible for the continuous voting of the left, funding the left universities. HOW CAN A FALSEHOOD BE RECIPROCAL?

  • The High Range Correlates Negatively with Indicators of Disorder and Deviance

    I.Q. IN THE HIGH RANGE CORRELATES NEGATIVELY WITH INDICATORS OF DISORDER AND DEVIANCE by Paul Cooijmans This result has surprised me, and for years I thought it might be due to sampling error and would disappear as more data came in. It did not, and I am now fairly confident that there is indeed a significant, albeit small (about .3 to .4), negative correlation between high-range mental test scores and indicators of disorder and deviance such as the actual presence of psychiatric disorders, the presence of such in relatives (which reveals genetic disposition), and personality test scores related to deviance. The main reason I had not expected this result is the persistent notion in “giftedness” circles that “gifted” individuals often experience psychosocial or psychiatric problems and may need special treatment and help. At events related to “giftedness” one can nowadays see committees of all sorts of (often quack) therapists, eager to “help”, and whenever they spot someone “diagnosed” with “giftedness” those vultures come down from the trees. I have believed in this interpretation of “giftedness” until about the late 1990s, but gradually became sceptical as I saw the statistics build up, and as I got in contact with many people with known I.Q. scores on many tests; my experience in such contact is that, within the high range of intelligence, those with higher I.Q.’s are more normal, less deviant, undergo less psychosocial suffering, than those with somewhat lower I.Q.’s. Do notice that the fairly small size of the negative correlation certainly allows some part of the population of intelligent to be deviant, disordered, or suffering; but it is apparently not the intelligence that causes their problems. Also, this result by no means excludes the possibility of a positive (genetic) link between intelligence and certain disorders, like schizophrenia and Asperger syndrome. The eventual correlation may result form a complex of mechanisms, such that a possible positive genetic relation is turned into negative by for instance (1) the fact that a high I.Q. suppresses the expression of the disorder, and (2) the fact that, in cases where the disorder does become fully expressed, the disorder depresses one’s I.Q.