Apr 21, 2017 10:43am THE USD and EURO function as the Reserve Token Money for the purchase of the commodity money: hydrocarbons, and the USA uses its premium for the financing of the world military, and the Europeans use their premium to delay the onset of the collapse of their generous redistribution scheme. Now, what happens if say, iran or russia or both are able to determine obtian sufficient control over hydrocarbon distribution that they can require hydrocarbons are purchased with their token money? Well the USA and Europe will no longer be able to sell their token money. And so the USA will not be able to apy for its military, and europe for its generous redistribution scheme. The USA and canada can produce sufficient hydrocarbons and if necessary nuclear energy without going to the internatinoal market for additional supply. But europe cannot, and must in turn become a client state of either russia, iran, or both.
Theme: Incentives
-
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
The Difference Between Keynesian and Austrian Economics
What’s the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics? quora.com THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy ) Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law ) Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule) In a perfect world, 1) We develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information. 2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages. 3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest. 4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity. I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.
-
Why Do We Hate Keynesians?
WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”— If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.
-
Why Do We Hate Keynesians?
WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”— If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.
-
The Cost and Profit of Different Orders
Apr 27, 2017 9:56am THE PROFITABILITY OF DIFFERENT ORDERS, AND THE COST OF EACH (important) —“Curt: What is your opinion on feudalism?”—
- Sovereigns are more profitable than citizens,
- citizens more profitable than freemen,
- freemen more profitable than serfs,
- serfs more profitable than slaves, s
- laves more profitable than enemies.
One must educate and develop recipes (techniques), manners, ethics, morals, common law, natural law, institutions of cooperation (truth, contract, money, banking, interest, and sheriff, judge, militia, and army, and freedom of association, marriage, markets, markets for commons, and cities) in order to evolve from command(slavery) to feudalism(serfdom), to republic(freemen), to monarchy(citizens), to aristocracy (sovereigns). That requires a great deal of time, and effort. But civilizing man is a profitable enterprise. It is the most profitable enterprise we have yet discovered.
-
The Cost and Profit of Different Orders
Apr 27, 2017 9:56am THE PROFITABILITY OF DIFFERENT ORDERS, AND THE COST OF EACH (important) —“Curt: What is your opinion on feudalism?”—
- Sovereigns are more profitable than citizens,
- citizens more profitable than freemen,
- freemen more profitable than serfs,
- serfs more profitable than slaves, s
- laves more profitable than enemies.
One must educate and develop recipes (techniques), manners, ethics, morals, common law, natural law, institutions of cooperation (truth, contract, money, banking, interest, and sheriff, judge, militia, and army, and freedom of association, marriage, markets, markets for commons, and cities) in order to evolve from command(slavery) to feudalism(serfdom), to republic(freemen), to monarchy(citizens), to aristocracy (sovereigns). That requires a great deal of time, and effort. But civilizing man is a profitable enterprise. It is the most profitable enterprise we have yet discovered.
-
The Greater Good? Three Branches of Economics, Three Group Strategies
Apr 28, 2017 2:50pm THE GREATER GOOD???? We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continually saturated with lies as to possible ‘greater goods’ and impossible greater goods. And it turns out that all successful appeals to ‘greater goods’ are in fact, merely pretenses for parasitism. Because we are forever ignorant, we cannot know goods, or truths, only bads or falsehoods. As such the greater good can only be obtained by removal of known bads: the natural common law of torts. The demand for reciprocity. And the punishment of offenders. By this (via-negativa) removal of bads, only voluntary market-produced goods can be brought into existence, in any form, whether as material goods, services, or information for consumption or as material goods, services or information for direct investment, or for material goods, services, or information for the production of commons as an indirect investment. By profits from the (via-negativa) removal of bads, and the production of the voluntary organization of production of private, semi-private, and common goods, services, and information, we are then able to insure one another against the vicissitudes of nature. In the literature we find: 1) Totalitarianism of the underclass socialists to use discretion to organize production and perform discretionary redistribution of proceeds as a means of aggressive transition of people from a state far behind competitors; This approach requires existential information to make use of, and is indifferent to the demographic quality, and absence of market economy. 2) The progressive ‘representational’ use of pareto optimums to justify forcible redistribution and the expansion of the dead weight of the underclass (Rawlsian social democracy) as a means of using population to defeat competitors. This approach requires existential market economies to make use of reduced production of information. 3) And we find the conservative ‘aristocratic’ use of Nash equilibriums (classical liberalism/contractualism under natural law) to justify meritocracy and voluntary cooperation and eugenic reduction of the dead weight of the underclasses as means of remaining ahead of competitors. This approach requires existentially reduced lower classes, existential market economies, and existential high trust within that economy to function. 4) To support these three literatures we find three branches of economics: a) the “Saltwater and Discretionary School”. b) The “Freshwater and Rule of Law School” c) The “German/Austrian Political Economy School” I can answer further questions about political models, demographic demands, and the supposed wisdom of crowds, but you wouldn’t believe how much of the totality of political thought is contained in those few paragraphs.
-
The Greater Good? Three Branches of Economics, Three Group Strategies
Apr 28, 2017 2:50pm THE GREATER GOOD???? We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continually saturated with lies as to possible ‘greater goods’ and impossible greater goods. And it turns out that all successful appeals to ‘greater goods’ are in fact, merely pretenses for parasitism. Because we are forever ignorant, we cannot know goods, or truths, only bads or falsehoods. As such the greater good can only be obtained by removal of known bads: the natural common law of torts. The demand for reciprocity. And the punishment of offenders. By this (via-negativa) removal of bads, only voluntary market-produced goods can be brought into existence, in any form, whether as material goods, services, or information for consumption or as material goods, services or information for direct investment, or for material goods, services, or information for the production of commons as an indirect investment. By profits from the (via-negativa) removal of bads, and the production of the voluntary organization of production of private, semi-private, and common goods, services, and information, we are then able to insure one another against the vicissitudes of nature. In the literature we find: 1) Totalitarianism of the underclass socialists to use discretion to organize production and perform discretionary redistribution of proceeds as a means of aggressive transition of people from a state far behind competitors; This approach requires existential information to make use of, and is indifferent to the demographic quality, and absence of market economy. 2) The progressive ‘representational’ use of pareto optimums to justify forcible redistribution and the expansion of the dead weight of the underclass (Rawlsian social democracy) as a means of using population to defeat competitors. This approach requires existential market economies to make use of reduced production of information. 3) And we find the conservative ‘aristocratic’ use of Nash equilibriums (classical liberalism/contractualism under natural law) to justify meritocracy and voluntary cooperation and eugenic reduction of the dead weight of the underclasses as means of remaining ahead of competitors. This approach requires existentially reduced lower classes, existential market economies, and existential high trust within that economy to function. 4) To support these three literatures we find three branches of economics: a) the “Saltwater and Discretionary School”. b) The “Freshwater and Rule of Law School” c) The “German/Austrian Political Economy School” I can answer further questions about political models, demographic demands, and the supposed wisdom of crowds, but you wouldn’t believe how much of the totality of political thought is contained in those few paragraphs.
-
“Let Me Help You”: About Bitcoin
LET ME HELP YOU: BITCOIN —“Is the bitcoin a sustainable form of currency, in accord to propertarianism?”– It is not a form of currency. Demand for a currency is warrantied by a state treasury through the combination of law and taxes. A bitcoin (or equivalent) is a fractional share in the bitcoin (or equivalent) network, liquid within that network, and only within that network. The difference between these money substitutes, as between all money substitutes, is the degree of INSURANCE, or what is called ‘backing’ that limits one’s losses of the time (value) accumulated in money proper: commodity money. Think of tickets you buy at a carnival. A bitcoin is a ticket. Tickets can only be spent at the carnival. No one else will trade with you for them. You can buy a ticket and spend it on a ride, or sell it to someone else to do the same. The difference is that the carnival can issue as many tickets as it wants, and fractional shares are issued by the profitable carnival rider operators. However, as we have seen, (a) bitcoin operators are generally even more incompetent than banks, and (b) often more dishonest than bankers. And those investments are uninsured. Commodity money (hard money) is insured by demand for the commodity. The fact that we break it into countable units and trademark them guaranteeing their weight and measure, serves to increase the value of that commodity. So commodity money is insured by demand for the commodity independent of any institution or technology, and independent of time and space. Everything else we use as money is a money substitute, and as a money substitute, requires insurance by weaker and weaker means. Fiat money (“currency”) is insured by a government treasury. As we have seen governments can lose the ability to insure a currency. Banks and other asset holders issue “notes” (promises) that are redeemable for money at a face value. Some banks and treasuries issue “fractional reserve notes”, meaning that under normal circumstances, these notes are redeemable for money – but as we have seen, when ‘runs’ occur, very little of a bank’s assets are liquid and very little of its assets can be made liquid. Companies issue stocks. Stocks can be traded but only within a network or through the company. Bitcoins different from stock companies in that they only issue stocks in payment for validation of transactions, and because shares in the bitcoin network can be divided at will by their owner, these each bitcoin is a ‘fractional’ share of the network, backed only by demand for these fractional shares, hosted on a fragile voluntary network lacking all insurance. Bitcoins are technically, fractional shares of token money substitutes, in a token money substitute network, and the least insurable and insured form of money substitute that man has yet invented. The material benefits are that they (should be) reasonably hard to steal, (should have) near zero carrying and transaction costs, and if achieve sufficient scale (trillions) might provide some limited market demand – until there is a power failure. BTW: the primary means of war has evolved from military to economic. The primary future means of war will be deprivation of electricity and communication lines. We are currently more dependent upon electricity than water. So, what propertarianism would say is that unless an individual consumer of bitcoins has been informed of these facts, he has been the victim of deception. But if he is informed of these facts then it constitutes a productive, fully informed, warrantied exchange, limited to positive externalities. Further Thoughts:
- BTC is exceptionally useful for:
- title registries,
- the fractional sale of debt instruments in particular,
- escrows (if implemented)
- the elimination of transaction costs, and
- for serving those outside the banking system.
- Until a bitcoin transaction is as fast, easy, and insured, as a visa transaction it’s pretty much techie porn toy.
- Conversely, I don’t know why we need stock markets any longer….
- I dont’ know why we need title firms any longer…..
- I don’t know why we need check cashing firms any longer.
- I don’t know why we need consumer interest any longer….
- BTC is exceptionally useful for: