Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • Stiglitz Joins In On Keynesian Spending In Order To Expand The Oppressive State

    The Keynesian debate promoted by such writers as Krugman, Delong, Thoma, Smith, and Stiglitz is misleading. Human beings are well aware that spending can increase demand, and that demand will improve the economy. The problem is, that we’re also aware of the externalities that are caused by that spending: the increase in government interference in our lives, the expansion of government’s size, the corruption created by the use of the funds, the use of the funds to support one’s opposition, the destruction of our savings, and the near prohibition on the institution of saving. These negative consequences all support the secondary Keynesian objectives: the strong and increasingly egalitarian state. So Keynesians promote spending as much because of it’s externalities as for its impact on the economy. Just as we oppose those externalities because we desire freedom from an oppressive state, even if we must pay a high cost for doing so. The germans resent supporting the greeks, italians and spanish just as much as americans resent supporting their liberal leaning underclasses. And while it may be true that the scale of our economy allows us to print money, that is not to say that each of us could not be more free, more prosperous, more secure and more competitive, as smaller collections of states rather than a continental federation of states oppressed by the coasts. The Keynesian arguments are convincing on first blush. But they are only convincing because in their simplicity they ignore the true costs of government spending – the externalities that come from empowering the state: it is not debt alone that we face. It’s the destruction of meritocracy and the submission to the state. The germans and the americans are right to oppose it.

  • FROM: Krugmanville QUOTE: “I’m waiting for the .1% to realize that increase in d

    FROM: Krugmanville

    QUOTE: “I’m waiting for the .1% to realize that increase in demand will bring increase in earnings. The path to profit maximization does not include depression. At some point politicians and private equity firms will realize stimulating the economy is in their interests.” /QUOTE

    Curt Doolittle, Seattle WA

    It may be comforting to view one’s opposition as clueless, stupid or ignorant. But it isn’t true. This conservative strategy has been consistent since the Reagan era, when conservatives looked at demographic data and determined that it was no longer possible to work within the state, only in competition with it, in an effort to bankrupt it.

    So your argument about the .1% “realizing” something, or that they can make more money funding consumption doesn’t wash. It’s not about money. It’s about constraining the state. The .1% are ‘hired’, and empowered by the conservatives as an opposition to the intrusive state’s assault on norms. So, no one is clueless here. It’s a strategy and it’s working. And it’s going to continue to work because of demographics. Because of those demographics, polarization is a permanent property of the American empire.

    The founder’s use of majority rule assumed a dominant christian agrarian populace. It was a vehicle for preserving the power of that social order through common interest. Addition of women to the electorate undermined that dynamic. Immigration altered it. Breeding rates made it permanent. Urbanization and density preference exacerbated it. And the result is necessary polarization as one group that’s biased female uses the state and the other that’s biased male uses commerce. And nothing is going to change that dynamic other than a substantial decrease in single parenthood, and small households, or a rapid change in racial breeding rate distributions. Since those factors are unlikely to occur in an industrialized society, the polarization will be exacerbated and permanent until there is some conflict that restructures the constitution, or some innovation that renders the state less meaningful as a means of redistribution.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-09 10:43:00 UTC

  • Is The “old Left” Still A Viable Force Anywhere In Left-wing Politics?

    No, the effort today has changed from arguing in favor of labor, to arguing in favor of the poor and minorities. And from arguing for rents, to arguing for direct redistribution.
    • Marxism and the managed economy have been discredited.
    • In no small part, Labor is no longer a significant force in society, they are less profitable to run, and Labor Unions have been successfully discredited due to their abuses.
    • Public works projects other than infastructural necessity do not produce the returns anticipated.
    • Much of the Great Society (housing) turns out to be a recipe for poverty and crime. Large central projects turn out to be ineffective (see Detroit, MI.)
    So the movement has focused on direct redistribution. There are many reasons for this change but I would need a more specific question in order to avoid writing a ten thousand words to cover the entire suite of reasons. The left leaning economists desperately want to change this, but the public won’t have it. They are done with additional taxes.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Old-Left-still-a-viable-force-anywhere-in-left-wing-politics

  • Why Is Socialism Such A Bogeyman?

    You would need to understand the term “Socialism”
    1) Original meaning: central control of the means of production.
    2) Current meaning: redistributive democracy -central ownership of the profits from individual actions.

    The first It has a bad name because:
    In the name of socialism nearly a hundred million people died (disruption of incentives). Because it’s economically impossible (economic calculation debate).  And because it held people in poverty.

    The second is just a slow means of achieving the first.

    Small homogenous Germanic countries who’s strategic needs are subsidized by the united states or whose economies are subsidized by natural resources appear to be egalitarian. (It’s called ‘getting to denmark’ in political economy.) This is because they have a rigid normative structure and the different groups are not large enough to create a bloc.  The usa is a large heterogeneous economy with many factions in direct opposition, and unenforced norms, racial and cultural conflicts, facing both internal and external strategic threats that subsidizes much of the world, and where access to government allows access to power over other groups. The USA also has dramatic redistribution through inefficient benefit programs rather than directly via money.   People are not charitable to others who they feel they are in competition with.

    (And before you get too impressed with those countries go live there for a year. It is extremely expensive and you will be able to consume only a fraction of  what you do in the states.)

    It is entirely possible to have a great deal of redistribution if norms are consistent and there is no access to poliitcal power.  But that means ‘small is good’.  And ‘small is good’ is what you should learn from the nordic countries.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-socialism-such-a-bogeyman

  • What Are The Differences Between The Political Parties In The Usa?

    They represent different sets of alliances.  Mostly those that want to expand the state and those who want to contract it.

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-are-the-differences-between-the-political-parties-in-the-USA

  • What Happened To Occupy Wall Street?

    OWS and The tea party are both likely to be long term phenomena caused by structural changes in the USA, and in the world economy.

    OWS still exists as a movement of sorts, but declined for two reasons:
    1) A failure to develop a platform of specific actions.  Movements need policy objectives and they didn’t propose them.  And leadership never emerged that could drive and negotiate them.
    2) The behavior of the members was deemed unacceptable:  In the 60’s the underclasses were emerging as a numeric force sufficient to create both a political and consumer class. Further, their behavior was a rejection of the war, the postwar strategic nuclear threats, and the rigidity of their parent’s disciplined ‘war’ generation.  These other factors are not in play at this time, so while the movement succeeded in propagating the 1% message, they discredited themselves by what the majority consider ‘uncivic’ behavior.

    https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-Occupy-Wall-Street

  • Why Is Socialism Such A Bogeyman?

    You would need to understand the term “Socialism”
    1) Original meaning: central control of the means of production.
    2) Current meaning: redistributive democracy -central ownership of the profits from individual actions.

    The first It has a bad name because:
    In the name of socialism nearly a hundred million people died (disruption of incentives). Because it’s economically impossible (economic calculation debate).  And because it held people in poverty.

    The second is just a slow means of achieving the first.

    Small homogenous Germanic countries who’s strategic needs are subsidized by the united states or whose economies are subsidized by natural resources appear to be egalitarian. (It’s called ‘getting to denmark’ in political economy.) This is because they have a rigid normative structure and the different groups are not large enough to create a bloc.  The usa is a large heterogeneous economy with many factions in direct opposition, and unenforced norms, racial and cultural conflicts, facing both internal and external strategic threats that subsidizes much of the world, and where access to government allows access to power over other groups. The USA also has dramatic redistribution through inefficient benefit programs rather than directly via money.   People are not charitable to others who they feel they are in competition with.

    (And before you get too impressed with those countries go live there for a year. It is extremely expensive and you will be able to consume only a fraction of  what you do in the states.)

    It is entirely possible to have a great deal of redistribution if norms are consistent and there is no access to poliitcal power.  But that means ‘small is good’.  And ‘small is good’ is what you should learn from the nordic countries.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-socialism-such-a-bogeyman

  • What Happened To Occupy Wall Street?

    OWS and The tea party are both likely to be long term phenomena caused by structural changes in the USA, and in the world economy.

    OWS still exists as a movement of sorts, but declined for two reasons:
    1) A failure to develop a platform of specific actions.  Movements need policy objectives and they didn’t propose them.  And leadership never emerged that could drive and negotiate them.
    2) The behavior of the members was deemed unacceptable:  In the 60’s the underclasses were emerging as a numeric force sufficient to create both a political and consumer class. Further, their behavior was a rejection of the war, the postwar strategic nuclear threats, and the rigidity of their parent’s disciplined ‘war’ generation.  These other factors are not in play at this time, so while the movement succeeded in propagating the 1% message, they discredited themselves by what the majority consider ‘uncivic’ behavior.

    https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-Occupy-Wall-Street

  • would like to see a similar chart containing the social class of the protagonist

    http://io9.com/5911520/a-chart-that-reveals-how-science-fiction-futures-changed-over-timeI would like to see a similar chart containing the social class of the protagonists (Futurama:lower, Gibson: lower middle, Star Trek: Middle, Asimov: upper middle, Herbert’s Dune: Upper.) Because I think that would tell us just as much about class changes as it does about the presence of technological change.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-19 16:59:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism and Marxism They are both philosophically rigorous. libertarianis

    Libertarianism and Marxism

    They are both philosophically rigorous.

    libertarianism wins on everything except the satisfaction of our psyches.

    Liberalism and conservatism have no such rigor. Conservatism is historical. Liberalism is emotional. Rawls creates a system of justice that assumes away scarcity. Hayek places limits that progressives cannot bear to face.

    But its exasperating that we are able to argue rationally with Marxists despite the gravity of their failure. But cannot convert conservatives. And cannot even have rational conversations of any sort with liberals.

    The only way to solve this problem is empirically and we cannot do that with the data we have today. The best we can do is prove the other side is even more ignorant than we are. And is therefore exposing us to risk by preventing us from reducing our risk, while greatly expanding it.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-17 17:32:00 UTC