Female mode of argument: The implied threat of reproductive denial and shaming or harming those who may grant you reproductive access. polluting the market for access to reproductive exercise. The problem is, when the critic’s APPROVAL or DISAPPROVAL is of no value, then… that strategy is meaningless.
Theme: Incentives
-
Female mode of argument
Female mode of argument: The implied threat of reproductive denial and shaming or harming those who may grant you reproductive access. polluting the market for access to reproductive exercise. The problem is, when the critic’s APPROVAL or DISAPPROVAL is of no value, then… that strategy is meaningless.
-
Female mode of argument: The implied threat of reproductive denial and shaming o
Female mode of argument: The implied threat of reproductive denial and shaming or harming those who may grant you reproductive access. polluting the market for access to reproductive exercise. The problem is, when the critic’s APPROVAL or DISAPPROVAL is of no value, then… that strategy is meaningless.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 22:41:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES ALL AROUND
Yes, I work from the Misesian premise of full accounting when referring to money and its substitutes, and the totality of monetary aggregates.
However, the problem with the Austrian model is (as has always been stated) it’s overly respectful of lenders (asset holders) without accounting for the moral hazard most money lenders profit from.
This is ‘unsaid’ in the literature of both sides. It’s this competition between the moral premises of consumer vs lenders vs the judiciary (state) that over the priority to which we must grant the malincientives of either party and therefore the rewards of either party.
I tend to err on the side of lender beware almost always, and the lender and borrower beware of the state at all possible times.
All parties: state, lender, and borrower have malincentives.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 16:09:06 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. Um. I can’t emphasize this enough. 1) *While
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Um. I can’t emphasize this enough.
1) *While Prices drive to Equilibrium, Markets drive to Disequilibrium*.
2) Loose credit (monetary expansion) increases disequilibrium necessary for causing corrections (discovering limits).
3) The debate between conservatives and progressives is whether the cumulation of short term gains exceeds the costs of the correction. In my opinion, this is rather obviously ‘no’, but that is because the economics profession does not measure changes in ALL capital and instead cherry picks measures of capital.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 14:04:19 UTC
-
USA: “The Freedom to Make Money”
—“The very first adjustment, that I had to make, the very first time I set foot in the USA, was to redefine ‘freedom’. ‘Freedom’ here means ‘freedom to make money’ – the word has no other meaning. As an immediate afterthought – and ‘God’ is for those who stand in the way of that. I had just landed in Boston, that thought coincided with leaving the airport and hitting the first public road.In Culebra, a tiny island (Virgin Islands) in the grip of the Big Bald Eagle (USA), where I live now, ‘liberty’ only has meaning in the context of its abuse: to take a liberty.”— Paul Franklin
-
USA: “The Freedom to Make Money”
—“The very first adjustment, that I had to make, the very first time I set foot in the USA, was to redefine ‘freedom’. ‘Freedom’ here means ‘freedom to make money’ – the word has no other meaning. As an immediate afterthought – and ‘God’ is for those who stand in the way of that. I had just landed in Boston, that thought coincided with leaving the airport and hitting the first public road.In Culebra, a tiny island (Virgin Islands) in the grip of the Big Bald Eagle (USA), where I live now, ‘liberty’ only has meaning in the context of its abuse: to take a liberty.”— Paul Franklin
-
Debate Between Conservatives and Progressives Is Whether the Cumulation of Short Term Gains Exceeds the Costs of The Correction
Um. I can’t emphasize this enough. 1) *While Prices drive to Equilibrium, Markets drive to Disequilibrium*. 2) Loose credit (monetary expansion) increases disequilibrium necessary for causing corrections (discovering limits). 3) The debate between conservatives and progressives is whether the cumulation of short term gains exceeds the costs of the correction. In my opinion, this is rather obviously ‘no’, but that is because the economics profession does not measure changes in ALL capital and instead cherry picks measures of capital.
-
Debate Between Conservatives and Progressives Is Whether the Cumulation of Short Term Gains Exceeds the Costs of The Correction
Um. I can’t emphasize this enough. 1) *While Prices drive to Equilibrium, Markets drive to Disequilibrium*. 2) Loose credit (monetary expansion) increases disequilibrium necessary for causing corrections (discovering limits). 3) The debate between conservatives and progressives is whether the cumulation of short term gains exceeds the costs of the correction. In my opinion, this is rather obviously ‘no’, but that is because the economics profession does not measure changes in ALL capital and instead cherry picks measures of capital.
-
MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES ALL AROUND Yes, I work from the Mis
MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES ALL AROUND
Yes, I work from the Misesian premise of full accounting when referring to money and its substitutes, and the totality of monetary aggregates.
However, the problem with the Austrian model is (as has always been stated) it’s overly respectful of lenders (asset holders) without accounting for the moral hazard most money lenders profit from.
This is ‘unsaid’ in the literature of both sides. It’s this competition between the moral premises of consumer vs lenders vs the judiciary (state) that over the priority to which we must grant the malincientives of either party and therefore the rewards of either party.
I tend to err on the side of lender beware almost always, and the lender and borrower beware of the state at all possible times.
All parties: state, lender, and borrower have malincentives.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 12:09:00 UTC