—“Is ordoliberalism an effective economic theory in your opinion? Why/why not?”— https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism THE CORRECT ANSWER Ordoliberalism refers to the state-private alliance used by Germans after world war two. The premise is for the state to extend the market such that it provides desired goods and services rather than to take over the market for the production of goods and services. Ordoliberalism (geramn) differs from classical liberalism (anglo) just as continental law (german/french) differs from common law (anglo), in that the anglo seeks to suppress the state’s interference in the market (optimistic), and the german seeks to guard and manage the market (pragmatic to pessimistic). The anglo model is Imperial and expansionist (seizing all growth opportunities), and the german is domestic (maximizing known wants). The principle issue here is (a) demographic and (b) cultural. You can only conduct the german model with a martial (professional) bureaucracy and very honest people (farming). You can only conduct the anglo model when innovation is accessible (sail, piracy, conquest). So again, there is no ‘best’ model of government, there are only organizations that satisfy wants, needs, and exploit opportunities. The german postwar model was somewhat like the Chinese postwar model, and that is when you are ‘behind’ and want to ‘catch up’ it is a problem of organization. When you are ‘ahead’ and want to ‘stay ahead’ it’s a problem of innovation. The german model would be ‘bad’ for imperial purposes, and ‘good’ for postwar purposes. Germans are unique because of superior and homogeneous genetics, superior political culture due to lack of a central state, superior culture due to mastering craftsmanship for production of quality products, and the professionalization of the bureaucracy in imitation of Frederick the Great – and the subsequent investment in technical education that allowed Germany to produce the scientific (rather than British empirical) revolution – from which the postwar era has so soundly benefitted. In other words, the Germans and the Japanese both pursued superior export goods as a postwar strategy – and they COULD because of genetic(demographic) and cultural superiority. This is not a strategy all peoples can pursue – they lack the genetics, culture, and institutions to do so. As I’ve said repeatedly, and will continue to, the primary economic advantage any culture can seek is demographic. This will exacerbate over the next century such that smaller states with superior demographics will constantly outperform larger states with worse demographics. The people you live with have greater influence on your potential than do your abilities.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Thoughts on The German Postwar Theory: Ordoliberalism?
—“Is ordoliberalism an effective economic theory in your opinion? Why/why not?”— https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism THE CORRECT ANSWER Ordoliberalism refers to the state-private alliance used by Germans after world war two. The premise is for the state to extend the market such that it provides desired goods and services rather than to take over the market for the production of goods and services. Ordoliberalism (geramn) differs from classical liberalism (anglo) just as continental law (german/french) differs from common law (anglo), in that the anglo seeks to suppress the state’s interference in the market (optimistic), and the german seeks to guard and manage the market (pragmatic to pessimistic). The anglo model is Imperial and expansionist (seizing all growth opportunities), and the german is domestic (maximizing known wants). The principle issue here is (a) demographic and (b) cultural. You can only conduct the german model with a martial (professional) bureaucracy and very honest people (farming). You can only conduct the anglo model when innovation is accessible (sail, piracy, conquest). So again, there is no ‘best’ model of government, there are only organizations that satisfy wants, needs, and exploit opportunities. The german postwar model was somewhat like the Chinese postwar model, and that is when you are ‘behind’ and want to ‘catch up’ it is a problem of organization. When you are ‘ahead’ and want to ‘stay ahead’ it’s a problem of innovation. The german model would be ‘bad’ for imperial purposes, and ‘good’ for postwar purposes. Germans are unique because of superior and homogeneous genetics, superior political culture due to lack of a central state, superior culture due to mastering craftsmanship for production of quality products, and the professionalization of the bureaucracy in imitation of Frederick the Great – and the subsequent investment in technical education that allowed Germany to produce the scientific (rather than British empirical) revolution – from which the postwar era has so soundly benefitted. In other words, the Germans and the Japanese both pursued superior export goods as a postwar strategy – and they COULD because of genetic(demographic) and cultural superiority. This is not a strategy all peoples can pursue – they lack the genetics, culture, and institutions to do so. As I’ve said repeatedly, and will continue to, the primary economic advantage any culture can seek is demographic. This will exacerbate over the next century such that smaller states with superior demographics will constantly outperform larger states with worse demographics. The people you live with have greater influence on your potential than do your abilities.
-
Vacher de Lapouge
by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA. I don‘t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger). The text in a previous post here: [ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ] is a summary of “Les Selections Sociales“ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect). Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933. In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural‘ discipline.
-
Vacher de Lapouge
by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA. I don‘t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger). The text in a previous post here: [ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ] is a summary of “Les Selections Sociales“ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect). Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933. In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural‘ discipline.
-
Universal Suffrage Is Incompatible with Freedom
by Steve Pender The founders accepted democracy only because they had set what they thought were sufficient restrictions to prevent past problems of democracy. Only white (the same stock as the founders), male (those who bear the cost of land ownership/defense), landowners (skin in the game, proven interest in long-term settlement, majority of taxpayers) could vote in the American “democracy”. Universal suffrage is provably incompatible with long-term freedom since varying levels of skin in the game create voting arbitrage opportunities for the free-riding side (vote for something that benefits you, at the expense of others who pay higher cost).
-
Universal Suffrage Is Incompatible with Freedom
by Steve Pender The founders accepted democracy only because they had set what they thought were sufficient restrictions to prevent past problems of democracy. Only white (the same stock as the founders), male (those who bear the cost of land ownership/defense), landowners (skin in the game, proven interest in long-term settlement, majority of taxpayers) could vote in the American “democracy”. Universal suffrage is provably incompatible with long-term freedom since varying levels of skin in the game create voting arbitrage opportunities for the free-riding side (vote for something that benefits you, at the expense of others who pay higher cost).
-
Every Man a Sheriff
—“People who, in observing a crime in progress, scold civilians for using force to stop it, say “just call the cops, don’t shoot them”. But, at what point of destruction would you still hold that passive view? Would you say just call the fire department if you saw someone about to start a huge brush fire in California or Greece?”— Steve Pender Every man a craftsman, a sheriff, a judge, a warrior.
-
Every Man a Sheriff
—“People who, in observing a crime in progress, scold civilians for using force to stop it, say “just call the cops, don’t shoot them”. But, at what point of destruction would you still hold that passive view? Would you say just call the fire department if you saw someone about to start a huge brush fire in California or Greece?”— Steve Pender Every man a craftsman, a sheriff, a judge, a warrior.
-
Let Me Help: Understanding the Basics of Art
DIMENSIONS OF MEASUREMENT There are three dimensions of art criticism: – Craftsmanship (includes materials) – Design (the play of order(composition) and bounty(beauty) and perception) – Content (the content and values of that content) All art can be judged by triangulation (comparison) along these three axis. There is no possible cardinality to art but ordinality can be achieved by recursive triangulation. ALL ART BEGINS WITH MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE AND DEVOLVES TO DECORATION AND HANDCRAFTS – Monumental Architecture is self selecting due to cost. – Monumental Sculpture is self selecting due to cost. – Monumental Painting is self selecting due to cost. – Life Size Representationalism (not photorealism) in painting is self selecting due to cost (hours). HOWEVER – Painting, Print, and Photography are not self selecting. They are middle, working, and lower class substitutes for monuments. – Even for the upper middle and upper class, and out-of-sight class, the few pieces of quality art that are canon (mentioned in art magazines and books, and references, or which had popular press) are inaccessible. Demand is just too high. So given the high signal value of art (yes it is an extreme expression of dominance), the market has had to experiment with novelty in order to satisfy demand. Much of what ordinary people rail against is the same as railing against fashion: for those in the fashion industries (of which display art is a member) novelty has to function as a substitute for scarcity of craftsmanship quality (note my particular distaste for the so called ‘art glass’ industry). AS SUCH – Monumental works convey ideas (allegiances, heroics, beauty) – The demand for low cost high production ‘decoration’ (a) may form an icon or ‘remembrance’. (b) may decorate the environment. (c) may reflect the monumental, life sized, and representational, is misplaced in non monumental size (which is what most of us intuit as great work). IN OTHER WORDS – Monumental work is misplaced in most homes and offices in market (business) and is generally reserved for the political and institutional and aristocratic. – Most homes cannot support monumental work and require only design (decoration). – Most people are actually not capable of design, or capable of acquiring the monumental. – As such the colorful, abstract, the impressionistic, are to homes as type design and color pallet are to print and display advertising. IN OTHER WORDS – when people purchase relatively well made ‘design’ (abstract, gestural, impressionistic) of architectural size (to fill a wall) they are practicing good aesthetics (not acting on pretense). – when people pay homage to the monumental in private spaces, they are practicing good aesthetics. (small engineering drawings, paintings of flowers, well constructed prints) – when people pay homage to the monumental in architectural spaces (your living room, hallway, or dining room, or office) you are (a) alienating others, and (b) PERSONAL: ALLORA AND I We purchased a detailed mezzotint (print) of an elaborately painstakingly made tree that is about four or five feet tall in all, and framed in a wide matte and black frame. This was the centerpeice of the livingroom between two custom made bookcases. And in the center of the living room we had a glass table with her art jewelry collection and work. And Allora decorated a hallway with dozens of small pieces of framed photographs, etchings, mezzotints, and collections of remembrances. THE DESTRUCTION OF WEST VIA DESTRUCTION OF ARTS LITERATURE HISTORY LAW AND SCIENCE. Allora and I were a rare couple because we were the last generation that could be ‘cultured’ – you actually can’t get an art education any longer. You can’t get a liberal arts education any longer (the whig history). The marxists have destroyed art on purpose just as they have destroyed literature, academics, law, and history. It is nearly impossible to ‘be cultured’ in the aristocratic sense any longer. And it was destroyed on purpose by (((the marxists, socialists and postmodernists))). WE MUST ONCE AGIAN BE WARRIORS SO OUR CHILDREN CAN BE COMPETITIVE SO OUR GRAND CHILDREN CAN BE ARTISTS.
-
Let Me Help: Understanding the Basics of Art
DIMENSIONS OF MEASUREMENT There are three dimensions of art criticism: – Craftsmanship (includes materials) – Design (the play of order(composition) and bounty(beauty) and perception) – Content (the content and values of that content) All art can be judged by triangulation (comparison) along these three axis. There is no possible cardinality to art but ordinality can be achieved by recursive triangulation. ALL ART BEGINS WITH MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE AND DEVOLVES TO DECORATION AND HANDCRAFTS – Monumental Architecture is self selecting due to cost. – Monumental Sculpture is self selecting due to cost. – Monumental Painting is self selecting due to cost. – Life Size Representationalism (not photorealism) in painting is self selecting due to cost (hours). HOWEVER – Painting, Print, and Photography are not self selecting. They are middle, working, and lower class substitutes for monuments. – Even for the upper middle and upper class, and out-of-sight class, the few pieces of quality art that are canon (mentioned in art magazines and books, and references, or which had popular press) are inaccessible. Demand is just too high. So given the high signal value of art (yes it is an extreme expression of dominance), the market has had to experiment with novelty in order to satisfy demand. Much of what ordinary people rail against is the same as railing against fashion: for those in the fashion industries (of which display art is a member) novelty has to function as a substitute for scarcity of craftsmanship quality (note my particular distaste for the so called ‘art glass’ industry). AS SUCH – Monumental works convey ideas (allegiances, heroics, beauty) – The demand for low cost high production ‘decoration’ (a) may form an icon or ‘remembrance’. (b) may decorate the environment. (c) may reflect the monumental, life sized, and representational, is misplaced in non monumental size (which is what most of us intuit as great work). IN OTHER WORDS – Monumental work is misplaced in most homes and offices in market (business) and is generally reserved for the political and institutional and aristocratic. – Most homes cannot support monumental work and require only design (decoration). – Most people are actually not capable of design, or capable of acquiring the monumental. – As such the colorful, abstract, the impressionistic, are to homes as type design and color pallet are to print and display advertising. IN OTHER WORDS – when people purchase relatively well made ‘design’ (abstract, gestural, impressionistic) of architectural size (to fill a wall) they are practicing good aesthetics (not acting on pretense). – when people pay homage to the monumental in private spaces, they are practicing good aesthetics. (small engineering drawings, paintings of flowers, well constructed prints) – when people pay homage to the monumental in architectural spaces (your living room, hallway, or dining room, or office) you are (a) alienating others, and (b) PERSONAL: ALLORA AND I We purchased a detailed mezzotint (print) of an elaborately painstakingly made tree that is about four or five feet tall in all, and framed in a wide matte and black frame. This was the centerpeice of the livingroom between two custom made bookcases. And in the center of the living room we had a glass table with her art jewelry collection and work. And Allora decorated a hallway with dozens of small pieces of framed photographs, etchings, mezzotints, and collections of remembrances. THE DESTRUCTION OF WEST VIA DESTRUCTION OF ARTS LITERATURE HISTORY LAW AND SCIENCE. Allora and I were a rare couple because we were the last generation that could be ‘cultured’ – you actually can’t get an art education any longer. You can’t get a liberal arts education any longer (the whig history). The marxists have destroyed art on purpose just as they have destroyed literature, academics, law, and history. It is nearly impossible to ‘be cultured’ in the aristocratic sense any longer. And it was destroyed on purpose by (((the marxists, socialists and postmodernists))). WE MUST ONCE AGIAN BE WARRIORS SO OUR CHILDREN CAN BE COMPETITIVE SO OUR GRAND CHILDREN CAN BE ARTISTS.