http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Nyepositional.htmlMy postion is that Positional Goods (Status Signals, Signaling, Status Cues), are not redistributable. And that’s because status signals are NECESSARY, not preferential.
Source date (UTC): 2011-10-19 13:45:00 UTC
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Nyepositional.htmlJohn Nye writes more on Status Signals: “because the West is much richer, positional or status goods are consequently more important. The struggle over status goods can be masked when you have rapid growth and a lot of mobility. But ultimately, middle and upper middle class people DO care more about health care, location of housing, and elite schooling than poorer people. “
In marketing, advertising and politics, social signaling matters. Now, my argument is that it’s impossible to have a complex society without social signals. So my argument is that social signals are NECESSARY. Just like money and numbers are necessary. Because we would would literally not be able to THINK if we didn’t have status signals. Just like we wouldn’t be able to THINK if we didn’t have prices.
Source date (UTC): 2011-10-19 12:38:00 UTC
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=10259The types of inequality
Source date (UTC): 2011-10-17 15:01:00 UTC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/does-americas-99-percent-represent-the-top-1-percent-on-earth/2011/10/12/gIQA5JVQfL_blog.htmlPerspective
Source date (UTC): 2011-10-17 15:00:00 UTC
Well, technically speaking, she’s NOT in the 1%.
Someone ELSE made the money and gave it to her.
So that person is in the 1%.
And she’s hoping everyone can inherit like she did? Right?
Is that her logic?
Source date (UTC): 2011-10-11 17:23:00 UTC
Aggregationists Vs Individualists http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/09/aggregationists-vs-individualists/
Source date (UTC): 2011-09-29 16:43:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/119452371901353985
http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/09/aggregationists-vs-individualists/An analysis of Keynesians Vs Austrians
Source date (UTC): 2011-09-29 12:41:00 UTC
Karl Smith wants us to push money into the economy through redistribution. That’s his hammer and everything looks like a nail. In today’s posting, he finds another nail:
This is a theme I talk about it a lot so I can go into it more but the boom in housing construction was not actually that big. It peaked around 2005. It was offset by a decline weakness in commercial construction. That picked up in 2005 but was in decline by 2007. And public construction ran low right up until 2007. Combine that with the fact that construction is not that big a part of the economy to begin with and the bubble wasn’t really that big. It looks big in part because prices were so distorting and because single family suburban construction really was moving like gangbusters. That’s where a lot of us live but its not where all Americans live and its not where most Americans work. Urban and rural construction was in the dumpster. There is a strong argument that this was classic crowding-out though I am not totally convinced. In any case the boom was small and nothing compared to the bust.
Karl, People are not only price oriented, but future (opportunity) oriented. Their willingness to spend is based not only on prices but on meta-level discourse, and their ability to flock or school to opportunities. I know you know this, but how does that play into your model? If people see an uncertain future (like before an expected war, or loss of national competitiveness) then simply reducing interest rates won’t work. If they don’t trust their government (from either pole) then they won’t allow government to grow. The only thing left is a great deal of strategic spending on competitive industries that people will politically support. There are plenty of avenues for that investment. And simply channeling the political discourse to direct investment will eliminate both the irritation with the government and the uncertainty, allowing people to flock/school toward those investments (creating new patterns of sustainable specialization and trade so to speak), and creating demand. Demand comes from schooling/flocking toward opportunities. I realize that in a neutral polity, lower rates allow people to chase status-oriented consumption. But in a non-neutral, hostile polity, status-chasing can come from destroying the economy itself. You’re right that we need stimulus. You’re wrong that we can take the lazy way out. That stimulus must go into increasing the international competitiveness of the private sector and productive returns. The population will support that. They wont support aggregate spending, or political expansion. THey just won’t and you won’t convince them. So what’s stopping you from solving the problem through the third axis? Is it knowledge of what to invest in? (Maybe.) Is it time (you’re losing time anyway by tilting at the political windmill). SO WHO IS BEING IRRATIONAL? In effect, you are. THe people have decided. And no, your desire for totalitarianism so that you can use your two preferred methods in stead of the third is just not a good idea in the long term. Curt
Karl Smith wants us to push money into the economy through redistribution. That’s his hammer and everything looks like a nail. In today’s posting, he finds another nail:
This is a theme I talk about it a lot so I can go into it more but the boom in housing construction was not actually that big. It peaked around 2005. It was offset by a decline weakness in commercial construction. That picked up in 2005 but was in decline by 2007. And public construction ran low right up until 2007. Combine that with the fact that construction is not that big a part of the economy to begin with and the bubble wasn’t really that big. It looks big in part because prices were so distorting and because single family suburban construction really was moving like gangbusters. That’s where a lot of us live but its not where all Americans live and its not where most Americans work. Urban and rural construction was in the dumpster. There is a strong argument that this was classic crowding-out though I am not totally convinced. In any case the boom was small and nothing compared to the bust.
Karl, People are not only price oriented, but future (opportunity) oriented. Their willingness to spend is based not only on prices but on meta-level discourse, and their ability to flock or school to opportunities. I know you know this, but how does that play into your model? If people see an uncertain future (like before an expected war, or loss of national competitiveness) then simply reducing interest rates won’t work. If they don’t trust their government (from either pole) then they won’t allow government to grow. The only thing left is a great deal of strategic spending on competitive industries that people will politically support. There are plenty of avenues for that investment. And simply channeling the political discourse to direct investment will eliminate both the irritation with the government and the uncertainty, allowing people to flock/school toward those investments (creating new patterns of sustainable specialization and trade so to speak), and creating demand. Demand comes from schooling/flocking toward opportunities. I realize that in a neutral polity, lower rates allow people to chase status-oriented consumption. But in a non-neutral, hostile polity, status-chasing can come from destroying the economy itself. You’re right that we need stimulus. You’re wrong that we can take the lazy way out. That stimulus must go into increasing the international competitiveness of the private sector and productive returns. The population will support that. They wont support aggregate spending, or political expansion. THey just won’t and you won’t convince them. So what’s stopping you from solving the problem through the third axis? Is it knowledge of what to invest in? (Maybe.) Is it time (you’re losing time anyway by tilting at the political windmill). SO WHO IS BEING IRRATIONAL? In effect, you are. THe people have decided. And no, your desire for totalitarianism so that you can use your two preferred methods in stead of the third is just not a good idea in the long term. Curt
Karl Smith at Modeled Behavior says.
Doing the rounds on Mises circuit I am usually identified as a liberal or a person from the left. I don’t really much care so I take that ID.
Karl. ??? Why is that important (other than by engaging the Misesians, that you position yourself well). The Rothbardian wing of the Libertarians are radicals – anarchists. And from the extreme right, everyone else looks left. But you’re a moderate. You’re a classical liberal. In current labels, if you were a little less comfortable with totalitarianism, you’d be part of the Neo-Classical Liberal movement. (See “Bleeding heart libertarians”.) And your belief that we should overthrow the electorate in order to ‘do what’s good for them’ simply proves that you’re a totalitarian. If people prefer what’s bad for them, then that’s OK. RIght now, they prefer to punish their government. You seem to think that’s stupid. But it’s not. It’s just a choice. And that’s what makes the difference between a libertarian and a totalitarian. So, for example, it’s pretty clear that a muslim political majority is economically disastrous for any society that was previously christian. Do you feel that the people have the right then, to demand a muslim government if empirically, it would be bad for them? Likewise, the economic movements in asia that have succeed have been lead by their Christian minorities. So, if Americans want to limit their government if it imposes upon them a cost, then why shouldn’t they? That set of questions illustrates the difference between reason and scientism. Scientism being a pejorative. Democratic socialists have co-opted the term ‘liberal’ from Classical Liberalism. Hayek also used the term Libertarian. Rothbard created the Libertarian Manifesto and effectively co-opted the term. Leaving those of us that are neo-classical liberals (bleeding hearts so to speak) without a name. In the end, in any calculation, from the most numeric to the most heuristic, we must solve for *something*. Some people solve for more freedom over longer periods of time, and others for less freedom and more consumption in the near term. You’re part of the latter group. But I suspect that you’re from the latter group only because you’re enamored of your methods, and ignorant of the long term consequences of the policies you advocate. I don’t advocate redistribution out of an arbitrary sense of empathy – empathy is a weak means of perception in an economy. I do so because propertarian theory helps me understand that redistribution is necessary simply because the system of property rights imposes a cost on individuals and if they respect property rights then should have dividends on their investment. The problem is that these investments must be calculable. This is not something you are familiar with most likely, (the socialist calculation debate) but pooling of money, and general liquidity are both means of creating incalculable relationships between ends and means. And as such they partly destroy the patterns of information needed for an economy. So, if you want to get money into an economy, then do so in a way that is calculable – by low interest loans in areas of the economy that will provide people with what they desire AND need. Cheers.