Curt Doolittle

Theme: Subsidy

  • Juan Sebastian Ortiz —“Yet thanks to the division of labor and capital accumul

    Juan Sebastian Ortiz

    —“Yet thanks to the division of labor and capital accumulation even those who leech on producers, the welfare, food stamp, state pension and state income dependent can live an extremely wealthy life in the most Smithian of senses despite not producing any value. “—

    This brings up an interesting point. The assumption in libertarian thought, is that adherence to moral codes (NAP) gain one access to the market – access to opportunity created by participating in the market. This assumes, as was true in ancient and medieval (pre-industrial) eras, that we all had labor to contribute. Further, that we gained right to hold property by fighting for the property rights of all members of the polity. These were entry costs, if not also entry-cost-rituals.

    Adherence to norms is costly. Respect for rituals is costly. Observance of private property rights is costly. Production is costly in effort. These are very high costs that the individual must bear whether or not he obtains rewards from the market, by paying those costs he makes possible the reduction of transaction costs, that makes the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) possible.

    Thought experiment: What happens if only 10% of the population is capable of engaging in production, but their production was sufficient to both keep say 80% of that production, and leave 20% of it for the remaining 80% of the population? The 80% have no means of engaging in production. And adherence to norms, including the norm of property rights, is of no value to them. Yet we could either exterminate them, or pay them to police the social order and make possible the low transaction costs, so that for the minority 10%, the voluntary organization of production remains possible.

    So, if ordinary people, engaged in production or not, respect AND enforce property rights necessary for the voluntary organization of production, they are in fact doing labor. If we do not pay them for their efforts, I think that this is free riding. And they are right not to respect property. Or other norms for that matter. And they have no money to function as consumers unless we do so anyway.

    So, rather than treat moral rules and private property as natural laws – spurious as that magical term is – I prefer to hold myself to the constant rule of voluntary exchange. If we want people to adhere to and enforce rules so that we can engage in the voluntary organization of production, then we can pay them to. I don’t think they have a ‘right’ to compensation. But then, I don’t think we can hold them to adhering to property rights, which is a very high cost, if we don’t pay them for it.

    By applying property rights CONSISTENTLY I end up with this logic. And with that logic, and that consistency, all the fallacies of moral argument disappear. Every human action at all times in favor of cooperation is an exchange.

    How does one price payment for adherence to norms? I’m still working on that but it actually looks pretty simple.

    Maybe too many jumps there. Think it should be easy for you. Happy to clarify otherwise.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 02:10:00 UTC

  • Why Squander Inheritance Through Redistribution?

    [W]hy should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital? My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.

  • Why Squander Inheritance Through Redistribution?

    [W]hy should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital? My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.

  • Caplan's Dishonest Redistributive Argument In Favor Of Open Immigration

    [C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.

  • Caplan’s Dishonest Redistributive Argument In Favor Of Open Immigration

    [C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.

  • Caplan's Dishonest Redistributive Argument In Favor Of Open Immigration

    [C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.

  • Caplan’s Dishonest Redistributive Argument In Favor Of Open Immigration

    [C]aplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies. In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society. Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly. The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen. The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty. I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes. Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.) My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said. I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics. I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital? I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.

  • WHY SQUANDER INHERITANCE THROUGH REDISTRIBUTION? Why should I squander my earnin

    WHY SQUANDER INHERITANCE THROUGH REDISTRIBUTION?

    Why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution?

    If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital?

    My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal.

    Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-25 02:57:00 UTC

  • Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

    Contrary to rhetoric it is, indeed, a ponzi scheme, which is defined as early entrants are paid by later entrants under the assumption that there will always be enough new entrants to pay for each person exiting. 

    It’s not insurance because Insurance works by a lot of people giving a little bit of money to an investor who invests the money at a reasonable rate of return, then pays out to some small percent of people in the event that a few of them actually need a lot of money.   That is not the case, since all of us both enter and leave.

    When social security was conceived, people didn’t live very long. It was in fact, at that time, insurance.  But as we have lived much longer, we are confronted with the problem that old people are still not very useful in the work force, and it’s hard for them to work at even small jobs as they age, and we have smaller population growth and a smaller population who must sacrifice more and more of their incomes to pay for aged people who live much longer and have very high health care costs.

    To compensate for this problem, western countries have brought in large numbers of immigrants in order to increase the number of working people, But this has in turn created cultural friction as the only people that can be brought into the country are largely the poor from the third world, who are much less productive per person than the prior generations. 

    The counter argument is that people should be forced to save, even if we redistributed money via taxation to people’s savings accounts. Then this money could be insured by the government, and people could actually plan.

    There are numerous arithmetic arguments to suggest that it is possible to perpetuate this scheme indefinitely, but they are heavily biased with assumptions. The reason is that most of our economic data starts with the postwar era, And economic data before that time, with the colonial period. And it is not certain that our country can remain competitive.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Social-Security-a-Ponzi-scheme

  • Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

    Contrary to rhetoric it is, indeed, a ponzi scheme, which is defined as early entrants are paid by later entrants under the assumption that there will always be enough new entrants to pay for each person exiting. 

    It’s not insurance because Insurance works by a lot of people giving a little bit of money to an investor who invests the money at a reasonable rate of return, then pays out to some small percent of people in the event that a few of them actually need a lot of money.   That is not the case, since all of us both enter and leave.

    When social security was conceived, people didn’t live very long. It was in fact, at that time, insurance.  But as we have lived much longer, we are confronted with the problem that old people are still not very useful in the work force, and it’s hard for them to work at even small jobs as they age, and we have smaller population growth and a smaller population who must sacrifice more and more of their incomes to pay for aged people who live much longer and have very high health care costs.

    To compensate for this problem, western countries have brought in large numbers of immigrants in order to increase the number of working people, But this has in turn created cultural friction as the only people that can be brought into the country are largely the poor from the third world, who are much less productive per person than the prior generations. 

    The counter argument is that people should be forced to save, even if we redistributed money via taxation to people’s savings accounts. Then this money could be insured by the government, and people could actually plan.

    There are numerous arithmetic arguments to suggest that it is possible to perpetuate this scheme indefinitely, but they are heavily biased with assumptions. The reason is that most of our economic data starts with the postwar era, And economic data before that time, with the colonial period. And it is not certain that our country can remain competitive.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Social-Security-a-Ponzi-scheme