Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Why Didn’t Adam Smith Believe In The Ideas Of Karl Marx?

    Did someone really ask this question? Really. FWIW, they were both wrong. The labor theory of value is false. Subjective value is true and marginalism has overwhelmingly demonstrated so.

    Smith went to his grave thinking he was right, and he was right on the absurdly irreplacable returns of cooperation. But he was wrong on the labor theory of value.

    Marx went to his grave knowing he was wrong. He read the marginalists and stopped writing. But he couldn’t stop taking income from Engels, so he pretended that he kept working.

    Nothing more came from Marx – because his entire premise was wrong, and history has been unkind to his legacy.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Adam-Smith-believe-in-the-ideas-of-Karl-Marx

  • What Is The Epistemology Of Austrian Economics?

    The Correct Answer

    There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.

    Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.

    Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.

    I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.

    There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.

    1. The moral question of whether investors have a right to appreciation of a currency or even right of defense against a currency. Mises/Rothbard’s whole program was yes, but the answer is no.
    2. Whether or not the good produced by the constant destruction of the value of a currency, as a means of increasing consumption in order to increase employment in order to increase overall economic velocity -outweighs the bad of consistent overextension of the boom bust cycle , and whether that over extension will eventually lead to (a) collapse, and (b) lost opportunity for innovation, adaptation, and productivity rather than booms and busts. As far as I know the answer is no.
    3. That does not mean that the answer ist o preserve savings – it means that the means of increasing employment is not credit but direct distribution of liquidity to consumers to do what they will, rather than trying to force that liquidity to consumers through the financial and business sectors.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-epistemology-of-Austrian-economics

  • Do White People Feel Uncomfortable When They Hear Non-whites Mention The Word “racist” Around Them?

    Because when a white person is called a racist, they understand (a) they are being alienated by the threat of violence (b) they are being alienated so that others can achieve self image by denigrating others, (c) they are aware that only european whites and east asians have succeeded in building high trust polities. (d) they are aware the critics are just hateful and envious.

    “No man is a hero to his debtors.”

    And the whole world is our debtor.

    We dragged makinkind one civilization at a time out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and the uncertainty of a universe hostile to human life, and they resisted, kicking and screaming all the while. All these people are doing is kicking and screaming at being dragged out of their ancestral childhoods.

    A parent must never take the words of his teenagers seriously, any more than europeans must take the words of the underclasses seriously.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-white-people-feel-uncomfortable-when-they-hear-non-whites-mention-the-word-racist-around-them

  • How Does The Austrian Theory Of Business Cycles Explain The Tulip Bubble€?

    I’ll try to give you the best answer possible today.

    1. All humans flock to opportunities, exploit opportunities, and defect from flocking to opportunities as the opportunities are exhausted and other, more preferable, opportunities emerge.
    2. In this sense, all human economies seek disequilibrium, because it is only in disequilibrium that opportunities exist (If we ever managed equality then we will all be poor.)
    3. Without credit, opportunities cannot be exploited at the lowest possible price (discount) simply because either (a) scarcity of the monetary resource, and (b) extraction of profits (premiums) and ‘Rents’ by savers.

      ( This topic is a significant point of contention, if not the central point of contention. The Right’s position [and mine] is that it’s not clear that earning money from your savings is necessary or beneficial – only that it not be deflated. The Left/Keynesians hold the position that you do not even have any right to the stored value of your savings. The l|Libertarian position is that you have a right to ‘seek rents’ as an investor using your savings. The libertarian is decidedly false since that is the means by which predatory subclasses have used high trust local norms to accumulate, centralize capital, and turn it against host peoples.)
    4. Credit (Promise of future repayment) assists in more people flocking to opportunities, exploiting those opportunities faster, but also defecting from those opportunities more slowly, and ending those opportunities not gradually but in a ‘bust’, leaving late defectors having lost their investments and unable to fulfill their promises.
    5. Therefore, the question has been, and remains, how much credit to provide at what price such that opportunities are exploited *by those able to exit* but not by people who *will not be able to exit*. While economic discourse appears difficult, this is actually the central question. The answer is relatively simple, in that if we are financing a shift from one network of specialization and trade to another, then that is reducing the unnecessary friction, or if we are creating opportunity for unskilled risk, and therefore creating a moral hazard (trap).

      (This topic is a significant point of contention, because it leaves most consumers out of the ‘lottery’ that loose credit can create, and out of the temporary consumption that loose credit creates, and produces a moral hazard for banks and credit institutions, by forcing them to lend money during booms to stay in business then creating waves of bankruptcies during the consequential corrections.)
    6. There are very few substantive questions in economics. (a) The means of calculating credit price and availability is one, (b) whether we can bypass the financial sector and provide liquidity directly to citizens(consumers) without simply having landlords and creditors absorb the profits now going to the financial sector, (c) the third is purely ethical and moral: and that is, do we return to intergenerational lending (all of human history until the keynesians), so that there is a good reason to provide income on savings, or do we continue extraction of rents through the financial system by charging the citizenry to borrow against their own production, or do we, as above, end the unnecessary distribution of credit capacity (and interest) for consumer consumption by just bypassing the financial sector altogether. Every other question in economics a derivative of these questions – or it is simply the use of economic analysis to investigate demonstrated human behavior, given that the (soft) social sciences (pseudosciences) of psychology, sociology, and political ‘science’ have failed to produce any repeatable scientific findings by means of self reporting or direct testing.

    Therefore, the Tulip Bubble is just a nice simple example that we use to illustrate how consumers can borrow money to invest in what they don’t understand and lose it.

    There are thousands of other examples, particularly in the new world, but the Tulip Bulb Bubble is more helpful because it communicates to average people that they too are vulnerable to malincentives, not just people with much more money.

    In other words, invest in what you do and know, and otherwise invest in index funds. In other words, Just as Little Red Riding Hood is a lesson to young girls who would do improper things for money are certain times, the Tulip Bulb serves as a parable for consumers – do what you know, and only what you know.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Austrian-theory-of-business-cycles-explain-the-tulip-bubble

  • Is It Ok For 13 Year Olds To Have Sex?

    In general, as the single most explanatory rule of behavior “Do only that which you can pay the restitution for if you fail.” Because while unstated, it is the rule by which both legal, moral, and normative blame is determined.

    They cannot pay and are not even cognizant of, the cost of restitution. And creating and bearing a child is perhaps the greatest crime moral crime, becasue it subjects family and indeed all of society, to moral hazard: they are forced to pay for your bad judgement, and the bad judgment of your parents and family, becasue they cannot morally correct your decision by killing the child. (Although that has been done frequently in history it is not done today.)

    When the family was the principle unit of economic production, when we lived in intergenerational households because of it, when children began contributing to the work of the household by age five, when child mortality was as much as 50%, death in childbirth common, and the vicissitudes of life unpredictable, pregnancy uncontrollable, children disposable, and women in particular had no control over their destinies we treated children very close to domesticated animals. And none of those conditions apply today – at least, for anyone who would ask the question, or read the post.

    For most of history 13–14 was the beginning of adulthood. Girls may be indeed mature enough to care for children by 16 and certainly 17 if they are under the care of an intergenerational household and began working in the household and caring for siblings from six or seven. Boys, if they are put to work by the same age, and have responsibility by 12 or 14, can be, like girls caretakers in an intergenerational household, especially if they have done any military service. But boys do not finish maturing until 22, just as girls are ending their optimum fertility (23). Our questionably effective education system has extended childhood development so much so that males are now mentally, emotionally, and socially mature only in their late twenties (if that). School is unquestionably effective through grade 5, but by grade 7 is only marginally effective. So we are effectively losing 5+ years of socialization, employment, and emotional development in order to keep children in school more than the entirely adequate 2–3 hours per day, if they participate in the work force in simple work after that (I started working holidays time at 7 years old. And by 10 and 11 worked holidays and whenever else I could. ) Under those conditions we could (as they do in eastern europe) have children earlier. Without those conditions, and perpetuating today’s environement, the single mother disaster will continue, and the boys that ‘check out of society and stay there’ will continue.

    So the answer to age of sex at 13 is “Not in this current world we live in.”

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ok-for-13-year-olds-to-have-sex

  • What Is The Deepest Philosophical Concept You Have Come By?

    There actually aren’t any that are also true. (Really)

    (No. Really. We produce “Wisdom Literature” in , mythological, theological, rational, historical, and scientific grammars: meaning rules of continuous disambiguation including disambiguation by permissible paradigms (vocabulary).)

    Science produces humiliatingly parsimonious knowledge – and all of the universe and our experience in it can be explained as one continuous set of consequences from a few very simple causes.

    In my study of history the number of truths is extremely small, all are knowable, and the number of falsehoods that we have invented to circumvent thought, emotion, and action that correspond with those truths is more numerous than the number of humans.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-deepest-philosophical-concept-you-have-come-by

  • Why Didn’t Adam Smith Believe In The Ideas Of Karl Marx?

    Did someone really ask this question? Really. FWIW, they were both wrong. The labor theory of value is false. Subjective value is true and marginalism has overwhelmingly demonstrated so.

    Smith went to his grave thinking he was right, and he was right on the absurdly irreplacable returns of cooperation. But he was wrong on the labor theory of value.

    Marx went to his grave knowing he was wrong. He read the marginalists and stopped writing. But he couldn’t stop taking income from Engels, so he pretended that he kept working.

    Nothing more came from Marx – because his entire premise was wrong, and history has been unkind to his legacy.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Adam-Smith-believe-in-the-ideas-of-Karl-Marx

  • What Is The Epistemology Of Austrian Economics?

    The Correct Answer

    There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.

    Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.

    Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.

    I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.

    There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.

    1. The moral question of whether investors have a right to appreciation of a currency or even right of defense against a currency. Mises/Rothbard’s whole program was yes, but the answer is no.
    2. Whether or not the good produced by the constant destruction of the value of a currency, as a means of increasing consumption in order to increase employment in order to increase overall economic velocity -outweighs the bad of consistent overextension of the boom bust cycle , and whether that over extension will eventually lead to (a) collapse, and (b) lost opportunity for innovation, adaptation, and productivity rather than booms and busts. As far as I know the answer is no.
    3. That does not mean that the answer ist o preserve savings – it means that the means of increasing employment is not credit but direct distribution of liquidity to consumers to do what they will, rather than trying to force that liquidity to consumers through the financial and business sectors.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-epistemology-of-Austrian-economics

  • Do White People Feel Uncomfortable When They Hear Non-whites Mention The Word “racist” Around Them?

    Because when a white person is called a racist, they understand (a) they are being alienated by the threat of violence (b) they are being alienated so that others can achieve self image by denigrating others, (c) they are aware that only european whites and east asians have succeeded in building high trust polities. (d) they are aware the critics are just hateful and envious.

    “No man is a hero to his debtors.”

    And the whole world is our debtor.

    We dragged makinkind one civilization at a time out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and the uncertainty of a universe hostile to human life, and they resisted, kicking and screaming all the while. All these people are doing is kicking and screaming at being dragged out of their ancestral childhoods.

    A parent must never take the words of his teenagers seriously, any more than europeans must take the words of the underclasses seriously.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-white-people-feel-uncomfortable-when-they-hear-non-whites-mention-the-word-racist-around-them

  • How Does The Austrian Theory Of Business Cycles Explain The Tulip Bubble€?

    I’ll try to give you the best answer possible today.

    1. All humans flock to opportunities, exploit opportunities, and defect from flocking to opportunities as the opportunities are exhausted and other, more preferable, opportunities emerge.
    2. In this sense, all human economies seek disequilibrium, because it is only in disequilibrium that opportunities exist (If we ever managed equality then we will all be poor.)
    3. Without credit, opportunities cannot be exploited at the lowest possible price (discount) simply because either (a) scarcity of the monetary resource, and (b) extraction of profits (premiums) and ‘Rents’ by savers.

      ( This topic is a significant point of contention, if not the central point of contention. The Right’s position [and mine] is that it’s not clear that earning money from your savings is necessary or beneficial – only that it not be deflated. The Left/Keynesians hold the position that you do not even have any right to the stored value of your savings. The l|Libertarian position is that you have a right to ‘seek rents’ as an investor using your savings. The libertarian is decidedly false since that is the means by which predatory subclasses have used high trust local norms to accumulate, centralize capital, and turn it against host peoples.)
    4. Credit (Promise of future repayment) assists in more people flocking to opportunities, exploiting those opportunities faster, but also defecting from those opportunities more slowly, and ending those opportunities not gradually but in a ‘bust’, leaving late defectors having lost their investments and unable to fulfill their promises.
    5. Therefore, the question has been, and remains, how much credit to provide at what price such that opportunities are exploited *by those able to exit* but not by people who *will not be able to exit*. While economic discourse appears difficult, this is actually the central question. The answer is relatively simple, in that if we are financing a shift from one network of specialization and trade to another, then that is reducing the unnecessary friction, or if we are creating opportunity for unskilled risk, and therefore creating a moral hazard (trap).

      (This topic is a significant point of contention, because it leaves most consumers out of the ‘lottery’ that loose credit can create, and out of the temporary consumption that loose credit creates, and produces a moral hazard for banks and credit institutions, by forcing them to lend money during booms to stay in business then creating waves of bankruptcies during the consequential corrections.)
    6. There are very few substantive questions in economics. (a) The means of calculating credit price and availability is one, (b) whether we can bypass the financial sector and provide liquidity directly to citizens(consumers) without simply having landlords and creditors absorb the profits now going to the financial sector, (c) the third is purely ethical and moral: and that is, do we return to intergenerational lending (all of human history until the keynesians), so that there is a good reason to provide income on savings, or do we continue extraction of rents through the financial system by charging the citizenry to borrow against their own production, or do we, as above, end the unnecessary distribution of credit capacity (and interest) for consumer consumption by just bypassing the financial sector altogether. Every other question in economics a derivative of these questions – or it is simply the use of economic analysis to investigate demonstrated human behavior, given that the (soft) social sciences (pseudosciences) of psychology, sociology, and political ‘science’ have failed to produce any repeatable scientific findings by means of self reporting or direct testing.

    Therefore, the Tulip Bubble is just a nice simple example that we use to illustrate how consumers can borrow money to invest in what they don’t understand and lose it.

    There are thousands of other examples, particularly in the new world, but the Tulip Bulb Bubble is more helpful because it communicates to average people that they too are vulnerable to malincentives, not just people with much more money.

    In other words, invest in what you do and know, and otherwise invest in index funds. In other words, Just as Little Red Riding Hood is a lesson to young girls who would do improper things for money are certain times, the Tulip Bulb serves as a parable for consumers – do what you know, and only what you know.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Austrian-theory-of-business-cycles-explain-the-tulip-bubble