The Marginal Cost of Revolution To The Individual
A small number of heroic souls will pay high costs to rebel, and in doing so decrease the cost for each person that follows, until a mass of individuals acts, and in doing so reduces the price to nearly zero.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 11:12:00 UTC
—I have been meaning to ask what you think about MMT for some time now. So, have you heard of MMT before and what do you think?—
Curt Doolittle
What I’ve stated in the previous few posts is pure Keynesianism, however, I used it in the New Keynesian model, directed at growth rather than just employment.
The criticism we should levy is of Fiat Money that in issuing these stocks (fiat money) the interest is privatized rather than retained as one of the primary income sources of the state.
This was an intention, in the original design, as fear that the state would destroy the economy as it has in the past if legislation made possible the runaway issuance of currency.
MMT makes claims I disagree with, and creates hazards I disagree with. In particular, that no government can go bankrupt – which while LEGALLY true – doesn’t mean it’s PRACTICALLY true, as we have seen many sovereign nations with fiat money produce runaway inflation and in the case of venezuela at present, starvation.
The problem with fiat money is lack of rule of law. In other words, the constitution needs to forbid the state from arbitrary (discretionary) use of money.
In some sense, one of the principle problems of 21st century economics has been to attempt to discover some ‘target’ (measurement) that would allow us to reduce the issuance of money to rule of law (a formula) and place it into the constitution, thereby removing discretion over its use.
In some sense, this is an example of the the conversion by the (((socialists))) from rule of law (non-discretionary rule) to majority rule (discretionary rule): it is even harder to trust a government with fiat money than it was when first issued.
The solution isn’t very difficult. There are no provisions in the constitution against even suggesting certain acts as there were for treason. And it is this certainty of punishment alone that will prevent this kind of behavior in the market for information, legislation and regulation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:00:00 UTC
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life. I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man. I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’. This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life. I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man. I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’. This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
(regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare) Dick, Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)? 1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only. 2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it. 3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently. 4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure. 5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.) 6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing. 7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country. My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have. This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands. Cheers.
(regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare) Dick, Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)? 1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only. 2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it. 3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently. 4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure. 5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.) 6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing. 7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country. My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have. This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands. Cheers.
Q&A: —“Would you mind detailing the hard currency problem? I still can’t get my head around why a fixed amount of currency is problematic.”— Bob Moran
Curt Doolittle
Lets say that the only currency you have to work with is gold and silver coin. Now, if, as a country, you are a net exporter, you will accumulate coins in exchange for your exports. But if you are a net importer (you’re wealthy) you will low on coins, the cost of coins will increase, and therefore the cost of imported goods will increase, and your economy will stall. Those are two extremes. In the middle, coins circulate and credit circulates, and consumption slows because prices increase, simply because the cost of coins themselves – that are necessary for trade – increases. This continues until some niche markets resort to barter. Now barter is a high risk, because it isn’t liquid like money (coin) is.
Instead of coin, all governments slowly moved to ‘shares’. Paper money is not money per se (a commodity, or a token exchangeable for a commodity), but a share in the economy of the issuer. And like commercial shares, its dilutable. So when the price of money increases (interest rates), the government issues more shares to maintain a stable price of money (shares), so that there is no artificial shortage of money (money substitute: shares) so that productivity isn’t going to pay for the scarcity of money, and continues to pay for consumption and trade, and the economy continues.
Governments (federal reserves, central banks, etc) function for the simple purpose of ensuring relative price stability of money, by maintaining a money supply at levels that hold it steady.
The problem is, governments, once they have this power, spend money they don’t and can’t have, which creates a constant rate of inflation as well. Inflation destroys prices and savings and assets.
The only way to preserve savings then, is to invest in things that appreciate over time (land, stocks, etc) but in general it is nearly impossible to stay ahead of the rate of inflation. so you must work constantly to prevent your money from evaporating.
This creates the treadmill that we live under.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 15:44:00 UTC
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES
@Eli
I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life.
I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man.
I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’.
This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:45:00 UTC
Feb 28, 2017 4:14pm (full argument)(read it and weep. lol) —“I can struggle not to cheat on my wife. And still fail. While you can argue it’s better that I at least struggled as opposed to gleefully giving into my hedonism, I still missed the mark concerning virtuous behavior.”— Example of a parlor trick. Here is how to uncover the deception. (it’s a variation on the monty hall problem). In other words a common fraud conducted by suggestion. 1) I have a choice between two options: one that is less costly but produces negative externalities and one that is more costly but produces positive externalities. a) I choose the one that is more costly because of the externalities it produces. (deliberately virtuous/moral) or b) I choose the other that is less costly regardless of the externalities it produces. (immoral) OR 2) I have a choice between one that is less costly but produces positive externalities, and one that is more costly and produces negative externalities. a) I choose the less costly that produces the positive externalities. (coincidentally virtuous) or b) I choose the more costly that produces the negative externalities. (evil/immoral) 1………..DV……I 2………..CV……E Now, we can pretend under the POSITIVE is the full depth of the argument and assume we speak logically. Or we can fully account for the argument, and show that we do not. 3) Two individuals where one has more knowledge than the other. As the person with knowledge, I have the choice of: Virtuous/ethical/moral action with knowledge of the consequences, (ethical) OR I have the choice of unethical/immoral/evil actions with knowledge of the consequences (Unethical) OR I have the choice of taking the appearance of ethical action while producing immoral outcomes. (False Ethical) So in this case we have FALSE POSITIVES. 1……E……U 2……FE….U So the question is, given that an individual can claim he takes ethical action even with unethical designs, and the individual can claim he takes virtuous action, even when it is merely convenience for him (false ethical, and false virtue), the only way to objectively test for virtuous CHARACTER in past and FUTURE is not false virtue or false ethical action, but whether the individual bore a cost in the false virtue, or earned a profit in the false ethical. You see? The fact that an action coincides with the virtuous that DOES cost has no bearing on whether it is virtuous. Any more than an action exporting costs on which you profit is ethical. See? It is the COST and REWARD that tell us whether one acts virtuously and ethically. QED Thus Endeth The Lesson.
Feb 28, 2017 4:14pm (full argument)(read it and weep. lol) —“I can struggle not to cheat on my wife. And still fail. While you can argue it’s better that I at least struggled as opposed to gleefully giving into my hedonism, I still missed the mark concerning virtuous behavior.”— Example of a parlor trick. Here is how to uncover the deception. (it’s a variation on the monty hall problem). In other words a common fraud conducted by suggestion. 1) I have a choice between two options: one that is less costly but produces negative externalities and one that is more costly but produces positive externalities. a) I choose the one that is more costly because of the externalities it produces. (deliberately virtuous/moral) or b) I choose the other that is less costly regardless of the externalities it produces. (immoral) OR 2) I have a choice between one that is less costly but produces positive externalities, and one that is more costly and produces negative externalities. a) I choose the less costly that produces the positive externalities. (coincidentally virtuous) or b) I choose the more costly that produces the negative externalities. (evil/immoral) 1………..DV……I 2………..CV……E Now, we can pretend under the POSITIVE is the full depth of the argument and assume we speak logically. Or we can fully account for the argument, and show that we do not. 3) Two individuals where one has more knowledge than the other. As the person with knowledge, I have the choice of: Virtuous/ethical/moral action with knowledge of the consequences, (ethical) OR I have the choice of unethical/immoral/evil actions with knowledge of the consequences (Unethical) OR I have the choice of taking the appearance of ethical action while producing immoral outcomes. (False Ethical) So in this case we have FALSE POSITIVES. 1……E……U 2……FE….U So the question is, given that an individual can claim he takes ethical action even with unethical designs, and the individual can claim he takes virtuous action, even when it is merely convenience for him (false ethical, and false virtue), the only way to objectively test for virtuous CHARACTER in past and FUTURE is not false virtue or false ethical action, but whether the individual bore a cost in the false virtue, or earned a profit in the false ethical. You see? The fact that an action coincides with the virtuous that DOES cost has no bearing on whether it is virtuous. Any more than an action exporting costs on which you profit is ethical. See? It is the COST and REWARD that tell us whether one acts virtuously and ethically. QED Thus Endeth The Lesson.