http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/12/democracy-is-irrelevant-for-the-creation-of-prosperity/Democracy is irrelevant. Property rights, the common law, manners, ethics, morals and truth telling, which support property rights are what is required for a wealthy country.
The world needs cartoons it seems. In macro economics, these ‘cartoons’ consist of a set of standardized charts the goal of which is to inform policy makers as to the actions required of their monetary policy for the purpose of reducing unemployment by fooling people into spending by using disinformation about their current ‘wealth’. However, like anything else, what you choose to chart either assists or harms in making your case – charts confirm or deny your biases. The current charts used in macro economics reflect the belief that human beings are uniform – at least in the aggregate. Meaning that we’re equal in ability and in our productivity. Which in turn implies a requirement for democratic socialist policies instead of classical liberal policies. This use of aggregates justifies the progressive political presumption. The use of individual statistics on the other hand, justifies freedom, property rights, and all sorts of politically incorrect ‘isms’.
THE IS-LM, and IS-MP CHARTS
Macro economists rely upon these two charts to emphasize either monetary policy and spending for the purpose of creating ‘demand’.
Or monetary policy and spending for the purpose of targeting an interest rate for the purpose of making sure the country isn’t artificially short of cash.
HAYEK’S TRIANGLES
Hayek created charts to show differences in production cycles.
GARRISON’S DIAGRAMS
Roger Garrison created a series of charts to show the intertemporal effect of money and interest – effectively representing the Austrian view graphically.
IS-MP AND THE INTERTEMPORAL MISALLOCATION OF HUMAN CAPITAL
Show how monetary policy, and in fact, all intervention, misallocates human capital.
(UNDONE)
POLITICS
The nolan chart describes the political spectrum. Nolan’s wonderful chart is constructed to construe decision making as a matter of choice between neutral consequences, rather than as a preference between forms of redistributing the gains from trade and exchange – without which there would be nothing to exchange.
KINSELLA’S EVOLUTIONARY CHART
DOOLITTLE’S POLITICAL SPECTRUM CHART
These Axis describe a four sided pyramid with the state on the top. (For the unwashed massess — Axis vs Axes: The plural of axis is “axes”, pronounced ‘AK-SEEZ.)
The Property Economy
X – Axis: State-Monopoly on property VS individual property rights and individual claims on rewards from trade. Libertarian/Commercial/Calculative/Middle Class
Y – Axis: State-Monopoly on gains in production VS Shareholder rights, and shareholder claims on rewards from trade. Progressive/Theological/Rational/Lower Class
The Opportunity Cost Economy
Z – Axis: Formal Institutions: State-Monopoly on behavior (law) VS Voluntary Behavior (religion/philosophy)
Alpha – Axis: Informal Institutions: Opportunity Costs Required (Norms – highly uniform manners, ethics, and morals VS no uniform manners, ethics and morals). Conservative/Military/Legal/Upper Class
(UNDONE: I’ll update this page ater when I get the diagram done.)
TIME PREFERENCE VS POPULATION PREFERENCE IN POLITICAL PREFERENCE, THEN OVERLAY WITH THE HUMAN SENTIMENTS
And then show how time and population preference are gender driven, and class driven.
Then I can show how time preference relates to political preference, and the allocation versus misallocation of human capital..
THREE TYPES OF COERCION AND THE SOCIAL CLASSES
Then show the ‘three types of coercion’ which is implicit in this chart, and universal to the rest of my work.
PER CAPITA GDP AND IQ
Noting the difference between verbal and mathematical.
EDUCATIONAL EFFECTS ON IQCLASS, RACE AND IQGENERATIONAL CYCLES
Krugman Watch: What Will Happen With Conservatives In Three Houses Of Government? http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/11/krugman-watch-what-will-happen-with-conservatives-in-three-houses-of-government/
What will happen when (conservatives) control all three branches of government? Not much really. The stalemate will continue indefinitely.
However, if we’re lucky, we will restore our search freedom over equality, restore merit over Harrison-Bergeron’ing, support commercial invention over redistribution, restore the western tradition by eliminating the DOE and teaching history, philosophy and literature, mandate our anglo language, restore our common law and constitution, return sovereignty to the states, and thankfully, reverse the anti-white-male bias and narrative.
The west is special because of balance of power. Balance between states. Between classes. Between the church and state. The anglo west is special because of its class-based system of government, and its use of constitutionalism, common law, and property rights. Despite being the poorest, most remote from the first cities, and the least populous civilization, first Greece then England developed the industrial revolution – science, logic, reason and debate. And it did so because the militial culture of the aristocracy wished to retain their sovereignty while cooperating toward common ends and had to develop debate to do so. This set of affairs led to the last most important talent of the west – which was, that despite small numbers, they were the best warriors on earth.
That is what made the west special and nothing else. And it is that special nature that the left seeks to replace — with the same poverty-inducing authoritarian, egalitarian tyranny-of-the-bottom that had eventually taken over the rest of the world — and which we escaped for nearly half a millenium, until the 20th century liberal took on faith that he had discovered the end of history, and could abandon the political and economic system that made prosperity possible.
The foolhardiness of Schumpeterian Public Intellectuals is writ large on these pages daily. It is silly public intellectuals that bring about tyranny.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucusRon Paul has illustrated that libertarians have grown sufficiently to constitute 10 to 15% of the electorate. However, the country is heavily conservative, and where it is not conservative, it favors the republican economic program. It’s impressive that the libertarians have made so much progress. It’s unfortunate that it’s unlikely to make greater progress — without enfranchising conservatives on geopolitical strategy.
On Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, Nick Rowe asks “Why isn’t NGDP targeting a lefty thing?” and asks why the right seems to support it, instead of supporting inflation targeting.
My reply was:
Nick,
I think you miss the point that from the right’s position, NGDP targeting would require that the government focus its efforts on industrial policy in order to be able to fund redistribution, and therefore cooperate rather than prey on business and industry. This in turn would require we correct our dysfunctional education system that creates uncompetitive workers, and it would reduce class warfare by focusing on specific policy initiatives that would make the nation competitive rather than devolutionary. The right originally abandoned industrial policy because of the collaboration between unions and the state. Now that they see unions as weak and foreign states as a threat, they would prefer to return to industrial policy and very likely, away from free trade – which was just a vehicle for competing against the government-union alliance while the USA had a temporary postwar technological advantage.
Conservatism is the sentiment and subsequent philosophy of inter-temporal group persistence by the concentration of capital in all it’s forms. In the USA conservatism also includes an allegiance to the status quo of classical liberalism, which in itself is a commercial meritocratic philosophy that retains the english system of class cooperation through multiple houses of government. The democratic socialist movement is an attempt by the proletariat and public intellectuals to obtain political and economic power by propagating the mythos of equality in order to undermine the multi-class system of government in which tehy are at a disadvantage compared to the commercial productive classes. But it is nothing more than an appeal to power for the purpose of material gain. Nothing more and nothing less.
While conservatism is more likely to rely on historical metaphor and moral argument because of their inter-temporal content, and the left is more likely to argue for empirical positivism because it specifically lacks that inter-temporal content and replaces that historical view with an absolute faith in the human ability to manage it’s own destiny, that does not mean that conservatism cannot be articulated as a rational philosophy. It simply means, that because it is more complex, it is harder to do so.
But then again, concepts of this depth are usually outside of the understanding of macro economists, and are instead the provenance of political philosophers and historians to whom economic activity is a predictable cycle driven by little more than institutions, military power, trade routes, and population composition.
On Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, Nick Rowe asks “Why isn’t NGDP targeting a lefty thing?” and asks why the right seems to support it, instead of supporting inflation targeting.
My reply was:
Nick,
I think you miss the point that from the right’s position, NGDP targeting would require that the government focus its efforts on industrial policy in order to be able to fund redistribution, and therefore cooperate rather than prey on business and industry. This in turn would require we correct our dysfunctional education system that creates uncompetitive workers, and it would reduce class warfare by focusing on specific policy initiatives that would make the nation competitive rather than devolutionary. The right originally abandoned industrial policy because of the collaboration between unions and the state. Now that they see unions as weak and foreign states as a threat, they would prefer to return to industrial policy and very likely, away from free trade – which was just a vehicle for competing against the government-union alliance while the USA had a temporary postwar technological advantage.
Conservatism is the sentiment and subsequent philosophy of inter-temporal group persistence by the concentration of capital in all it’s forms. In the USA conservatism also includes an allegiance to the status quo of classical liberalism, which in itself is a commercial meritocratic philosophy that retains the english system of class cooperation through multiple houses of government. The democratic socialist movement is an attempt by the proletariat and public intellectuals to obtain political and economic power by propagating the mythos of equality in order to undermine the multi-class system of government in which tehy are at a disadvantage compared to the commercial productive classes. But it is nothing more than an appeal to power for the purpose of material gain. Nothing more and nothing less.
While conservatism is more likely to rely on historical metaphor and moral argument because of their inter-temporal content, and the left is more likely to argue for empirical positivism because it specifically lacks that inter-temporal content and replaces that historical view with an absolute faith in the human ability to manage it’s own destiny, that does not mean that conservatism cannot be articulated as a rational philosophy. It simply means, that because it is more complex, it is harder to do so.
But then again, concepts of this depth are usually outside of the understanding of macro economists, and are instead the provenance of political philosophers and historians to whom economic activity is a predictable cycle driven by little more than institutions, military power, trade routes, and population composition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016lklv/iPM_05_11_2011/The case for Monarchy. Constitutional monarchy, with property rights under the common law is the best form of government yet developed. Hoppe’s forceful argument is that under monarchy we had lower taxes, fewer wars, trade unions, political parties, an active and supportive church, and that’s because as the ‘owner’ of the government, and the territory, the monarch acts as any business person who wants to hand his company over to the next generation – with long and low time preference. Furthermore, any action by the monarch that threatens the viability of the noble family tends to result in the family killing him off (see Mad Ludwig who build the bavarian castles we so admire.) Elected officials tend to treat the country like predators in a tragedy of the commons. THey consume everything like locusts and destroy the traditions and the wealth of the country. Furthermore, there is nothing more warlike than a democracy, and nothing so unwilling to follow through on it’s warlike ambitions.
…here is the long-run trend on private sector service sector employment.
Notice that its just as strong as the last recovery though coming sooner. Not quite as strong as the 80 and 90s.
On the other hand goods and government over that period look like this
To the extent there is a structural transformation afoot in the US economy, this is it.
Yes, the average citizen can attest to the fact that you’re correct simply by casual observation while living daily life.
The problem you’re stating is obvious. But the question that is currently circulating in the popular media is whether increased money supply that increases demand, and whether additional taxation and redistribution, will improve that long term trend, or whether we had better improve our schools, improve our industries, improve our infrastructure, and improve the world marketability of our unskilled, and semi-skilled working classes. We cannot make our lower classes more productive by demonizing our upper classes. And we are too heterogeneous now to form a ‘society’ that will support different classes under the emotional sentiments of tribal nationalism.
Germany promises the working classes skilled labor. America promises the working classes entry into the middle and upper middle classes. But, america’s promise if false. Its just not possible. And what you’re seeing today is the acknowledgement among the laboring classes that their status is depreciating along with their incomes, and that given their ages and knowledge, that the rest of their lives are questionably comfortable due to the false promise of middle class membership — given to them to assuage the natural problem if integration of races and cultures with different potentials both environmental, physical and cultural.
Economics is a subset of politics, not the other way ’round. In the long run we are all human.
