Economics · Government (Insurer of Last Resort) · Group Evolutionary Strategy (Competition) · Uncategorized

What Kind of Anti-Market are You? (You’re some kind, I promise)

WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU?

What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer?

Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information
Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information.
Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information.
Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons.
Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics.
– Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property.
Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information
Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information.

CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in.

PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language.

The Frankfurt School modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

Economics · Mathematics · Uncategorized

The State of Mathematical Economics

 

Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people.

The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra.

20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks.

Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics.

And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics as we understand it can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality.

One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within.

However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them.

These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp.

Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations.

And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant.

So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries.

These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions.

Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others.

Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions.

So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability.

in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics.

And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience.

The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity.

Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you undrestand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations.

Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

Economics · Uncategorized

Q&A: “Curt How Do I Learn About Economics”

IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the Jewish austrian canon of : mises, rothbard, hoppe? In fact, why not austrians at all?

GREAT QUESTION:

No I don’t really recommend you read Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe any longer, except for the works below, qualified as I have qualified them below. And all of Austrian (Mengerian) Economics has been incorporated into mainstream economics, with the single exception of the certainty (determinism) of the business cycle.

Instead I’ve listed some books below that I consider the least bad at this point in time.

Why Not Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe?

MISES: We must see Mises Praxeology an attempt to (a) preserve jewish separatism (b) prevent funding of the commons, and (c) a failed attempt at operationalism in economics – mostly because he did not understand science, or mathematics, or logic for that matter, and was, making a facile attempt at creating a logic of social science.

ROTHBARD: We must see rothbard as again, attempting not to create liberty but to (a) restate jewish law of disaporic separatism (libertinism) and poly-ethicalism, (b) propose the ethics of the Caravan Trader, the Bazaar and the Ghetto as enlightenment universal morality (none of which can hold territory, construct rule of law, or create competitive commons) (c) preserve the ability to conduct parasitsm through verbal means, coercion, and trickery while at the same time prohibiting retaliation for parasitism through verbal means, coercion, and tricker – all of which make the formation of a voluntarily organized polity with consensual commons an impossibility due to the malincentives and high transaction and opportunity costs.

HOPPE: As I’ve written elsewhere, (here: ) Hoppe is a victim of (a) his ‘German’ education in LITERARY, and Kantian (rationalism) rather than scientific (ratio-empirical-operational) thought (b) his education by Marxists who attempted to take Kantian moral argument, into jewish legal argument, and (c) his love of his friend and mentor rothbard (which is we must appreciate – he was a wonderful human I wish I had met), and his infuence under rothbard reinforcing (a) and (b). What we CAN take from hoppe is valuable but it is very hard to access without falling victim to his ‘nonsensical but sophisticated use of ‘Pilpul’ arguments: argumentation in particular.

THE TRAP OF LITERATURE
We all learn by different means and the more literary and accessible the easier, and the more abstract, deductive, and calculative, the more difficult.

Libertarianism is writte almost entirely in entry level prose. IT is written almost entirely in literary prose. it is written almost entirely in morally intuitive prose. So it is attractive to the high school and college level individual in no small part because it includes basic economics, a simplified version of law, and for all intents and purposes never questions whether a libertarian polity can survive competition against opponents with different interests and institutions. (no it can’t).

The reason we require money, prices, contract, law, institutions that regulate our actions and defend our investments, is precisely because the world of specialists who make improtant decisions that influence our lives does not consist of entry level prose, literary prose, morally intuitive prose, and it is not accessible to high school and colloge level readers – people those with specialized knoweldge employ.

The world operates by war, technology, economy, government, demographics, law, norm, tradition, and myth – in precisely that order.

So what is Curt telling you? Don’t be tricked by literature.

When I tell people to become informed, I tell them to read a literary history, a biography or two, an economic history, and then get into the science of it (measurements). This takes us through the natural learning curve of myth, literature, history, and science. And through that incremental process we learn as we evolved to learn.

READ THESE INSTEAD
Instead Consider These Instead.

(High School Market)
1. Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson (80% of everything you need to know about economics can be reduced to ‘full accounting’ of differences between potential actions, and their internal and external consequences.)

(College Market)
1. Nial Ferguson’s Ascent of Money
2. Rothbard’s History of Banking (best work he did)
3. Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.
4. Fukuyama: Trust
5. Civilization: The West and the Rest

(College Graduate Market)
1. Mankiw’s Micro Economics
2. Mankiew’s Macro Economics (I don’t think macro helps other than to understand how policy is made and why feds work they way they do.)
3. Mises Human Action (!!! but ONLY chapter 6+. The first five chapters are the cause of his failure.) Mises could have done it. I have looked at trying to correct it but it’s almost impossible.
Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money

( Graduate School Market) (by: Emil Suric )
1. Capital and its Structure (Lachmann);
2. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (Hayek);
3. Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (Hayek);
4. Prices and Production (Hayek);
5. Interest and Prices (Wicksell);
6. Theory of Money and Credit (Mises);
7. The Positive Theory of Capital (Bohm-Bawerk);
8. They Keynesian Episode (Hutt);
9. Anything ever written by Garrison.

(optional)
Hoppe: read his PAPERS,on his website, not his books.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE
Mortimer Adler’s “How To Read A Book” Why? Because you don’t really try to remember what you read. You definitely read the table of contents. You pick out a chapter or two that’s interesting to you. And then if you feel like you can chew it, read more of it. Only read what you get value out of. Return later once you’ve had more experience if there is something new to grasp.

I swear it is more important to understand the table of contents so that you understand the author’s basic outline of his argument than it is to go through the book which is largely all the excuses he makes for proposing that argument.

Read a bunch of Amazon reviews that have high ratings. Then read the Table of contents, pick a chapter. And for god’s sake, remember we have almost all these books online in digital form where you can read them for free if you are impoverished. If you can afford books, or use the library then please ‘pay the author his due’. But never sacrifice your learning. Copyright is a privilege not a right.

Anti-Philosophy · Economics · Uncategorized

The Error Of The Ancients: War is Fine But Economics Beneath Them

THE ERROR OF THE ANCIENTS: TALKING BIZ WAS “OH, SO, BOURGEOISE”

Aside from the conquest of the west by byzantine mysticism, the central problem of western philosophy was thinking and ruling classes avoidance of the centrality of economics. We get philosophy to circumvent the traditional law. And we get science to circumvent the traditional church. And we finally get jewish pseudoscience and puritan outright deceit as ways of circumventing science, economics, an law.

Economics really doesn’t come into being until smith’s combination of it with ethics, morality, and politics, or turn into a science until menger. Then just as the german scientific revolution is about to kick in, we get the wars, and the postwar era keynes replaces pseudoscience with obscurantist immoral mathematics that menger and smith had sought to avoid. Then the americans kick in – so proud they are to have found a way to destroy civilization faster using stocks as money.

Lesson? Get your hands dirty.

Economics · Grammar of Natural Law · Mathematics · Uncategorized

Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality

The mathematical order of big data? Property.

1) Humans (life) is acquisitive.
2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things.
3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire.
4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions.
5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer)
6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under.
6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it.

(I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.)

http://shar.es/QBhQ0