Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • NOT A CHANGE IN WOMEN, IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID We need to get these men working.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/young-women-are-more-career-driven-than-men-now/IT’S NOT A CHANGE IN WOMEN, IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID

    We need to get these men working. That’s what the numbers say.

    The survey results are an aggregate numerical effect, not one that belies any change in male preferences or behavior.

    Factors:

    a) wider distribution of male abilities than female abilities means the lower part of society is male, plus males are disproportionately affected by the ongoing ‘Man-recession’.

    b) fewer men going to college

    c) lower male workforce participation rate

    d) ongoing effect of the recession

    e) the tendency of men to state what is possible as a preference.

    f) the fact that males mentally mature more slowly due to how we enforce education today.

    Basically:

    1) the lower quintiles of males affect the aggregates.

    2) The abandonment of the workforce by increasing numbers of men below 30 and above 52.

    3) The remaining mailes can’t compensate for the other two groups.

    We are not going to have the wonderful world everyone imagined post 1950. The lower classes are abandoning the institutions that made us a ‘society’. Marriage, and the nuclear family will be signals of wealth. And wealth is uncommon. Males will do here, what they have done in the rest of the world when they are no longer bound by marriage.

    That’s what they’re doing. That’s what we’re seeing. It’s just data.

    Does it matter?

    Unemployed disenfranchised women don’t really matter to a polity. Unemployed disenfranchised men create an infinite number of problems. Not the least of which is that they’re a precondition for revolution.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-20 07:37:00 UTC

  • The Four Academic Political Parties Of The Economic Apocalypse

    The Four Academic Parties Of The Economic Apocalypse The 1) Keynesian Spenders, 2) Chicago Monetarists, 3) Classical Liberal Industrial Policy Advocates and 4) Austrian Human Capital Advocates, will not put aside ideological differences and work together to propose a suite of solutions that will both stimulate the economy, and provide each ‘economic political party’, and each ‘governmental political party’ and their respective constituencies, with compensation for the involuntary transfers that will occur, and the negative externalities that will be brought about, if we borrow and spend.Blame Krugman And The Left I blame this set off affairs on on Krugman in particular, but the entire mainstream movement in general, whose ‘party’ is currently in power. And who, like all parties in power, seek to push their agenda independently of compromise rather than the agenda of the collective through artful compromise. Unfortunately, the people in government do not have a sufficient grasp of the different schools to think of them as the adjuncts to political parties that they are. When Obama called a meeting of ‘top economists’, there oval office contained only left wing economists – none of them white or christian either. Thereby demonstrating his preference, and in doing so guaranteeing that a broad based solution was impossible. Exchanges Build Permission To Spend It would be entirely possible for the left to ’spend’ in exchange for wiping out the DOE, HUD and public education tenure. That would be a fair exchange. It would be entirely possible to ’spend’ in exchange for a new immigration policy. That would be a fair exchange. But all efforts at exchange have failed. Polarization continues. And you simply seek economic dictatorship, so that you can remove the means by which the population can rebel against the state. The Reincarnation Of The Devil Himself: The Cashless Economy I agree with the MMT crowd, and Yglasias, that the elimination of paper currency will allow forcible redistribution across the entire economy by way of monetary policy alone, which will allow the Left/Statist/Keynesian alliance to overwhelm the Monetarist, Industrial and Human Capital parties, and each of their supporters, in the domesticl economic legislature of intellectual opinion. The Resistance Movement The other Political/Economic party coalitions object to spending, because they object to further empowering the left/state/keynesian party. This is the opportunity that the moderate and right side coalitions are using to punish the state for over reaching. The conservative strategy is to starve the beast and bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt them, and entirely destroy their culture. (Albiet, it’s probably too late now.) It appears to most of us, who focus on productivity instead of consumption, that both increases in spending, and a cashless society, simply remove the constraints on destruction of productivity, and further encourages the creation of catastrophic bubbles that will not be able to be ‘fixed’ by market corrections, but instead, will be solved only by revolution, economic irrelevance and poverty, or military conquest. Yes People Prefer Depression To Revolution, Civil War, Economic Impoverishment, and Conquest. So yes, people clearly prefer this ‘state of affairs’ to those where the state is further empowered to expose them to risk. And in that sense, it is a rational choice, a fair trade, and it is currently being purchased at a discount. Economics is inseparable from politics. Because economics is a subset of politics. And politics prevail. Politics prevails because the material economy lives at the service of the status economy.  It always has and it always will.

  • The Four Academic Political Parties Of The Economic Apocalypse

    The Four Academic Parties Of The Economic Apocalypse The 1) Keynesian Spenders, 2) Chicago Monetarists, 3) Classical Liberal Industrial Policy Advocates and 4) Austrian Human Capital Advocates, will not put aside ideological differences and work together to propose a suite of solutions that will both stimulate the economy, and provide each ‘economic political party’, and each ‘governmental political party’ and their respective constituencies, with compensation for the involuntary transfers that will occur, and the negative externalities that will be brought about, if we borrow and spend.Blame Krugman And The Left I blame this set off affairs on on Krugman in particular, but the entire mainstream movement in general, whose ‘party’ is currently in power. And who, like all parties in power, seek to push their agenda independently of compromise rather than the agenda of the collective through artful compromise. Unfortunately, the people in government do not have a sufficient grasp of the different schools to think of them as the adjuncts to political parties that they are. When Obama called a meeting of ‘top economists’, there oval office contained only left wing economists – none of them white or christian either. Thereby demonstrating his preference, and in doing so guaranteeing that a broad based solution was impossible. Exchanges Build Permission To Spend It would be entirely possible for the left to ’spend’ in exchange for wiping out the DOE, HUD and public education tenure. That would be a fair exchange. It would be entirely possible to ’spend’ in exchange for a new immigration policy. That would be a fair exchange. But all efforts at exchange have failed. Polarization continues. And you simply seek economic dictatorship, so that you can remove the means by which the population can rebel against the state. The Reincarnation Of The Devil Himself: The Cashless Economy I agree with the MMT crowd, and Yglasias, that the elimination of paper currency will allow forcible redistribution across the entire economy by way of monetary policy alone, which will allow the Left/Statist/Keynesian alliance to overwhelm the Monetarist, Industrial and Human Capital parties, and each of their supporters, in the domesticl economic legislature of intellectual opinion. The Resistance Movement The other Political/Economic party coalitions object to spending, because they object to further empowering the left/state/keynesian party. This is the opportunity that the moderate and right side coalitions are using to punish the state for over reaching. The conservative strategy is to starve the beast and bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt them, and entirely destroy their culture. (Albiet, it’s probably too late now.) It appears to most of us, who focus on productivity instead of consumption, that both increases in spending, and a cashless society, simply remove the constraints on destruction of productivity, and further encourages the creation of catastrophic bubbles that will not be able to be ‘fixed’ by market corrections, but instead, will be solved only by revolution, economic irrelevance and poverty, or military conquest. Yes People Prefer Depression To Revolution, Civil War, Economic Impoverishment, and Conquest. So yes, people clearly prefer this ‘state of affairs’ to those where the state is further empowered to expose them to risk. And in that sense, it is a rational choice, a fair trade, and it is currently being purchased at a discount. Economics is inseparable from politics. Because economics is a subset of politics. And politics prevail. Politics prevails because the material economy lives at the service of the status economy.  It always has and it always will.

  • From interfluidity: Depression is a choice (Yes, it’s a lower cost for freedom than the alternatives.)

    On interfuidity, Steve Randy Waldman writes:

    We are in a depression, but not because we don’t know how to remedy the problem. We are in a depression because it is our revealed preference, as a polity, not to remedy the problem. We are choosing continued depression because we prefer it to the alternatives.

    via interfluidity » Depression is a choice.

    That’s true. We are in a depression because further empowering the state to interfere in our lives is a higher cost than weathering the depression. And it is CHEAPER to disempower the state now, than it would be by alternative, more physical means. A depression that deprives the state of power, is a cheap way of buying freedom. Usually we have to risk our lives, not our pocketbooks.

  • From interfluidity: Depression is a choice (Yes, it’s a lower cost for freedom than the alternatives.)

    On interfuidity, Steve Randy Waldman writes:

    We are in a depression, but not because we don’t know how to remedy the problem. We are in a depression because it is our revealed preference, as a polity, not to remedy the problem. We are choosing continued depression because we prefer it to the alternatives.

    via interfluidity » Depression is a choice.

    That’s true. We are in a depression because further empowering the state to interfere in our lives is a higher cost than weathering the depression. And it is CHEAPER to disempower the state now, than it would be by alternative, more physical means. A depression that deprives the state of power, is a cheap way of buying freedom. Usually we have to risk our lives, not our pocketbooks.

  • Conservative Strategy Is Consistent. It’s not a psychological thing. It’s a stra

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/19/from-interfluidity-depression-is-a-choice-yes-its-a-lower-cost-for-freedom-than-the-alternatives/The Conservative Strategy Is Consistent. It’s not a psychological thing. It’s a strategy. And its working.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-19 12:07:00 UTC

  • Four Levers Of Policy Create An Opportunity For Exchange

    http://modeledbehavior.com/2012/04/17/phelps-on-keynesianism

    It is clear why you could not get economic growth without innovation but the vast majority of business activity over the course of human history have been in economies that were not growing. Indeed, the vast majority of business activity that occurs from now until the end time will almost certainly be in economies that are not growing. Sustained per capita growth is an odd thing that just started recently and will likely end in fairly short span of time.

    That’s false. It’s not ‘clear’ at all. The argument is not settled. We INTUIT that spending may in some ways create innovation. But we can’t prove it. There isn’t much evidence of it. And there is so much noise created by the boom bust cycle that it’s pretty hard to make out anything at all. We know that spending and loose money creates demand, decreases employment AND misallocates capital. Capital follows the easiest opportunity. It exacerbates booms and busts. You just choose to write off the damage done whenever you’re questioned about it. I don’t think you understand the tragedy of the commons behavior this process creates — exploit what you can before it falls apart. It’s not like this nonsense takes place entirely in the market. It moves from the market into politics, and further polarizes the entire process. We SUSPECT that periods of ‘contraction’ do the opposite, which is to expand innovation of all types, everywhere. It certainly looks to be the case. It makes logical sense that opportunity constraint makes people seek opportunity in ‘harder’ places. But the jury is out. The argument is not settled. Other than perhaps the confirmation provided by the Germans, who pursue this strategy on cultural and moral grounds rather than rational grounds, and they have less coalition building to do in their party system, so it’s not necessary to express the problem in rational terms. We can’t achieve the same thing here in the states because of ideological factions, most of which are antagonized by your hero. You “SPENDERS” don’t look at all four policy levers as a set that must be moved IN CONCERT so that misallocation of capital does not occur. The side-effect of moving all four levers in concert is that everyone across the political spectrum also buys into the solution: a) spending (liberals and progressives) b) credit (moderates) c) industrial policy (classical liberals and conservatives) d) human capital (austrians and conservatives) Why do they ‘buy in’? Because a four-lever ‘transaction’ is an inter-temporal exchange from which everyone in every class benefits, not an inter-temporal redistribution which benefits some at the cost of others. Even if none of the participants can articulate their idea in such clear language. This is why the progressive alliance fails. It fails because it seeks redistribution rather than exchange. This is why you and Krugman are frustrated. You because you beliefe “Sh__t happens”. Krugman because he’s a racist and an ideologue. He’s well aware of what he’s doing. He’s just the Limbaugh of the Left. Limbaugh works with the economy of norms, Krugman with the monetary economy. But they’re identical in practice. You on the other hand simply err: “Sh__” doesn’t “happen”. It’s caused. It’s caused by distortion of the inter-temporal information system that allows us to coordinate our activities in such a way that we ensure we are following productive ends. Politics is either voluntary exchange or involuntary theft. Exchanges are self-justifying. Thefts are unjustifiable. Period. Politics is coalition forming, or it’s just dictatorship. And however you choose to justify your preference for dictatorship, it’s dictatorship and nothing more. And the moment you justify your preference with dictatorship, you put back on the table the opposition’s right to press for dictatorship. And in this case, the other side is more capable of putting it into place and maintaining it. They have a more accurate view of human nature. They’re just less willing and interested in doing so. So let’s all stay with seeking exchanges, OK? There are at least four specialties in political economy if we don’t count the MMT group. Together those four groups force an inter-temporal exchange that limites the distortionary effects of credit and spending by matching them with future increases in production. Statesmen lead their states. Ideologues lead their ideology. Hacks are just hacks.

  • ECONOMICS “IS HOW ECONOMICS SHOULD BE DONE” But then, assuming the state will co

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/aggregated-confusionAUSTRIAN ECONOMICS “IS HOW ECONOMICS SHOULD BE DONE”

    But then, assuming the state will continue to pursue opportunities to increase taxes and decrease unemployment, the austrian approach would put the state in the position of trying to affect change via industrial policy. Meaning, being in bed with industries and unions.

    Maybe that isn’t all bad. It’s certainly better than being in bed with the financial sector.

    But then the state will always be in bed with someone.

    It needs someone to F***.

    (Apologies if light guttural humor is over the top. It was just THERE and I had to take it.)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 16:43:00 UTC

  • Virtue Of Government Competition

    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F04%2F15%2Fbusiness%2Fcompetition-is-good-for-governments-too-economic-view.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26srcQ3DtpQ26smidQ3Dfb-share&OP=195d78d3Q2FXVQ7DQ5CXTkmQ5BekkQ24Q27XQ27CQ20Q27XCQ2FXQ20%28XQ5CQ23Q5BLQ51Q7DQ5BQ5BXmkdQ7EQ7DQ24LQ24LkQ51Q25LQ5BQ25_kkTQ25bkeQ25_kZQ7DeQ51dQ7DQ51Q24Q5BQ25Q24kkQ25Q7DmkQ51kdLmQ25ZLQ7DVysQ24d6The Virtue Of Government Competition

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-15 00:13:00 UTC

  • CANNOT ASSUME THAT AN ECONOMY IS A GOING CONCERN States that attract IQ and Inve

    http://blog.american.com/2012/04/four-reasons-rsps/YOU CANNOT ASSUME THAT AN ECONOMY IS A GOING CONCERN

    States that attract IQ and Investment win. States that expropriate taxes lose. That’s the lesson. People are fleeing california and new york. Why? I mean, something between five and ten percent of californians left lately. OK?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-12 12:37:00 UTC