That Guy Is at It Again

By -
More on social cycles at ThinkMarkets.

Comments

  1. PH6:16 PM

    I'm noticing a cycle.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Warren9:13 PM

    This is great, Gene. Now instead of the really long posts where you dissect a demonstrably false claim by a blogger you've found a nut crazy enough that you can just link to him without further explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Warren9:13 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gabe Ruth9:14 AM

    I've been using traffic as a mental model for economics for a while. I think it's almost as good an analogous relationship as using plumbing to think about basic electrical circuitry.

    - physical speed -> velocity of $, trade
    - distance of travel -> accumulation of wealth
    - fuel -> spending of wealth
    - stopping for fuel -> capital expenditure
    - driving recklessly -> excessively leveraging capital (or short termism)
    - accident -> default (the greater the speed going in, the greater the disruption)

    The interesting thing (at least it looks that way while sitting on the LIE) is how it works to some degree when you think about how traveling and industry have changed over time. When people were being drawn around by horses, a "disruption" had a much more limited blast radius, roads weren't the only way to get around, etc. Also, if you were to take a person out of the 19th century and put them into a car on a freeway, he would think we were out of our minds, and I tend to think he'd be right. See Jim Grant's speech to the NY Fed a couple weeks ago for one person's guess about how our ancestors would regard current events.

    The analogy mostly falls apart with the consequences of bad behavior. Traffic is ruled, ultimately, by the laws of nature. The economy can be manipulated in turns by government and those with the most to lose, to the point where it looses touch with reality.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more