Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you hav

    WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS?

    —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”—

    If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 20:29:00 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

  • 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

  • Hydrocarbons function as the world’s commodity money, with governments selling t

    Hydrocarbons function as the world’s commodity money, with governments selling token money as a means of allocating it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-21 07:51:00 UTC

  • The Folly of our Guilt

    by Bob Moran We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges. And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others. High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you? Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor? Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted? Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it? Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to ou

  • The Folly of our Guilt

    by Bob Moran We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges. And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others. High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you? Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor? Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted? Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it? Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to ou

  • America, the land where ‘decent’ and disciplined (moral) people work their asses

    America, the land where ‘decent’ and disciplined (moral) people work their assess off to pay absurd mortgage rates by borrowing from themselves (omfg), so that they can afford to move away from ‘indecent’ undisciplined (immoral) people, rather than paying trivial costs for trivial homes, where indecent people are prohibited from living.

    Make industrialization of home production unprofitable. And watch what happens…..

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 12:16:00 UTC

  • by Bob Moran We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at le

    by Bob Moran

    We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges.

    And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others.

    High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you?

    Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor?

    Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted?

    Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it?

    Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to outsiders? Did you lack the force to defend yourself?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 14:10:00 UTC

  • The Diseconomies of Scale

    —“At what point do diseconomies of organizational scale kick in or is this a flawed frame?”—Lee Tucker That is the entire question as far as I am concerned. If we take an empirical look, the scale increases with available information systems, and the homogeneity of the population. But in simple terms, a city = a market, and a market must serve a demographic and a demographic must exploit a niche in the regional or world market. So as far as I can tell there is some ratio between population, density, iq, and homogeneity, institutiona means of distributing/collecting information necessary for decidablity, and relative productivity (purchasing power) that should tell us the optimum size. the value of scale kicked in with gunpowder and the high cost of total war. (napoleon). HOwever, with nuclear weapons, that value disappears, so as far as I can tell, 5-10M, and that is up from what looks like 2-3M in the last century, simply because of the complexity of goods and services produced, and longer lifetimes (in other words more people does not translate to more people productiely employe) . So population can increase without affecting the systems of production. Conversely, lets look at competition: a bigger city with more assets can endure shocks over longer periods of economic reorganization, by spending down those assets.

  • The Diseconomies of Scale

    —“At what point do diseconomies of organizational scale kick in or is this a flawed frame?”—Lee Tucker That is the entire question as far as I am concerned. If we take an empirical look, the scale increases with available information systems, and the homogeneity of the population. But in simple terms, a city = a market, and a market must serve a demographic and a demographic must exploit a niche in the regional or world market. So as far as I can tell there is some ratio between population, density, iq, and homogeneity, institutiona means of distributing/collecting information necessary for decidablity, and relative productivity (purchasing power) that should tell us the optimum size. the value of scale kicked in with gunpowder and the high cost of total war. (napoleon). HOwever, with nuclear weapons, that value disappears, so as far as I can tell, 5-10M, and that is up from what looks like 2-3M in the last century, simply because of the complexity of goods and services produced, and longer lifetimes (in other words more people does not translate to more people productiely employe) . So population can increase without affecting the systems of production. Conversely, lets look at competition: a bigger city with more assets can endure shocks over longer periods of economic reorganization, by spending down those assets.