Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • Austrian Economics Studies Facilitating Voluntary Exchanges Rather than Forced Transfers

    [W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.

    In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.

    It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.

    Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.

    We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.

    The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.

  • Sure, university education should be open to all, and ‘free’ in the sense, that

    Sure, university education should be open to all, and ‘free’ in the sense, that one pays for it entirely from payroll deductions for the rest of one’s working life.

    Were this the case, the curriculum at universities would change radically.

    At present, we pay for knowingly defective goods, that are unwarrantied, and the state prevents us recourse.

    So my solution to the Cathedral is quite simple: eliminate student loans entirely, and require all universities to pay out of payroll deductions. The treasury can provide the interim float – after all: that’s what Keyensians say we can do with money….

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-22 10:47:00 UTC

  • “Women possess intrinsic value simply be “being”. At an early age and continuing

    —“Women possess intrinsic value simply be “being”. At an early age and continuing up until 32 years old, everyday is a girl’s birthday. Attention is lavished, doors are held open, free drinks, dinners and compliments given and so on. Then the decline begins, albeit slowly before accelerating. Men on the other hand, have no intrinsic value in “being” and can only create their value by “building”. Men are left to their own devices – from birth – to face the crucible, and many don’t make it. But as their value is appraised by what they build, their value appreciates with age and even when the peak is hit, they decline in value slowly. …….. Money is Men’s Botox. …….. Cash flow is a Man’s Fountain of Youth.”—

    James Santagata

    What has changed is that men, through their building, have made it possible for women to also build. So men must build and provide a marginal difference in order to be valuable. And fewer of them can.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-22 05:21:00 UTC

  • How Does A Country Get A Good Balance Between Socialism And Capitalism?

    I’ll back up TJ Claridge’s post and say that you’re misusing the terms.

    I think you mean to say, how much interference in the economy by the government produces a Pareto Optimum? 

    We call this a mixed economy.  That is, a capitalist economy (which is the only economy possible long term), with social democratic redistribution via taxation.   Under social democracy, property is owned by individuals, but proceeds are forcibly taken from those people for redistributive purposes. Social democracy is not socialism, since property is not owned by the state, and production is not organized by the state. (It cannot be, that’s why it isn’t). 

    In practice nearly all governments today practice social democracy.  The difference is only in the level of corruption involved. Even very good people in the world (Hindus) have a tragically corrupt country.

    Greece for example has both high corruption (bureaucratic) and high avoidance (personal).  America has very sophisticated corruption (systemic), very little interpersonal bureaucratic corruption other than systemic corruption, and very little personal avoidance.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-country-get-a-good-balance-between-socialism-and-capitalism

  • How Does A Country Get A Good Balance Between Socialism And Capitalism?

    I’ll back up TJ Claridge’s post and say that you’re misusing the terms.

    I think you mean to say, how much interference in the economy by the government produces a Pareto Optimum? 

    We call this a mixed economy.  That is, a capitalist economy (which is the only economy possible long term), with social democratic redistribution via taxation.   Under social democracy, property is owned by individuals, but proceeds are forcibly taken from those people for redistributive purposes. Social democracy is not socialism, since property is not owned by the state, and production is not organized by the state. (It cannot be, that’s why it isn’t). 

    In practice nearly all governments today practice social democracy.  The difference is only in the level of corruption involved. Even very good people in the world (Hindus) have a tragically corrupt country.

    Greece for example has both high corruption (bureaucratic) and high avoidance (personal).  America has very sophisticated corruption (systemic), very little interpersonal bureaucratic corruption other than systemic corruption, and very little personal avoidance.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-country-get-a-good-balance-between-socialism-and-capitalism

  • My answer to How do you make programmers work 60-80 hours per week?

    My answer to How do you make programmers work 60-80 hours per week? http://qr.ae/Encsr

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-20 12:43:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/568752915697045504

  • How Do You Make Programmers Work 60-80 Hours Per Week?

    The answer, as a political economist, is this:

    Why are you trying to obtain a discount on the cost of software development by obtaining two employees worth of work from one employee?  I mean, that’s the honest question?

    If instead, you ask, “why do some programmers like to work 80 hours a week, and others do not?”  It’s because if you’re working on a game program, or something that is passionately fascinating to you, then you’d rather do that than anything else.  But you cannot possibly make most programming that interesting. 

    I work easily 14 hours a day between my occupation and my avocation, and often much more, and usually six or seven days a week.  But I both have the physical and mental capacity to do so (mostly), and I would rather do my vocation and avocation than I would do anything else.

    The number of people with the (a) physical, (b) mental ability, plus treat programming as both (c) vocation and (d) avocation, and who (e) prefer doing very little else – is just limited.

    So, just as very few species can be domesticated, because they require compatibility in five different behavioral traits, very few programmers (or people in general for that matter) can work that hard that much because all five of the criteria a,b,c,d and e, must be met to get that from people.

    Money actually won’t do it, only make it easier to do.  Opportunity helps motivate a little.  Love of what they do helps most, and  the individual’s genetics are the greatest determinant. 

    But, if you think you can ‘motivate’ people into working those hours the only way that I know of is to do it for six weeks or less, and bonus EVERYONE Involved something life-altering if they achieve the goal, after which they get a vacation for two weeks.  Why?  Because social membership will drive people more than any other factor – at least for short periods of time. 

    If you put such an incentive together, anyone who doesn’t carry the water of the whole team – fire immediately, and keep the rest. Otherwise they poison the well.

    But it’s an illogical man that seeks to obtain two people’s worth of labor from one person.  I mean, that’s not only fruitless, and marginally impossible: it’s immoral.

    Which is why so many countries forbid it.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-make-programmers-work-60-80-hours-per-week

  • How Do You Make Programmers Work 60-80 Hours Per Week?

    The answer, as a political economist, is this:

    Why are you trying to obtain a discount on the cost of software development by obtaining two employees worth of work from one employee?  I mean, that’s the honest question?

    If instead, you ask, “why do some programmers like to work 80 hours a week, and others do not?”  It’s because if you’re working on a game program, or something that is passionately fascinating to you, then you’d rather do that than anything else.  But you cannot possibly make most programming that interesting. 

    I work easily 14 hours a day between my occupation and my avocation, and often much more, and usually six or seven days a week.  But I both have the physical and mental capacity to do so (mostly), and I would rather do my vocation and avocation than I would do anything else.

    The number of people with the (a) physical, (b) mental ability, plus treat programming as both (c) vocation and (d) avocation, and who (e) prefer doing very little else – is just limited.

    So, just as very few species can be domesticated, because they require compatibility in five different behavioral traits, very few programmers (or people in general for that matter) can work that hard that much because all five of the criteria a,b,c,d and e, must be met to get that from people.

    Money actually won’t do it, only make it easier to do.  Opportunity helps motivate a little.  Love of what they do helps most, and  the individual’s genetics are the greatest determinant. 

    But, if you think you can ‘motivate’ people into working those hours the only way that I know of is to do it for six weeks or less, and bonus EVERYONE Involved something life-altering if they achieve the goal, after which they get a vacation for two weeks.  Why?  Because social membership will drive people more than any other factor – at least for short periods of time. 

    If you put such an incentive together, anyone who doesn’t carry the water of the whole team – fire immediately, and keep the rest. Otherwise they poison the well.

    But it’s an illogical man that seeks to obtain two people’s worth of labor from one person.  I mean, that’s not only fruitless, and marginally impossible: it’s immoral.

    Which is why so many countries forbid it.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-make-programmers-work-60-80-hours-per-week

  • MALINVESTMENT Whenever Investment is Provided by Those Without Occupational Depe

    MALINVESTMENT

    Whenever Investment is Provided by Those Without Occupational Dependence Upon Income From Practice Of Craft.

    It is tragically simple to detect malinvestment.

    Some malinvestment often produces extraordinary ends at the top, where experimentation is being performed.

    The remaining malinvestment is simply malinvestment – the seeking of rewards by those without the knowledge and ability to construct them.

    Flocking and schooling create malinvestment.

    Central bankers create flocking and schooling in consumption industries which obscure ‘growth’ in productivity (waste)

    Investors create flocking and schooling to speculative innovations (gambling).

    Entrerpreneurs create flocking and schooling to PRODUCTIVE innovations.

    Now, you can get into all sorts of niche arguments over this, but once we come to terms on terms, my arguments will stand. You might argue that in the short term, our moral obligation is to keep money moving and consumption moving. And I agree with that. I just disagree with that being a measure of ‘good economics’ or good policy, and instead, a necessary tragedy given insufficient innovation, and excessive human reproduction.

    On the other hand, a declining population producing increasing productivity is the only logical and rational goal that we can pursue over the medium and long term.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 03:44:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) (from elsewhere) (archived) Subjective Value is descriptive, i

    (worth repeating) (from elsewhere) (archived)

    https://mises.org/…/economics-and-its-ethical-assumptions

    Subjective Value is descriptive, in that the decision of the personal utility of acting on a want or fear (value) is limited to the judgement (intuition) of the individual (subjective). The individual’s willingness to act to obtain, or act to avoid something is determined by his his intuitions, desires, preferences, wants, and fears alone. Value: willingness to bear cost in exchange.

    This concept is obvious. However, the implications for economics are not: that the individual’s perception of his willingness to bear a cost, and his judgement of the cost that he put into something, are not something he perceives rationally when interacting with others. Instead, he anticipates that his desires for consumption are objective, and that his desires for exchange are objective, but that his opponent’s interests are subjective. In other words, he cognitively biases both incoming and outgoing assets in his favor. (This is probably a form of error correction on nature’s part, to make sure that the marginal difference between goods obtained via cooperation is actually in our benefit.)

    Satisfaction and Frustration quotients vary between individuals (and families, and classes and tribes). So not only are we more or less willing to act (bear a cost) to have or avoid one thing or another, but our desire to fulfill another want, or avoid another stress is subjective as well. (Frustration ‘budgets’ being common.) And our desire to consume a satisfaction quickly or slowly is equally subjective.

    Economics may or may not tell you what to desire, but it may help you with the means. But this “nonsense argument” puts us into conflict between our personal values, our moral intuitions and our institutional requirements for achieving both.

    Mises’ “…So far as Economics is concerned…” (imaginary needs) thinks this is incorrect. But that is only if one assumes that trade is the starting point for cooperation, rather than the need to cooperate in the first place as necessary for rationally forgoing violence.

    (More another time…..)

    I think propertarianism (operationalism with property) is much clearer than classical arguments.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-06 12:21:00 UTC