Theme: Incentives

  • De gustibus non est disputandum by Steve Pender Not quite. If you don’t pay for

    De gustibus non est disputandum

    by Steve Pender

    Not quite. If you don’t pay for the costs (packaging, moving, defense) of your aesthetic, we gonna dispute. This is why there’s conflict sometimes between male aesthetic (direct, utilitarian, minimalist) and female (representational, extravagant, status-seeking). Aerospace/industrial/military vs shabby chic/victorian (at the extreme of female taste). It almost seems that some women have to be figuratively dragged kicking and screaming into the future.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 20:20:00 UTC

  • The Cost of Social Optimism

    by Steve Pender Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.

  • The Cost of Social Optimism

    by Steve Pender Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.

  • Positive Money

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/
    POSITIVE MONEY (“Helicopter Money”) Direct Redistribution of Liquidity to Consumers (Citizens). I’ve been talking about this forever, and written it into the new constitution. But there is a small group in europe that’s put together a web site and initiative. The EU is much more complicated than the states. And they are … overly protective of investors (which I don’t recommend), so it’s actually quite a bit easier in the states. My proposal was to buy (nationalize) Mastercard (good infrastructure, horrible company), and use their network for direct redistribution of liquidity (money). http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/ http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/10/report-ecb-helicopter-money/ (I’ve contacte them) Thanks to Moritz Bierling for the head’s up.
  • Positive Money

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/
    POSITIVE MONEY (“Helicopter Money”) Direct Redistribution of Liquidity to Consumers (Citizens). I’ve been talking about this forever, and written it into the new constitution. But there is a small group in europe that’s put together a web site and initiative. The EU is much more complicated than the states. And they are … overly protective of investors (which I don’t recommend), so it’s actually quite a bit easier in the states. My proposal was to buy (nationalize) Mastercard (good infrastructure, horrible company), and use their network for direct redistribution of liquidity (money). http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/ http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/10/report-ecb-helicopter-money/ (I’ve contacte them) Thanks to Moritz Bierling for the head’s up.
  • Why Direct Redistribution of Liquidity vs Tax Breaks, Monetary Policy(interest) or Fiscal Policy(spending)

    Timeliness. In a shock, tax breaks, lowering interest rates, and fiscal policy are extremely slow, and it certainly appears from the data, largely ineffectual compared to simply distributing cash to every citizen to do with as he may. During the 2008 Crisis only me and Galbraith were talking about it (and I am nobody). Later a few others tepidly put forward the argument. Galbraith died, or he might have gotten somewhere. We could have all but paid off american home mortgages with the trillions we spent. So that was what I recommended. We could have done that and the world pricing structure would not have had to adjust. Since then I’ve come to understand that while MMT cannot work without hyperinflation, (a) there is no meaningful reason for consumer interest, and (b) there is no meaningful reason for NOT distributing liquidity directly to consumers rather than through the financial system (monetary policy), the state (fiscal policy), or tax rebates (tax policy). The problems with these methods is that they must be algorithmic (rule of law) just as is targeting the money supply today, or politicians will destroy the economy for votes. The reason I advocate this system is not just reciprocity (and therefore morality) but I want to force the financial system to seek returns on innovation (investment) rather than returns on rents (loans). And I want to addict the population to those returns, so that the bureaucratic government is incrementally eroded in return for increasing those direct redistributions, and so that people are hesitant to allow immigrants who merely capture those dividends leaving less for the citizenry. This is the best way to kill the state I have ever come across.

  • Why Direct Redistribution of Liquidity vs Tax Breaks, Monetary Policy(interest) or Fiscal Policy(spending)

    Timeliness. In a shock, tax breaks, lowering interest rates, and fiscal policy are extremely slow, and it certainly appears from the data, largely ineffectual compared to simply distributing cash to every citizen to do with as he may. During the 2008 Crisis only me and Galbraith were talking about it (and I am nobody). Later a few others tepidly put forward the argument. Galbraith died, or he might have gotten somewhere. We could have all but paid off american home mortgages with the trillions we spent. So that was what I recommended. We could have done that and the world pricing structure would not have had to adjust. Since then I’ve come to understand that while MMT cannot work without hyperinflation, (a) there is no meaningful reason for consumer interest, and (b) there is no meaningful reason for NOT distributing liquidity directly to consumers rather than through the financial system (monetary policy), the state (fiscal policy), or tax rebates (tax policy). The problems with these methods is that they must be algorithmic (rule of law) just as is targeting the money supply today, or politicians will destroy the economy for votes. The reason I advocate this system is not just reciprocity (and therefore morality) but I want to force the financial system to seek returns on innovation (investment) rather than returns on rents (loans). And I want to addict the population to those returns, so that the bureaucratic government is incrementally eroded in return for increasing those direct redistributions, and so that people are hesitant to allow immigrants who merely capture those dividends leaving less for the citizenry. This is the best way to kill the state I have ever come across.

  • WHY DIRECT REDISTRIBUTION OF LIQUIDITY VS TAX BREAKS, MONETARY POLICY(INTEREST)

    WHY DIRECT REDISTRIBUTION OF LIQUIDITY VS TAX BREAKS, MONETARY POLICY(INTEREST) OR FISCAL POLICY(SPENDING)

    Timeliness. In a shock, tax breaks, lowering interest rates, and fiscal policy are extremely slow, and it certainly appears from the data, largely ineffectual compared to simply distributing cash to every citizen to do with as he may.

    During the 2008 Crisis only me and Galbraith were talking about it (and I am nobody). Later a few others tepidly put forward the argument. Galbraith died, or he might have gotten somewhere.

    We could have all but paid off american home mortgages with the trillions we spent. So that was what I recommended. We could have done that and the world pricing structure would not have had to adjust.

    Since then I’ve come to understand that while MMT cannot work without hyperinflation, (a) there is no meaningful reason for consumer interest, and (b) there is no meaningful reason for NOT distributing liquidity directly to consumers rather than through the financial system (monetary policy), the state (fiscal policy), or tax rebates (tax policy).

    The problems with these methods is that they must be algorithmic (rule of law) just as is targeting the money supply today, or politicians will destroy the economy for votes.

    The reason I advocate this system is not just reciprocity (and therefore morality) but I want to force the financial system to seek returns on innovation (investment) rather than returns on rents (loans). And I want to addict the population to those returns, so that the bureaucratic government is incrementally eroded in return for increasing those direct redistributions, and so that people are hesitant to allow immigrants who merely capture those dividends leaving less for the citizenry.

    This is the best way to kill the state I have ever come across.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 17:51:00 UTC

  • MONEY (“Helicopter Money”) Direct Redistribution of Liquidity to Consumers (Citi

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/POSITIVE MONEY

    (“Helicopter Money”)

    Direct Redistribution of Liquidity to Consumers (Citizens).

    I’ve been talking about this forever, and written it into the new constitution. But there is a small group in europe that’s put together a web site and initiative.

    The EU is much more complicated than the states. And they are … overly protective of investors (which I don’t recommend), so it’s actually quite a bit easier in the states.

    My proposal was to buy (nationalize) Mastercard (good infrastructure, horrible company), and use their network for direct redistribution of liquidity (money).

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/10/report-ecb-helicopter-money/

    (I’ve contacte them)

    Thanks to @[1102637653:2048:Moritz Bierling] for the head’s up.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 16:31:00 UTC

  • MONEY (“Helicopter Money”) Direct Redistribution of Liquidity to Consumers (Citi

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/POSITIVE MONEY

    (“Helicopter Money”)

    Direct Redistribution of Liquidity to Consumers (Citizens).

    I’ve been talking about this forever, and written it into the new constitution. But there is a small group in europe that’s put together a web site and initiative.

    The EU is much more complicated than the states. And they are … overly protective of investors (which I don’t recommend), so it’s actually quite a bit easier in the states.

    My proposal was to buy (nationalize) Mastercard (good infrastructure, horrible company), and use their network for direct redistribution of liquidity (money).

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/12/ecb-confirms-helicopter-money-legally-feasible/

    http://www.positivemoney.eu/2016/10/report-ecb-helicopter-money/

    (I’ve contacte them)

    Thanks to Moritz Bierling for the head’s up.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 16:31:00 UTC