THE ECONOMICS OF DATING AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion. So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition. Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly. There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs. Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary. The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.
Theme: Incentives
-
The Principle Problem Solved by P
THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs. Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary. The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.
-
The Principle Problem Solved by P
THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs. Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary. The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.
-
Truth About Human Beings
Oct 24, 2019, 8:20 PM People are rational actors acting in their rational self interests, that observe the minimum conformance to rule, procedure, norm, tradition, regulation, legislation, and law, necessary to preserve their status in the social order. Period. End of Story. Good luck falsifying it. People are not good, ethical, or moral. They are amoral. They discover what is in their self interest within the environmental limits and congratulate themselves for the content of their character (self image). This is the empirical evidence from all people in all cultures, in all countries, in all civilizations, across all of history. The civilization of man was performed by the incremental provision of incentives to find self congratulation in minimum accomodation of the various systems of rules, by the incremental evolution of law, norm, and custom to suppress as many opportunities for bad, unethical, immoral, conduct as affordable by the polity, and where incentives are possible to construct. Hence the necessity of sheriffs and policemen and populations increased in anonymity. We must govern amoral humans because all are amoral. Ergo we must govern pessimistically so that we continuously evolve the suppression of irreciprocity (the bad, unethical, immoral) as quickly as we evolve new methods of bad, unethical and immoral behavior. Optimism is why progressive governments fail. Edit
-
Truth About Human Beings
Oct 24, 2019, 8:20 PM People are rational actors acting in their rational self interests, that observe the minimum conformance to rule, procedure, norm, tradition, regulation, legislation, and law, necessary to preserve their status in the social order. Period. End of Story. Good luck falsifying it. People are not good, ethical, or moral. They are amoral. They discover what is in their self interest within the environmental limits and congratulate themselves for the content of their character (self image). This is the empirical evidence from all people in all cultures, in all countries, in all civilizations, across all of history. The civilization of man was performed by the incremental provision of incentives to find self congratulation in minimum accomodation of the various systems of rules, by the incremental evolution of law, norm, and custom to suppress as many opportunities for bad, unethical, immoral, conduct as affordable by the polity, and where incentives are possible to construct. Hence the necessity of sheriffs and policemen and populations increased in anonymity. We must govern amoral humans because all are amoral. Ergo we must govern pessimistically so that we continuously evolve the suppression of irreciprocity (the bad, unethical, immoral) as quickly as we evolve new methods of bad, unethical and immoral behavior. Optimism is why progressive governments fail. Edit
-
The Problem of Left Egalitarian Thought
THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT
—“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital. (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!) This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them. This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb
-
The Problem of Left Egalitarian Thought
THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT
—“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital. (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!) This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them. This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb
-
The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics
The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics, https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/the-economics-of-consumption-has-replaced-morality-in-politics/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:45:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267452221958033408
-
The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics
The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics, https://t.co/cvJUTMMKhy
-
The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics,
The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital. In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason. I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion. The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity. The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism. We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital. All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.