RT @curtdoolittle: @elbanna101 In simple terms “There is no possibility of endless growth if at the same time the population is decreasing…
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-07 14:46:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412785176049078285
In simple terms “There is no possibility of endless growth if at the same time the population is decreasing its capacity for growth”.
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-07 14:46:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412785062047854595
Reply addressees: @elbanna101
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412784226605441028
No, because (a) all increases in wealth are due to increases in adaptation (innovation, application, adaptation) that consumes more energy (b) adaptation is what genetic load inhibits or reverses, and what evolution provided (adaptation = prospertity=rate = energy conversion).
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-07 14:45:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412784900240031746
Reply addressees: @elbanna101
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412784226605441028
The principle problem of malincentives: over expansion of reproduction such that the number of demands on the production of the group oustrip the productivity of teh group, causing political demand for takings (redistribution).
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-03 21:19:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1411434373535219716
Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @NSKinsella
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1411433332332797955
the incentive for cooperation among all animals consists of categories of opportunity, productivity, and insurance. It’s just economics. and as such it’s just physics. intelligence just assists the economics, and physics.
Source date (UTC): 2021-07-01 01:13:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410406132913410057
we have effectively made food infinitely cheap.
Source date (UTC): 2021-06-30 18:22:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410302862513557506
Reply addressees: @goldenageofmen
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410301028923232257
Our (my) position is that the fundamental problem is not accounting for capital, and the relative lack of mathematical comprehension of economists given the sale of the order, and levers of policy available to the polity.
Source date (UTC): 2021-06-30 14:49:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410249151523266561
Reply addressees: @WorMartiN @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410248732797452295
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@WorMartiN @Lord_Keynes2 Correct. Austrian econ = rule of law. Chicago = Rule of Law Insured by the State. Keynesianism = Arbitrary Rule By Man. New Keynesianism = trying to find an excuse to justify rule by man by finding microfoundations to do so 😉 So in effect, this series describes a spectrum.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1410248732797452295
So the reason LK2 is mistaken is that MU is an incomplete statement open to suggestion (an unbalanced formula), and as such fails to account for novelty, and novelty (+acquisition) is not produced by prices alone – only upon expansion of MU to a general rule of behavior.
Source date (UTC): 2021-06-30 14:36:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410245795526414345
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410245401681276934
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Lord_Keynes2 Not that y’all need my input but MU refers to the change in price as one consumes or sells an inventory. Over time, we’ve applied MU as a general rule of behavior since it does in fact describe all neurological processes because all such processes seek novelty: +consumption.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1410245401681276934
Just depends on what you think I’m saying. 😉 It’s not protection by lower prices of production, greater growth, and greater speculation.
Source date (UTC): 2021-06-30 01:58:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410055021740408836
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410050771916312577
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
start there. then 1890s and then second industrial revolution. if I can find something that explains the impact of american production on european manufacturing prices I’ll send that too.
Source date (UTC): 2021-06-30 01:57:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410054774540603395
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410048243115954177