(FB 1542678201 Timestamp) WHERE DID ECONOMICS GO WRONG? As far as I know, economics ‘went wrong’ when “the republican income statement no longer propagated to the monarchical balance sheet.” In other words, when we failed to account for ALL capital changes, including territorial, genetic, cultural, normative, knowledge, and institutional, and therefore treated economics as a means of pseudo-scientific cherry-picking of measurements, under the pretense that such capital was being mobilized rather than consumed (or simply lost or destroyed). The postwar era, by the pseudoscientific taboo against the darwinian revolution and the necessity of continuing 3500 years of environmental eugenics, and 1600 years of manorial eugenics, and 800 years of juridical eugenics, converted the discipline into the means by which to conduct war against civilization: the incremental domestication of animal man into equilibrium with his productive technologies, and his means of calculating a survivable future with them: sovereignty, reciprocity, law (tort), markets in everything, property, money, prices. Economics is either a measure of cooperation, and therefore, reciprocity, and therefore political economy, and as such Law (tort – dispute resolution), Legislation (commons production and defense), and regulation (prior restraint by the insurer of last resort), and attendant standards of measurement, or it is merely an innumerate pseudoscience to justify the consumption of accumulated capital in pursuit of slow reversal of eugenic evolution, regression to the ancient mean, and the source of the justification for the consequente devolution of civilization and man. Efficiency is a rather ridiculous pursuit unbound by justification for less visible capital destruction , just as is legislation is a pursuit unbound by rules of contract. The Market Failure hypothesis is rather ridiculous since if the market produces proceeds sufficient to subsidize goods services and information, and distorting that market harmful to it. And a hundred other nonsense-schemes we use to obscure the reversal of eugenic evolution, or the returns on conquest and sale of continents, or the conversion of intergenerational lending to temporal redistribution and the price of that risk, or the transition from physical money to digital record of credit and debt, and the end of necessity or value of distribution of liquidity through the financial system, and the inability to reconstruct that capital without such chaos we dare not speak of it. Science is not kind. We have yet to have the necessary revolution in economics by its reunification with the law. As far as I know there is only one social science – the law (tort), legislation (contracts for the commons) and regulation (insurance) and the rest is measurement of its consequence. This was the difference between the austrian (rule of law), chicago (rule of law insured) and saltwater (return to arbitrary rule of man) schools of economics. Today, post 2008, it is very difficult to see much more than “I dunno what to do know” from the profession, except to permute as do the physicists on dark matter, because we lack the instrumentation necessary to obtain the information sufficient to correct our theories, and therefore limited to failure (collapse) and therefore desperate incentive to correct these errors, rather than falsify the 20th century social pseudosciences in economics as we are doing in psychology and sociology, with cognitive sciences and genetics. The Worm Turns, and as Hayek warned but could not himself answer: the 20th will be remembered as an era of the restoration of mysticism – which we more correctly state as platonism, idealism, sophism, innumeracy, and pseudoscience. Cheers
Theme: Incentives
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542651949 Timestamp) INHERENT RIGHTS (IDEALS) VS INHERENT DEMAND AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (REALS) by Luke Weinhagen (important concept) —“Commons: Every single thing you pay for by either action, inaction,or forgone opportunity for discount or gain”— This is another area where much of the west is operating with a categorization error in place. We have been categorizing the concept “natural rights” as an INHERENT quality of each individual, not something that has a COST. We should be categorizing it as an available property, with a cost to gain interest in. A commons. Because of its relationship to reciprocity. natural rights is the root commons. All other commons extend from the foundation that natural rights creates and are limited by the breadth of those rights. One must, and can only, purchase interest in that commons through the demonstration of reciprocity and sovereignty. Failure to police this root commons, and extending it to everyone (categorization error – natural/available to all, not inherent/granted to all), creates a vulnerability (extends agency status to parasites) and exposes every derivative commons to parasitism. No correction downstream can remove this vulnerability, they are become attempts at compensation for that original flaw, just more imposed costs. (if I am understanding [Curt] correctly, this one is going to make heads explode when the correction is put in place – though the only other outcome is system collapse)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1543196225 Timestamp) TURNING SEX WORKERS INTO THE IRS? You know I first heard about this yesterday when someone sent me a photo of one of the report forms. I”m not quite sure how I feel about it. I mean, abstractly, its funny as hell as a creative prank. Whether the IRS would act on it, is something else. Given that I think the IRS is the most criminal of institutions I have a problem with licensing them against anyone. Depriving low income bimbos of hard currency is not something I feel good about. Whether the consequence would mean de-funding those sites that stream crime, gore, accident, and fail videos is all I really care about. I’m perfectly happy if the sexually desperate pay cam girls in order to provide me with free streaming of crime around the world. https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/rightwing-trolls-report-online-sex-workers-to-tax-authorities-in-thotaudit/news-story/16cff3e5f5f4303b78d1dc23c80af4db?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543607997 Timestamp) Another nit: Great Men “Candidates” evolve (emerge) in batches, usually over three generations of incentives (really). In other words, the market for great men exists at all times (iron law of oligarchy so to speak). World Communism was such a threat (and it’s legacy still is) that it created demand for great men to both take advantage of it, and to oppose it with Fascism. Everything else that occured within those societies was simply utilitarian. whether we get a Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot is merely a function of utility in the sphere of influences. And as controversial as it might seem today, Hitler and Mussolini if not Stalin and Mao, will be judged by history quite differently. And it is happening already. Science evolves with the death of the advocates of theories. As a struggle for expansion during an era of western dominance we skew one bias, and as an attempt to save the core of western civilization in a period of anticipation of decline, we skew yet another. History is unkind to the consensus of an era. That is because consensus is merely utilitarian – rarely true. Its not uncommon to see informed debate that the anglos should have stayed out of the wars, rather than contributing to cause and conflict.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543607997 Timestamp) Another nit: Great Men “Candidates” evolve (emerge) in batches, usually over three generations of incentives (really). In other words, the market for great men exists at all times (iron law of oligarchy so to speak). World Communism was such a threat (and it’s legacy still is) that it created demand for great men to both take advantage of it, and to oppose it with Fascism. Everything else that occured within those societies was simply utilitarian. whether we get a Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot is merely a function of utility in the sphere of influences. And as controversial as it might seem today, Hitler and Mussolini if not Stalin and Mao, will be judged by history quite differently. And it is happening already. Science evolves with the death of the advocates of theories. As a struggle for expansion during an era of western dominance we skew one bias, and as an attempt to save the core of western civilization in a period of anticipation of decline, we skew yet another. History is unkind to the consensus of an era. That is because consensus is merely utilitarian – rarely true. Its not uncommon to see informed debate that the anglos should have stayed out of the wars, rather than contributing to cause and conflict.
-
(FB 1543677239 Timestamp) ACQUISITION AND THE SUPPLY DEMAND CURVE (And Hayekian
(FB 1543677239 Timestamp) ACQUISITION AND THE SUPPLY DEMAND CURVE (And Hayekian Triangles). by Bill Joslin (Important concept) (“The Grammar of Social Relations.”) We (Propertarians) often use spectrums, but do so in a linear fashion a-b-c etc. A line in a single dimension, possibly two. Start to end or minimum to maximum. There is always, for any point on the spectrum, a vertical dimension which is context or frame. (CD: usually it’s scale.) We presume, properly, the existential frame, but without explicit expression it leaves us open to frame manipulation. The vertical dimension would be context – we’re always low context, but there might be something to including in what domain of existence we’re referring to for a spectrum, or accounting for all domains along with the spectrum. An example: aquisitionalism on a base biological level (domain)-> acquisition of calories and mating opportunities. Aquisitionalism on an individual level (domain) -> pursuit of “goods’ Aquisitionalism on a social level (domain)-> acquisition of signals and opportunity Aquisitionalism on a societal level (domain) -> acquisition of advantage
Without specifying or accounting for all domains, we tend to be mistaken for reductionists
(Curt Doolittle Responds: ) Correct. So we have some spectrum, some time series, and some range of context(conceptual) or conditions (existential). So, because of (a) w can repeat series indefinitely in text, and this trains people through repetition. (b) text (This venue) does not assist us in creating graphs (supply demand curves), and (c) most people are unfamiliar with Hayekian Triangles, which is how these things are optimally communicated. (d) I am … let us say ‘leery’ of illustrating all these concepts in hayekian triangles, despite the fact that in my mind, I model all these concepts in Gary Becker’s supply and demand curves of Social Science Incentives. (Which is how I plan to teach the class: getting the students to draw all of them.) This converts the textual to the graphical. So. A series should define a supply demand curve. —THE GRAMMARS OF SOCIAL RELATIONS — IDEAL TYPE Hyper Generalization (overgeneralization). an Ideal. This is how most people converse in ordinary language. SERIES Hierarchy (series) = The Production Cycle (commonly) CURVE Supply = Volume (quantity, amount) Demand = Criteria for Choice Intersection = Choice TRIANGLES Production Cycle
Possible Production Range Amount of investment vs trust required. EQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN COMPETING TRIANGLES (Mapping two or more curves together) DYNAMIC STOCHASTIC EQUILIBRIUM MODELS (how economics is performed today) So please forgive me if I speak in legal argument using series presuming the user can grasp that I speak in curves not lines. Because if I wrote at any greater level of complexity, (a) the demand on my time would be logarithmic, (b) it would only be fit for academic publication, and not for production of LAW COMPREHENSIBLE BY MEN. –GRAMMARS– Note that this pattern of grammars exists EVERYWHERE in every discipline. -
(FB 1543677239 Timestamp) ACQUISITION AND THE SUPPLY DEMAND CURVE (And Hayekian
(FB 1543677239 Timestamp) ACQUISITION AND THE SUPPLY DEMAND CURVE (And Hayekian Triangles). by Bill Joslin (Important concept) (“The Grammar of Social Relations.”) We (Propertarians) often use spectrums, but do so in a linear fashion a-b-c etc. A line in a single dimension, possibly two. Start to end or minimum to maximum. There is always, for any point on the spectrum, a vertical dimension which is context or frame. (CD: usually it’s scale.) We presume, properly, the existential frame, but without explicit expression it leaves us open to frame manipulation. The vertical dimension would be context – we’re always low context, but there might be something to including in what domain of existence we’re referring to for a spectrum, or accounting for all domains along with the spectrum. An example: aquisitionalism on a base biological level (domain)-> acquisition of calories and mating opportunities. Aquisitionalism on an individual level (domain) -> pursuit of “goods’ Aquisitionalism on a social level (domain)-> acquisition of signals and opportunity Aquisitionalism on a societal level (domain) -> acquisition of advantage
Without specifying or accounting for all domains, we tend to be mistaken for reductionists
(Curt Doolittle Responds: ) Correct. So we have some spectrum, some time series, and some range of context(conceptual) or conditions (existential). So, because of (a) w can repeat series indefinitely in text, and this trains people through repetition. (b) text (This venue) does not assist us in creating graphs (supply demand curves), and (c) most people are unfamiliar with Hayekian Triangles, which is how these things are optimally communicated. (d) I am … let us say ‘leery’ of illustrating all these concepts in hayekian triangles, despite the fact that in my mind, I model all these concepts in Gary Becker’s supply and demand curves of Social Science Incentives. (Which is how I plan to teach the class: getting the students to draw all of them.) This converts the textual to the graphical. So. A series should define a supply demand curve. —THE GRAMMARS OF SOCIAL RELATIONS — IDEAL TYPE Hyper Generalization (overgeneralization). an Ideal. This is how most people converse in ordinary language. SERIES Hierarchy (series) = The Production Cycle (commonly) CURVE Supply = Volume (quantity, amount) Demand = Criteria for Choice Intersection = Choice TRIANGLES Production Cycle
Possible Production Range Amount of investment vs trust required. EQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN COMPETING TRIANGLES (Mapping two or more curves together) DYNAMIC STOCHASTIC EQUILIBRIUM MODELS (how economics is performed today) So please forgive me if I speak in legal argument using series presuming the user can grasp that I speak in curves not lines. Because if I wrote at any greater level of complexity, (a) the demand on my time would be logarithmic, (b) it would only be fit for academic publication, and not for production of LAW COMPREHENSIBLE BY MEN. –GRAMMARS– Note that this pattern of grammars exists EVERYWHERE in every discipline. -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543781466 Timestamp) Statistically speaking, women are better with credit and safe-investing (conformity, obedience, and risk aversion), and men better with money, finance, and entrepreneurship (risk). As usual, women are better gatherers and men better hunters.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543842127 Timestamp) —In other words there is a maximum value to all markets including moral markets, economic markets, and political markets: cost to kin.— (worth reporting)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543781466 Timestamp) Statistically speaking, women are better with credit and safe-investing (conformity, obedience, and risk aversion), and men better with money, finance, and entrepreneurship (risk). As usual, women are better gatherers and men better hunters.