Theme: Incentives

  • “The capacity to delay gratification is like interest: those who understand it,

    —“The capacity to delay gratification is like interest: those who understand it, make it (interest); those that don’t understand, pay it – in spades.”—Anne Tripp


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 15:01:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEYNESIAN AND AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (updated with minor edits) T

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Keynesian-economics-and-Austrian-economics/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=11f733ee&srid=u4QvTHE 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.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 09:55:00 UTC

  • What’s The Difference Between Keynesian Economics And Austrian Economics?

    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.

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Keynesian-economics-and-Austrian-economics

  • What’s The Difference Between Keynesian Economics And Austrian Economics?

    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.

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Keynesian-economics-and-Austrian-economics

  • THE USD and EURO function as the Reserve Token Money for the purchase of the com

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-21 10:43:00 UTC

  • COMMISSIONS ON THE MARKET (TAXES) SERIES Sales, financial transaction, income, i

    COMMISSIONS ON THE MARKET (TAXES) SERIES

    Sales, financial transaction, income, interest, and appreciation (in that series). I eliminate VAT because it’s distortive. And of those commission (taxes) income is the least distortive that I know of.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-21 06:12:00 UTC

  • Becker’s Use of Marginalism in Violence and Revolution

    BECKER’S USE OF MARGINALISM IN VIOLENCE AND REVOLUTION (predatory gains are linear, losses to prey are exponential) —“…a simple calculation that predatory interest groups and their taxpaying victims make: what return on my investment can I get by lobbying government? Becker’s insight is that the gains to predators are linear, but the losses to prey are exponential, thereby stiffening the resistance of victims as the aggression of predators plods on without similarly increased vigor. Think of a gang of robbers taking half the crop from peasants. They then return for the second half. The gain to the gang of the second half cut is the same as in their first extortion. Yet for peasants to lose the last half of their crops means possible starvation and the certain loss of seed corn. They can be expected to resist violently…”— Violence is always extant. This of course, is why the government’s search for pareto optimums, and biology and the market’s search for nash equilibriums are so different, and why Pareto optimums are so dangerous: the state produces ‘trigger events’ by some linear increase that produces a revolution: the exponential cost is too high and war or revolution is preferable to on more incremental predation.

  • Becker’s Use of Marginalism in Violence and Revolution

    BECKER’S USE OF MARGINALISM IN VIOLENCE AND REVOLUTION (predatory gains are linear, losses to prey are exponential) —“…a simple calculation that predatory interest groups and their taxpaying victims make: what return on my investment can I get by lobbying government? Becker’s insight is that the gains to predators are linear, but the losses to prey are exponential, thereby stiffening the resistance of victims as the aggression of predators plods on without similarly increased vigor. Think of a gang of robbers taking half the crop from peasants. They then return for the second half. The gain to the gang of the second half cut is the same as in their first extortion. Yet for peasants to lose the last half of their crops means possible starvation and the certain loss of seed corn. They can be expected to resist violently…”— Violence is always extant. This of course, is why the government’s search for pareto optimums, and biology and the market’s search for nash equilibriums are so different, and why Pareto optimums are so dangerous: the state produces ‘trigger events’ by some linear increase that produces a revolution: the exponential cost is too high and war or revolution is preferable to on more incremental predation.

  • Gender Opportunity Costs

    —“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić

  • Gender Opportunity Costs

    —“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić