Definitions: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Game https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/definitions-capitalism-mixed-economy-and-socialism-a-eugenic-vs-dysgenic-game/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 23:15:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259260730941063169
Apr 25, 2020, 12:33 PM DEFINITIONS: CAPITALISM, MIXED ECONOMY, AND SOCIALISM: A EUGENIC VS DYSGENIC GAME RIGHT: Rule of Law, Markets in Everything (j:Capitalism): the voluntary organization of production as a the result of the incentives that result from the anarchic evolution of money, prices, exchanges and contracts under the single principle, norm, regulation or law of the voluntary exchange of private property. This process is naturally meritocratic and eugenic and therefore scientific, which is the reason why the marxists despise it. CENTER: Mixed economy: the voluntary organization of production of capitalism, combined with the involuntary confiscation and redistribution of the proceeds of production. It can be dysgenic or eugenic, meritocratic or not, depending upon the amount of confiscation and the use of confiscated proceeds. This is the least worst option in which neither lower nor upper classes can obtain better conditions. (Like marriage). LEFT: Arbitrary Rule, Absence of Markets: Socialism (j:Communism): the involuntary organization of production and the distribution of proceeds independent of the contribution to production. It is dysgenic and non meritocratic, and provides insufficient incentives to produce enough to meet demands. But this prevents the lower classes from being ‘left behind’ which is their central intuitionistic fear.
Apr 25, 2020, 12:33 PM DEFINITIONS: CAPITALISM, MIXED ECONOMY, AND SOCIALISM: A EUGENIC VS DYSGENIC GAME RIGHT: Rule of Law, Markets in Everything (j:Capitalism): the voluntary organization of production as a the result of the incentives that result from the anarchic evolution of money, prices, exchanges and contracts under the single principle, norm, regulation or law of the voluntary exchange of private property. This process is naturally meritocratic and eugenic and therefore scientific, which is the reason why the marxists despise it. CENTER: Mixed economy: the voluntary organization of production of capitalism, combined with the involuntary confiscation and redistribution of the proceeds of production. It can be dysgenic or eugenic, meritocratic or not, depending upon the amount of confiscation and the use of confiscated proceeds. This is the least worst option in which neither lower nor upper classes can obtain better conditions. (Like marriage). LEFT: Arbitrary Rule, Absence of Markets: Socialism (j:Communism): the involuntary organization of production and the distribution of proceeds independent of the contribution to production. It is dysgenic and non meritocratic, and provides insufficient incentives to produce enough to meet demands. But this prevents the lower classes from being ‘left behind’ which is their central intuitionistic fear.
Apr 26, 2020, 9:37 PM via John John Stephens
—“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”— Friedrich August von Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
CD: That’s really the lesson of the 20th. Hubris via pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial.
Apr 26, 2020, 9:37 PM via John John Stephens
—“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”— Friedrich August von Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
CD: That’s really the lesson of the 20th. Hubris via pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial.
May 2, 2020, 10:43 AM
—“I want to stress the importance of understanding gold is money, not an investment. With banks on Comex getting into greater difficulty it is increasingly likely the US Treasury and Exchange Stabilisation Fund will attack the gold price in an attempt to save Comex and the banks.”—Alasdair Macleod @MacleodFinance
That’s false. Gold is a durable commodity. The transaction cost is too high to function as money. The fraud rate is too high to function as money. The scarcity is too high to function as money (there isn’t enough of it). It’s too open to manipulation to function as money. Edit
May 2, 2020, 10:43 AM
—“I want to stress the importance of understanding gold is money, not an investment. With banks on Comex getting into greater difficulty it is increasingly likely the US Treasury and Exchange Stabilisation Fund will attack the gold price in an attempt to save Comex and the banks.”—Alasdair Macleod @MacleodFinance
That’s false. Gold is a durable commodity. The transaction cost is too high to function as money. The fraud rate is too high to function as money. The scarcity is too high to function as money (there isn’t enough of it). It’s too open to manipulation to function as money. Edit
May 2, 2020, 11:07 AM (The Economics of Communication) To profit we must exchange. To trade (communication) requires we discover a medium of exchange. To exchange we must discover coincidences of wants using the available medium of exchange. All language consists of measurements. Measurements within paradigms. Paradigms that serve interests. Interests that are achievable with abilities. And values that measure the degree of interests. So we are trying to achieve commensurability so that we can measure the value of the exchange. When we are frustrated it means we are seeking cooperation (exchange, trade, returns) where the transaction costs are higher than the rewards. When we are not frustrated it means we have divided the labor of discovering coincidences of wants, commensurable mediums of exchanges, given abilities, values, and paradigms. Are we frustrated that they don’t think like us or that the cost of thinking like them, or reducing our thoughts to their level of precision is too costly? Are we frustrated by those cost or are we frustrated that that we no longer function in an aristocratic hierarchy because under democracy our words despite our differences in ability are mispriced? If we were still ruled by Nindsors, Nevilles, Fitzroys, Marlboroughs, Curzons rather than the parliament of fools would we have this problem? If the anglo-dutch aristocracy and the german labor majority were not undermined by underclass immigration? If our society was organized multi dimensionally so that the martial hierarchy, the commercial hierarchy, and the informational hierarchy were mediated by the law preventing ‘putting fingers on the scale’, would this be the case? So my view is the over-commercialization of society, and the over-politicization of society that were the result of the windfalls of the industrial revolution, and the (((world wars))) we tolerated by not nationalizing banking, and redistributing the windfalls of interests on state credit, as we all sought to seek commercial success where the balance of military-aristocratic, comercial-noble, and intellectual-arts and knowledge, and priestly-service could compete on their own terms rather than universal commercialization (privatization). We are at the end of the windfall. And we must learn, that like the athenian discovery of the silver mine, the roman conquest of the celts, the spanish conquest of the mezzo americas, that the industrial revolution created the ability to devote our energies increasingly away from food production to innovation. And that we followed the folly of the athenians, romans, the spanish, into the false promise of endless growth and the abandonment of aristocratic martial discipline, in favor of commercial overconsumption. If something is’t computing without substantial friction than the computation system is ‘programmed’ with the incorrect incentives and resulting division of labor.
May 2, 2020, 4:13 PM
—“The dollar is the new form of money. There is relentless demand for dollars. Relentless! As populations age the time value of money declines. The preference for money LATER comes to exceed preference for money NOW (because older people need savings). That’s why you have 0% interest rates across the developed world.”—Michael Churchill
May 2, 2020, 4:13 PM
—“The dollar is the new form of money. There is relentless demand for dollars. Relentless! As populations age the time value of money declines. The preference for money LATER comes to exceed preference for money NOW (because older people need savings). That’s why you have 0% interest rates across the developed world.”—Michael Churchill