Theme: Externalities

  • Hayek Vs Mises (Responding To Bob Murphy)

    1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital. 2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible. 3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost. 4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done. 5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence. 6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity. 7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason. Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity. 8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response. You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.
  • Worth Repeating

    Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse. !!!!Only Commons Produce Private Property!!!!
  • (to paul krugman via twitter) What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capi

    (to paul krugman via twitter)

    What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capital measurements in economic pseudoscience, and prosecute those who create moral hazards by promoting it? Will you be as equally judicious in your self-criticisms? History will judge you as it has judged Marx, Freud, and Boaz.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 22:09:00 UTC

  • (to paul krugman via twitter) What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capi

    (to paul krugman via twitter) What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capital measurements in economic pseudoscience, and prosecute those who create moral hazards by promoting it? Will you be as equally judicious in your self-criticisms? History will judge you as it has judged Marx, Freud, and Boaz.
  • (to paul krugman via twitter) What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capi

    (to paul krugman via twitter) What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capital measurements in economic pseudoscience, and prosecute those who create moral hazards by promoting it? Will you be as equally judicious in your self-criticisms? History will judge you as it has judged Marx, Freud, and Boaz.
  • What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capital measurements in economic p

    What happens when we outlaw cherry-picking of capital measurements in economic pseudoscience, and prosecute those who create moral hazards by promoting it? Will you be as equally judicious in your self-criticisms? History will judge you as it has judged Marx, Freud, and Boaz.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 13:20:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968838235374923777

    Reply addressees: @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968837422539821059


    IN REPLY TO:

    @paulkrugman

    Merchants of death watch, more or less literally: the reason FedEx won’t drop its special deals with the NRA is that it makes a lot of money shipping guns https://t.co/3Fd4HnXV3J

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968837422539821059

  • Sorry but I can’t untangle that… But I think you might mean that without warra

    Sorry but I can’t untangle that… But I think you might mean that without warranty of reciprocal insurance the incentive to refrain from imposition of costs doesn’t exist – and without sufficient scale is unenforceable. One needs enough insurers in order to ward off competitors.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 01:19:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955973324844224512

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955967690375512064


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle Under the “default aggression principle”, no person or group is entitled to a state of non-aggression without providing the necessary incentives to *not* “conquer, kill or enslave” them (reciprocity). So might gives a positional advantage that would make distinguishing between…

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955967690375512064

  • As far as I know, reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary

    As far as I know, reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality) cannot be undesirable, wrong, unethical, or immoral. That which is not wrong, is right. (via-negativa logic).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 00:58:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955968032869937152

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955949711407616000


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955949711407616000

  • That doesn’t follow if the state is extractive of more than some small percentag

    That doesn’t follow if the state is extractive of more than some small percentage of multipliers, than no. (and it is. we can measure it.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-23 16:34:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955841121795571712

    Reply addressees: @berthyman @JohnStossel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955468541242888192


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955468541242888192

  • (I know you’re trying to educate the vox populi on relative risk, but likewise I

    (I know you’re trying to educate the vox populi on relative risk, but likewise I try to do the same by illustrating that comparison of costs requires full accounting of the seen and unseen.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 11:52:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953233589738639360

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953224319815045120


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @sapinker Steven, That reasoning is an instance of false equivalency of costs. A disease that kills even 100k will not escalate to interfere with the velocity of cooperation (externalities) – nor be curable. While terrorism can both escalate and be cured.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/953224319815045120


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @sapinker Steven, That reasoning is an instance of false equivalency of costs. A disease that kills even 100k will not escalate to interfere with the velocity of cooperation (externalities) – nor be curable. While terrorism can both escalate and be cured.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/953224319815045120