In earlier posts I've referred to Bill the drug dealer and the forces facing him as he decides what price to charge for his marijuana. We've seen several forces that have been applied to pricing of his weed, from the introduction of externalities that have absolutely nothing to do with cost, but can determine price.
The importance of this essay lies in the simple discovery that costs don't determine price.
There is a great deal of literature that offers a different conclusion. It is all, simply, wrong.
I bring this up in response to a great deal of what is offered as public debate, over current policies adopted by our states and our federal governments' attempts to direct the market's allocation of scarce resources into enterprises which don't, in my opinion, merit such allocation.
Bill has one externality, his view of what value is. Bill is an adherent of the Labour Theory of Value. The Labour Theory, in short, advances the belief that it is only the touch of labour's hand that creates value. Unfortunately for the labour theorist, this is also the mainstay of Capitalism, that the touch of the hand creates ownership. And ownership is property.
When I go into the wilderness and tame the wilderness to my bidding, I create property. As rules of ownership have evolved, the taming of the wilderness as a prelude to property has been eliminated, in most cases. Just ask the Foreign Secretary of Israel. Typically, in a State of Nature, Man is left to his own devices when it comes to survival. It is through the consolidation that occurs as a society develops, that laws are developed that help to smooth the relationships between competing claims of ownership. In early societies, much of what is claimed as ownership is more dependent upon the owner's ability to back up his claims, through violence, that gives credence to his claims. Something along the order of "a man's reach should exceed his grasp." How much a man could claim to own was based upon his ability to have his grasp defended by force. As societies developed, it became clear that property rights, and the concomitant benefits of property rights, were one of the essential responsibilities of a civil society.
Property allowed a person to own a thing. Property, as clearly defined as that chattel or land that is held by a property owner, was an asset of the property owner. In bookkeeping terms, we know that Assets equal Liabilities plus Equity. The claim of property is an important claim. It is a thing, provable as itself. What are things that we know we own?
The first, and easiest argument is, I own myself.
This claim, of self-ownership, isn't that old.
I know that there is a movement afoot to deal with the crime of slavery. That is, that slavery was legal during the first few hundred years of America's establishment. Slavery is viewed as "America's peculiar institution." What is ignored in this view is that slavery was as much a product of improvements in transportation as anything else. Slavery, as defined, was the common mode of existence for most of the pre-Renaissance world. Freedom and liberty are the new concepts. And freedom and liberty as existential rights of man are as new as the Enlightenment.
Slavery was the name given to persons imported into a region. The common name of indigenous slaves was serf. Serf or slave, the economic and political rights of the serf or slave was equivalent. Whether serf or slave, you did your master's bidding upon threat of death. Since few of us can actually track our heritage back to an ancestor who was a member of the nobility, I would suggest that most of us were, through our ancestors, nothing more than that of the stock of serf or slave. Several critical moments occurred in Western Civilization that advanced the notion that humans were not, indeed, subject to the tyrannies imposed by others, either as a class, or as a condition of birth. I identify two; the works of Martin Luther; and the writings of Rene Descartes.
Luther's reformation had important ramifications in terms of what we determine are the conditions of property. That God is all powerful and all knowing is a constant. But the terms and conditions under which we have a relationship with our God shifted. It shifted from being dependent upon a class of clergy, to a class of the individual; that our relationship with God was not dependent upon our relationship with the clergy. That the clergy could be wrong.
It is this human characteristic, our intelligence, that is the key to our humanity. Luther taught us that we no longer needed the clergy to have a relationship with our God. That God was knowable. Independently of the clergy.
Descartes' contribution to our current understanding of our humanness is likewise dependent upon the singular quality humans have that differentiates us from all other forms of known existence; I think, therefore, I am. Not only am I not limited to the knowledge of God, independent of all intercessors, my very existence is proven through the paradigm of self-knowledge. My knowledge of God is independent of all intercessors and I have proof and knowledge of my self, Q.E.D.
This digression is important, since it points out the basis for all property; it is dependent solely upon my own independence, and the solitary independence of my mind. You may wish me to believe any manner of things, from social justice, to a view of what normal behaviour is, but the final arbiter of what is true is me. Fortunes have been made based upon this simple distinction. From Alexander Graham Bell, to Madam Curie, to Steve Jobs, men have made their names based upon their intellects, the source of all wealth.
The end of slavery, the end of serfdom, the end of forced capitulation to the State, created a climate where men were free to use their own ideas, beliefs, effort and enterprise to create unknown wealth and a standard of living that had never before been seen. Freedom and liberty were internal, or endogenous, variables that had always existed, but due to constraints imposed externally, or exogenously, were never allowed the latitude to inspire, create and produce the products of our sensibilities. Our curiosity, our imagination, our determination and our affections.
Bill's inability to price his product efficiently had been limited to exogenous forces; first, his adherence to a model of value that inappropriately determined price based upon a moral form that dealt with value as being dependent upon labour as the only determinant of price; second, his association with his drug dealing overlord, Mikey, who imposed price and quality restrictions on Bill, in order to further his own self-interest.
All of this discussion, to date, has focused upon the activities of Bill, Mikey and some chick, whose name I forget. Bill and Mikey are representative of the supply side of the economic equation. Too often, we believe that "price" qua price, is determined by the seller of a good. Again, not the case. But we can disregard this for the moment. The question raised by this post is, "Why do we divide the study of economics into two schools?"
Economics is a funny school. And the divisions within the academy are silly. But important to the professors who sit on committees and determine the curriculum with which our nation's students are exposed. The two schools of economics are the studies of microeconomics, and the studies of macroeconomics. It's as if the study of humans were to be divided in the academy into the study of maleness, and the study of femaleness. Describe to me a curriculum that could be designated as "Women's Studies" that could possibly have any meaning to a normal human being?
But that is the kind of silliness that occurs in the academy on a daily basis within the School of Economics. Macro-economists are devout in their assertion that micro-economic concerns are beneath them. The macro deals with aggregation. The micro deals with the small or individual.
The madness of this is apparent to me, what is an aggregation without the aggregation of the small or individual? And yet, textbooks have been, and are being, written on the face of this inability to deal with the principles of aggregation and dis-aggregation.
When everyone is a member of the chattel class, there is no problem with slavery. When some escape from the chattel class, there is a difference between being born a serf, and being born a free-man. When someone is imported to slavery, there is a distinction between the serf and the slave. When a leap occurs, between living under duress, to living without duress, from serfdom, from slavery to liberty, there is a shift that cannot be undone.
I forget where, but recently I read of the debate between the words "unalienable,” and "inalienable." I would ask the academy to consider the difference. And ask that the separation between between macro and micro be re-thought. Statistically, we cannot remove the impulses of the individual from any macro-economic model. Sure, we can deal with large groups, and large groups are easier to both identify and to motivate. But a great deal of error creeps into calculations that disregard micro-economic impulses. And probably explains a great deal of macro-economic analysis' failure to describe our current failure in national economic policy. Macro simply disregards most of the lessons of micro.
Sadly.
Ten Mile Island
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Path of the Tornado
Ever think? That is, compose yourself for some good, old-time introspection?
Golf lends itself to introspection. Business, and the task of keeping your business open lends itself to introspection. Raising children should lend itself to the same task, where you wonder how much your own experience as a child will determine the efforts that you're willing to put into parenthood comes to mind. Raising a child used to be a more private affair. The values of the parents were directly imprinted onto the child. Nowadays, thanks to public schools, those values are being supplanted by the publicly accepted values, known as Liberal Belief.
In the past few weeks have been some clearly defined examples of chiaroscuro in American values. The easy one is the Wiener thing. The next? Gay marriage in New York. What is it that allows for certain gays to dominate the public debate over what is acceptable, or what isn't?
Gays have events that are unlike any mainstream event. Gay Pride is an example. My aunt lives in San Francisco, and so my mom and my aunt found themselves caught up in the latest Gay Pride parade in the City. These are old women. Together, their average age is within thirteen years of 100 years old. Imagine their pain, as they ask themselves, where is our culture leading us?
The "path of the tornado" is a line from a movie. Shawshank Redemption. Things blown up, out of all proportion. Not expected. Destructive.
I have a friend that does marvelous paintshop. Or whatever the program is that allows you to manipulate photos to come up with pictorial sarcasm. For some weeks now, I've wanted to ask him to produce a photo of a man taking a crap, on a porcelain throne, in the middle of a living room. With children, aunts and uncles surrounding this visual treasure. This is what the Gay Pride Movement represents to me. Just as I wouldn't want to exhibit to my children pictures of my going at it with their mother, so to would I wish that the sexuality of the homosexual limit itself to places where admiring adorers could savour the grace of their acts, without my having to pay homage to their particular choices.
Let me be clear: I believe that every person has a right to crap. In fact, as evidence of this, I believe that every home built in the United States today is required to build a special room--the bathroom--where a toilet is provided, capable of administering to the needs of each and every crapper, mandated by law.
The thing is, I don't think they normally build a crapper in the Family Room.
Homosexuality isn't necessarily deviant. There are Christians and Muslims who will tell you that homosexuality is deviant, and for some of these, the object of death by stoning. How can preference be considered deviant? Gentlemen prefer blondes. I like Ike. I'd rather be right. My preferences are my preferences. The preferences of Christians tend to be the preferences of fellow Christians. The preferences of Muslims tend to be the preferences of Muslims. The preferences of homosexuals?
I just don't believe that the preferences of homosexuals are represented by the advocates presented by such events as Gay Pride. See, I'm an old guy. I grew up around gay men and women, but never under the shadow cast by the GLBTWVXYZ agenda. The first gay guy I knew was my Uncle Bill. Not really an uncle, but the son of one of my uncles. My Uncle Varner was the oldest of all my uncles at the time. And his oldest son, my cousin, was gay. Queer. Whatever pejorative you could wish to provide.
But Uncle Bill, an outcast, found a home in my grandmother's house. My grandmother, a devout Baptist. Uncle Bill wasn't really my cousin. And not, directly, my grandmother's kin. He was the son of my oldest aunt's husband, his second wife. And yet my grandmother, a holy terror when it came to the Baptist view of the world, was the only woman who would take him in. And when I was nine years old, Uncle Bill took me to the Centennial celebration of Idaho's entry as a United States' territory. It was an amazing event, with real, wild west events, like chuck wagon races and wild broncs. I like to think that Uncle Bill gained by my trust, as I know I enjoyed being the object of his care.
Being queer doesn't mean being a deviant.
Throughout my life I've come into contact with homosexuals. One of the greatest guys I know was gay, and the foster parent for several kids who had lost contact with their families. This guy reminded me of Johny Mathis. A great singer, an attractive man. A gentle poet. Being queer doesn't mean you're necessarily a predator. I would guess that years ago, being queer meant being more circumspect. In small towns, or in large cities, being gay meant having a certain shame, since being different in ones preferences meant that when confronted, one could be exposed as being a pervert, different, sinful--I'm sure a long list could be created.
I've no problem with teh ghey. Gay men or women don't shock me.
Since my Uncle Bill, I've had to deal with my fair share of the gay. But until I aged to my teen years, my contact with gays had always been of the sort of any child, a far away experience that didn't really relate to me and my life. My dad was a successful musician. My mom was a noted soloist. We, as a family, hosted singers and musicians into our home that were nationally and internationally noted musicians. One couple, a beautiful black man and woman, came into our house in the '60's, and when I noted their lack of shared last name was told, that "that didn't matter." They weren't going to have sex. They were the principles of a visiting opera company and were used to sharing rooms together. Portland, in the 1960's, weren't racially tolerant. They shared my mother and father's bedroom, as all our family shifted downward in our rooms. I ended up on the family-room sofa. The gentleman in question wasn't going to violate the idea of sex outside the vows of marriage. But, he did have a beautiful voice. (So did she.)
That homosexuality existed when I was a kid didn't have the effect that many seem to be labouring under currently; that we have a new, protected class of behaviour. That gayness needs to have new, previously undiscovered protections and rights that have never before existed. I don't think that is true. What I think is, that somehow Gay Rights has transformed into a campaign where taking a crap in the living room is equated with taking a crap in the bathroom.
Recently, the United States military has been directed to allow for gays in the military.
I am an old guy, sure, but I have two sons, 23 and 21 years old.
These guys know gays. They have gay friends. They look, as I hope I do, on gays as just being another choice. My youngest was recently in Hollywood as a tenant of a gay guy. Gay, by itself, doesn't denote nor connote anything worse than a preference in how one gets off. Baptists get off. Catholics get off. Atheists get off. We, most of us, get off. When asked, "what leading man's role in a movie would you liked to have had," answered, Some Like It Hot. I can't see a downside in playing Tony Curtis' role opposite Marilyn Monroe. And her dress in that pic was one of my first, and enduring, sexual preludes.
"
I am a victim of type.Sure. I'm not gay. How can I criticize gays for being gay, when I'm not gay?
That type of argument doesn't hold up. How can I convict the murderer, when I've never killed? Comparing a non-gay guy to whatever name is provided by the gay advocacy guys is ridiculous. I never "did" Marilyn. That doesn't mean I'm anti-Marilyn. And that, is the path of the tornado.
An attempt at beginning a conversation about differences has our nation at a point where we simply can't speak about ourselves and our held values, without ridicule. Which gets me to this point, "après moi le déluge." We end up worrying about gays, when the country is going around the bend.
"Après moi" may end up being the motto of our current President. "We are the change you've been hoping for," I believe is one of our President's lines. After me. And we're worried about the way we treat gays. Or, Muslims. Or , illegal aliens. None of these "issues" are important. Sure, there are weak kids being treated poorly by bullies. That isn't abnormal. Weak kids have always, and always will be, treated by kids differently. Which brings me back to golf.
Who wouldn't want to be a great golfer? For those of us who have swung a club, swinging a club well is its own reward. Playing golf poorly, too, is its own reward. But blaming someone else for one's own poor play is simply stupid. Either you play the game well, or not.
Same with life.
It's okay to talk about equity. In golf, we have the handicap system. Which players refer to, often disparagingly, referring to players as sandbaggers. A "sandbagger" is one who attempts to influence outcomes based upon an unfair recording of a player's record.
Sandbagging is an untoward behaviour. It is to be disparaged. Being gay isn't an untoward behaviour, in and of itself. It is when it comes in the form of crapping in the Family Room. There are a great many behaviours that have no place under public scrutiny. That idea was encapsulated in Griswold v. Connecticut, one of the worst decisions ever made by our Supreme Court. The intent was understandable. To make crapping in one's living room the law of the land. That Griswold was essential in Roe v. Wade is inarguable.
Law, too, has a handicap system. It's called stare decisis. And just as in golf, there is considerable sandbagging occurring in decisions by the Supreme Court. Griswold is one example. There are others. (Don't refer to Lochner!).
I don't care about gays. I don't care about your ethnic heritage. But I do care about gays who attempt to tell me that taking a crap in my living room is their right. Or, that folks who illegally cross our borders have the rights of citizenship.
If I'm a normal, being described as within a single standard deviation under the Bell Curve, human being, I think that my perceptions and my values are as worthy of consideration as those of those whose values, beliefs and experiences extend into the second or third deviations. If fourteen percent of a population believes that I should watch them express themselves as social deviants as their right to free speech, let them talk. When they extend that minority opinion as having the value of the eighty-six percent of us who believe that tortuous behaviours are simply tortuous, then, that behaviour is simply uncivil. "Griswold" cannot be held outside of process. Private behaviours are not public behaviours.
It is a human right to take a crap. It is not a human right to crap where others are eating.
Accepting this algorithm is akin to accepting the path of the tornado. The tornado is destructive, and when able, to be avoided. Accepting the path of the tornado is simply dumb. Any politician, teacher or public apologist who offers less should be viewed sceptically. Another way to view it is, if it doesn't make sense, why listen?
Golf lends itself to introspection. Business, and the task of keeping your business open lends itself to introspection. Raising children should lend itself to the same task, where you wonder how much your own experience as a child will determine the efforts that you're willing to put into parenthood comes to mind. Raising a child used to be a more private affair. The values of the parents were directly imprinted onto the child. Nowadays, thanks to public schools, those values are being supplanted by the publicly accepted values, known as Liberal Belief.
In the past few weeks have been some clearly defined examples of chiaroscuro in American values. The easy one is the Wiener thing. The next? Gay marriage in New York. What is it that allows for certain gays to dominate the public debate over what is acceptable, or what isn't?
Gays have events that are unlike any mainstream event. Gay Pride is an example. My aunt lives in San Francisco, and so my mom and my aunt found themselves caught up in the latest Gay Pride parade in the City. These are old women. Together, their average age is within thirteen years of 100 years old. Imagine their pain, as they ask themselves, where is our culture leading us?
The "path of the tornado" is a line from a movie. Shawshank Redemption. Things blown up, out of all proportion. Not expected. Destructive.
I have a friend that does marvelous paintshop. Or whatever the program is that allows you to manipulate photos to come up with pictorial sarcasm. For some weeks now, I've wanted to ask him to produce a photo of a man taking a crap, on a porcelain throne, in the middle of a living room. With children, aunts and uncles surrounding this visual treasure. This is what the Gay Pride Movement represents to me. Just as I wouldn't want to exhibit to my children pictures of my going at it with their mother, so to would I wish that the sexuality of the homosexual limit itself to places where admiring adorers could savour the grace of their acts, without my having to pay homage to their particular choices.
Let me be clear: I believe that every person has a right to crap. In fact, as evidence of this, I believe that every home built in the United States today is required to build a special room--the bathroom--where a toilet is provided, capable of administering to the needs of each and every crapper, mandated by law.
The thing is, I don't think they normally build a crapper in the Family Room.
Homosexuality isn't necessarily deviant. There are Christians and Muslims who will tell you that homosexuality is deviant, and for some of these, the object of death by stoning. How can preference be considered deviant? Gentlemen prefer blondes. I like Ike. I'd rather be right. My preferences are my preferences. The preferences of Christians tend to be the preferences of fellow Christians. The preferences of Muslims tend to be the preferences of Muslims. The preferences of homosexuals?
I just don't believe that the preferences of homosexuals are represented by the advocates presented by such events as Gay Pride. See, I'm an old guy. I grew up around gay men and women, but never under the shadow cast by the GLBTWVXYZ agenda. The first gay guy I knew was my Uncle Bill. Not really an uncle, but the son of one of my uncles. My Uncle Varner was the oldest of all my uncles at the time. And his oldest son, my cousin, was gay. Queer. Whatever pejorative you could wish to provide.
But Uncle Bill, an outcast, found a home in my grandmother's house. My grandmother, a devout Baptist. Uncle Bill wasn't really my cousin. And not, directly, my grandmother's kin. He was the son of my oldest aunt's husband, his second wife. And yet my grandmother, a holy terror when it came to the Baptist view of the world, was the only woman who would take him in. And when I was nine years old, Uncle Bill took me to the Centennial celebration of Idaho's entry as a United States' territory. It was an amazing event, with real, wild west events, like chuck wagon races and wild broncs. I like to think that Uncle Bill gained by my trust, as I know I enjoyed being the object of his care.
Being queer doesn't mean being a deviant.
Throughout my life I've come into contact with homosexuals. One of the greatest guys I know was gay, and the foster parent for several kids who had lost contact with their families. This guy reminded me of Johny Mathis. A great singer, an attractive man. A gentle poet. Being queer doesn't mean you're necessarily a predator. I would guess that years ago, being queer meant being more circumspect. In small towns, or in large cities, being gay meant having a certain shame, since being different in ones preferences meant that when confronted, one could be exposed as being a pervert, different, sinful--I'm sure a long list could be created.
I've no problem with teh ghey. Gay men or women don't shock me.
Since my Uncle Bill, I've had to deal with my fair share of the gay. But until I aged to my teen years, my contact with gays had always been of the sort of any child, a far away experience that didn't really relate to me and my life. My dad was a successful musician. My mom was a noted soloist. We, as a family, hosted singers and musicians into our home that were nationally and internationally noted musicians. One couple, a beautiful black man and woman, came into our house in the '60's, and when I noted their lack of shared last name was told, that "that didn't matter." They weren't going to have sex. They were the principles of a visiting opera company and were used to sharing rooms together. Portland, in the 1960's, weren't racially tolerant. They shared my mother and father's bedroom, as all our family shifted downward in our rooms. I ended up on the family-room sofa. The gentleman in question wasn't going to violate the idea of sex outside the vows of marriage. But, he did have a beautiful voice. (So did she.)
That homosexuality existed when I was a kid didn't have the effect that many seem to be labouring under currently; that we have a new, protected class of behaviour. That gayness needs to have new, previously undiscovered protections and rights that have never before existed. I don't think that is true. What I think is, that somehow Gay Rights has transformed into a campaign where taking a crap in the living room is equated with taking a crap in the bathroom.
Recently, the United States military has been directed to allow for gays in the military.
I am an old guy, sure, but I have two sons, 23 and 21 years old.
These guys know gays. They have gay friends. They look, as I hope I do, on gays as just being another choice. My youngest was recently in Hollywood as a tenant of a gay guy. Gay, by itself, doesn't denote nor connote anything worse than a preference in how one gets off. Baptists get off. Catholics get off. Atheists get off. We, most of us, get off. When asked, "what leading man's role in a movie would you liked to have had," answered, Some Like It Hot. I can't see a downside in playing Tony Curtis' role opposite Marilyn Monroe. And her dress in that pic was one of my first, and enduring, sexual preludes.
I am a victim of type.Sure. I'm not gay. How can I criticize gays for being gay, when I'm not gay?
That type of argument doesn't hold up. How can I convict the murderer, when I've never killed? Comparing a non-gay guy to whatever name is provided by the gay advocacy guys is ridiculous. I never "did" Marilyn. That doesn't mean I'm anti-Marilyn. And that, is the path of the tornado.
An attempt at beginning a conversation about differences has our nation at a point where we simply can't speak about ourselves and our held values, without ridicule. Which gets me to this point, "après moi le déluge." We end up worrying about gays, when the country is going around the bend.
"Après moi" may end up being the motto of our current President. "We are the change you've been hoping for," I believe is one of our President's lines. After me. And we're worried about the way we treat gays. Or, Muslims. Or , illegal aliens. None of these "issues" are important. Sure, there are weak kids being treated poorly by bullies. That isn't abnormal. Weak kids have always, and always will be, treated by kids differently. Which brings me back to golf.
Who wouldn't want to be a great golfer? For those of us who have swung a club, swinging a club well is its own reward. Playing golf poorly, too, is its own reward. But blaming someone else for one's own poor play is simply stupid. Either you play the game well, or not.
Same with life.
It's okay to talk about equity. In golf, we have the handicap system. Which players refer to, often disparagingly, referring to players as sandbaggers. A "sandbagger" is one who attempts to influence outcomes based upon an unfair recording of a player's record.
Sandbagging is an untoward behaviour. It is to be disparaged. Being gay isn't an untoward behaviour, in and of itself. It is when it comes in the form of crapping in the Family Room. There are a great many behaviours that have no place under public scrutiny. That idea was encapsulated in Griswold v. Connecticut, one of the worst decisions ever made by our Supreme Court. The intent was understandable. To make crapping in one's living room the law of the land. That Griswold was essential in Roe v. Wade is inarguable.
Law, too, has a handicap system. It's called stare decisis. And just as in golf, there is considerable sandbagging occurring in decisions by the Supreme Court. Griswold is one example. There are others. (Don't refer to Lochner!).
I don't care about gays. I don't care about your ethnic heritage. But I do care about gays who attempt to tell me that taking a crap in my living room is their right. Or, that folks who illegally cross our borders have the rights of citizenship.
If I'm a normal, being described as within a single standard deviation under the Bell Curve, human being, I think that my perceptions and my values are as worthy of consideration as those of those whose values, beliefs and experiences extend into the second or third deviations. If fourteen percent of a population believes that I should watch them express themselves as social deviants as their right to free speech, let them talk. When they extend that minority opinion as having the value of the eighty-six percent of us who believe that tortuous behaviours are simply tortuous, then, that behaviour is simply uncivil. "Griswold" cannot be held outside of process. Private behaviours are not public behaviours.
It is a human right to take a crap. It is not a human right to crap where others are eating.
Accepting this algorithm is akin to accepting the path of the tornado. The tornado is destructive, and when able, to be avoided. Accepting the path of the tornado is simply dumb. Any politician, teacher or public apologist who offers less should be viewed sceptically. Another way to view it is, if it doesn't make sense, why listen?
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Gak
"In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues."
This is a line from a former, United States Vice-President.
Life in his world is simple. Either you agree with him, which endows you with the qualities of "Science and Reason," or disagree with him, which makes you one of the "Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues."
Hip and edgy. A two-fer.
This is the level of debate that one finds consistently from the Left. Why would you want to listen to someone easily identifiable as the "Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues?" What purpose would there be to dip into the slime of such anti-science and anti-reason notions? Protein Wisdom offers an opportunity to ask how important framing the debate is.
Compare and contrast to Al Gore here. (h/t Watts Up With That.)
This is a line from a former, United States Vice-President.
Life in his world is simple. Either you agree with him, which endows you with the qualities of "Science and Reason," or disagree with him, which makes you one of the "Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues."
Hip and edgy. A two-fer.
This is the level of debate that one finds consistently from the Left. Why would you want to listen to someone easily identifiable as the "Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues?" What purpose would there be to dip into the slime of such anti-science and anti-reason notions? Protein Wisdom offers an opportunity to ask how important framing the debate is.
Compare and contrast to Al Gore here. (h/t Watts Up With That.)
Friday, June 17, 2011
In the Valley of the Blind, The One-Eyed Man Will Be King
In the Valley of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man will be king.
No mention of the man with two eyes.
Depth of field. Simple notice. The eye plays tricks. Living in the Valley of the Blind, the voice of the alarmist is greatly exaggerated. We cannot see for ourselves, so we do the simply easy thing; rely upon the voice of alarum. We have institutionally plucked an eye from the voice that sets the alarm. Hemingway was right to warn us*. Laocoön was institutionally unable to move the Trojans. (You actually have to read the book to get the reference to Laocoön, you're not going to find it in any on-line critical review.)
Reading Aeneid, you're not really enamoured of Laocoön. He's a minor character. But inescapably, in the literature, significant. Not, perhaps, the literature being taught today. But literature, when the quality of literature had been important in the process of discerning the critical distinctions between merely strongly felt belief and truth. It isn't mere coincidence that Schopenhauer found a certain intellectual constancy with works of art that "transcends spatial and temporal determinations, the desires that derive their significance from one's personal condition as a spatio-temporal individual are seen for what they are, as being grounded upon the illusion of fragmentation, and they thereby lose much their compelling force." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nov 17, 2007.) It is, in fact, the artfulness of the one-eyed man that I would suggest we find his claims so appealing. Whether or not you're an adherent of Campbell's beliefs isn't important. The fact that you come to Campbell, willing to believe his assertions without the benefits of two eyes, is. Schopenhauer viewed the world with two eyes. I believe he remains, currently, discredited. While the one-eyed view of Campbell remains all in vogue.
It is essential that one not lose faith with the senses with which one greets the world. More importantly, that which one views with both eyes. For the normative theorist, I assert that as much as there is validity in the view that the non-rational is important, and yet that,too, the rational is also important. There is, I would assert, an important distinction between the world viewed with one eye, than that same world, viewed with two. Much of modern thought or, post-modernism, is reliant upon a form of unity in viewpoint, that is non-rational, than that of rational thought, and what the Enlightenment Period would refer to as Rational Thought. The argumentation of the dualist has been discounted to such a low level that an attempt to impose the rules of logic and empiricism to argumentation today are relegated to what may be viewed as the ash-heap of history. They aren't relevant if they don't advance our stated outcomes. That is, we can discard those ideas that don't advance our own notions of what the outcomes of our actions should be. It is a view of the world with one-eye.
While going over the ideas that I wanted to represent with this post, one thought kept popping into mind, "what type of Egotist (ego-centrist) would allow this kind of thinking? How could I begin to think that 'my' thinking could have a greater relevance than the thinking that takes place around me? Why should my perceptions of what I view be given greater credence than the perceptions advanced by the singularly envisioned?"
An impulse to say or tell the truth, choked in an attempt to avoid the label, ego-centrist.
Simple. Demagoguery.
In the Valley of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man will be King. The one-eyed man has a certain, definite advantage over the dually sighted. There is no depth of perception. And one-dimensional viewpoints, while not representative of the world we live in, and are in fact more cartoon-ish than descriptive, may have the advantage of only representing a single thing by itself, rather than the relationship that thing may have to other things that may or may not be relevant to our ability to value that "single thing."
How do we continually excuse thinking forms that exclude logic or consistency?
After the fourth or fifth attempt to frame the thesis of this post, it became apparent to me, that I became as much a victim of politically correct thinking as has been the youngest First Grader upon his/her first day of school.
I am as much a victim of fifty years of tolerance training as the next guy. Even though I find myself facing ridiculous examples of erroneous thinking on the Left, from Homosexual Rights, to a Woman's Right to Choose, to the need to teach our six-year old children about their sexuality, I find myself caught withholding my own, personal vehemence towards these initiatives as a signature of my intolerance to those who are different.
This clear, firm postulation of a thesis is today socially derided as a form of social injustice. And social injustice is a bad thing. (For a totally ridiculous article on "social injustice," see here.The article was written in 2004, before clinicians agreed that the cellular sufficiency for cancer lay dormant within all of us. This article is just another example of how issues of how advocates of "social justice" wish to advance an agenda that attempts to blind us to certain empirical and observable data sets.)
A simple thought problem; what is your strongest, held belief?
I believe that taking a crap in ones' house is acceptable. I believe that taking a crap in ones' hosts' house is acceptable. I believe that taking a crap in ones' hosts' living room is unacceptable. Not the mere taking of ones crap. If you, or your host, has either an outhouse or bathroom, taking a crap is an expected behaviour. That is, the taking of ones crap in a manner which is acceptable to the standards of politeness and civility is a crap worthy of taking.
As much as my training, as the product of teaching or as of temperament, has been conditioned toward the elevation of my ideals, I find that I'm constrained by those ideals in ways that others aren't. Mere assertion of a thing is not, in the way I think, sufficient for either my holding a belief, of for the beliefs held by others.
I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with the exhibition of homosexual crap in my living room. I don't have a problem with your assertion that a Woman's Right To Choose is your held belief. I have a problem with your suggestion that killing an unborn child isn't killing an unborn child. You may wish to crap in my living room. I would hope you find the civility to refrain from doing so. You may wish to kill your unborn child. Please don't expect me to accept the death of your child as your right. I view your child's rights as highly as I view yours.
I've had several conversations today about the sad state of Language Arts in our public schools. It seems that the narrative form that relies upon the statement of a thesis, and then is followed by an argument, has all but been expunged from our public schools. The level of what passes, or parses as argumentation, for language arts today, barely surpasses incoherence. Not always, successfully.
But, what is your answer to the question posited above? What is your strongest, held belief?
Mine is simple. The belief that often sufficiency, when knowledge is uncertain, is sufficient. That knowledge isn't always necessary for action. That knowledge, while preferable to belief, isn't always available. And the relative uncertainty of belief isn't sufficient to deny the individual responsibility any person faces when faced with the necessity of action.
You may choose to believe that you're not required to be responsible for taking an action. In the Valley of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Will Be King. The appropriate question for one's self should be, am I blind, singularly-sighted, or stereo-optically sighted?
The Myth of the One-Eyed Man can be traced back several hundred years. The popularization of the myth is attributable to C.S. Lewis.
The important moment, whether through the retelling of the mythic, or the story of Lewis is, is that the assertion that one can have a clear moment of assertion of positive truth may either be a gift or a sin.
The Value of the One-Eyed Man
What advantage is held by the One-Eyed Man? In the Valley of the Blind it is his sight. But, more importantly, his ability to use to his own advantage, the merits of sight to gain the allegiance of others, based upon his sight; that he alone can see.
This is an assertion. How can the blind actually know whether or not the sighted man has sight, or not?
The One-Eyed Man attempts to raise ideas to levels of thesis, posited as observations. Then, these observations are often posited as thesis/theses. Then, there are those who would use both their views or perceptions and/or others' inability to view or perceive, as an ability to expostulate those views or perceptions as having sufficient influence in order to assert argument. An assertion of argument that fails as thesis and as that which fails as a statements of thesis, which is no more nor no less than that of mere assertion fails the definition as either thesis or argument.
But, based upon a one-eyed view, upon evidence that is only discernible to the one-eyed viewer or their adjuncts, the blind, who are willingly able to accept the advice and wisdom of those who proclaim superior knowledge, as they are, the one-eyed men. That is, their willingness to assume that the mere assertion of a thing has the validity as that which is either based upon empirical evidence, or, assuming that logic is capable of playing a role that can show the meaningfulness of ones perception, thought and logic, as that of an a priori ability to perceive that which is possible, than that which is not possible. (Yes, I know that I'm setting up another scale of believability, but that which can be shown, a priori, to be impossible is another valid form of argumentation. Perfect triangles aren't possible. But they are, by definition, perfect ideals of that which is both true, and unknowable.)
The value of the One-Eyed Man is thus; we know that his ability to see is limited. He will assert that knowledge of any system of duality is unnecessary. That is, it is sufficient that one only be able to pay attention to his (The One-Eyed Man's) observations and his views in order to be fully informed as to that which is necessary for holding the views and beliefs necessary to live life as a fully informed member of the society within which he finds himself. According to the One-Eyed Man, who would be King. Choosing a different life than that which the One-Eyed Man would accord you involves a certain risk, especially if you are blind. How many times must you hear, "Don't step there!" before you begin to ask yourself whether or not this advice is worthy, or not?
Being blind? A real handicap. Finding yourself reliant upon a one-eyed man?
How would you know?
*(The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway, October, 1926, Scribner's.)
No mention of the man with two eyes.
Depth of field. Simple notice. The eye plays tricks. Living in the Valley of the Blind, the voice of the alarmist is greatly exaggerated. We cannot see for ourselves, so we do the simply easy thing; rely upon the voice of alarum. We have institutionally plucked an eye from the voice that sets the alarm. Hemingway was right to warn us*. Laocoön was institutionally unable to move the Trojans. (You actually have to read the book to get the reference to Laocoön, you're not going to find it in any on-line critical review.)
Reading Aeneid, you're not really enamoured of Laocoön. He's a minor character. But inescapably, in the literature, significant. Not, perhaps, the literature being taught today. But literature, when the quality of literature had been important in the process of discerning the critical distinctions between merely strongly felt belief and truth. It isn't mere coincidence that Schopenhauer found a certain intellectual constancy with works of art that "transcends spatial and temporal determinations, the desires that derive their significance from one's personal condition as a spatio-temporal individual are seen for what they are, as being grounded upon the illusion of fragmentation, and they thereby lose much their compelling force." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nov 17, 2007.) It is, in fact, the artfulness of the one-eyed man that I would suggest we find his claims so appealing. Whether or not you're an adherent of Campbell's beliefs isn't important. The fact that you come to Campbell, willing to believe his assertions without the benefits of two eyes, is. Schopenhauer viewed the world with two eyes. I believe he remains, currently, discredited. While the one-eyed view of Campbell remains all in vogue.
It is essential that one not lose faith with the senses with which one greets the world. More importantly, that which one views with both eyes. For the normative theorist, I assert that as much as there is validity in the view that the non-rational is important, and yet that,too, the rational is also important. There is, I would assert, an important distinction between the world viewed with one eye, than that same world, viewed with two. Much of modern thought or, post-modernism, is reliant upon a form of unity in viewpoint, that is non-rational, than that of rational thought, and what the Enlightenment Period would refer to as Rational Thought. The argumentation of the dualist has been discounted to such a low level that an attempt to impose the rules of logic and empiricism to argumentation today are relegated to what may be viewed as the ash-heap of history. They aren't relevant if they don't advance our stated outcomes. That is, we can discard those ideas that don't advance our own notions of what the outcomes of our actions should be. It is a view of the world with one-eye.
While going over the ideas that I wanted to represent with this post, one thought kept popping into mind, "what type of Egotist (ego-centrist) would allow this kind of thinking? How could I begin to think that 'my' thinking could have a greater relevance than the thinking that takes place around me? Why should my perceptions of what I view be given greater credence than the perceptions advanced by the singularly envisioned?"
An impulse to say or tell the truth, choked in an attempt to avoid the label, ego-centrist.
Simple. Demagoguery.
In the Valley of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man will be King. The one-eyed man has a certain, definite advantage over the dually sighted. There is no depth of perception. And one-dimensional viewpoints, while not representative of the world we live in, and are in fact more cartoon-ish than descriptive, may have the advantage of only representing a single thing by itself, rather than the relationship that thing may have to other things that may or may not be relevant to our ability to value that "single thing."
How do we continually excuse thinking forms that exclude logic or consistency?
After the fourth or fifth attempt to frame the thesis of this post, it became apparent to me, that I became as much a victim of politically correct thinking as has been the youngest First Grader upon his/her first day of school.
I am as much a victim of fifty years of tolerance training as the next guy. Even though I find myself facing ridiculous examples of erroneous thinking on the Left, from Homosexual Rights, to a Woman's Right to Choose, to the need to teach our six-year old children about their sexuality, I find myself caught withholding my own, personal vehemence towards these initiatives as a signature of my intolerance to those who are different.
This clear, firm postulation of a thesis is today socially derided as a form of social injustice. And social injustice is a bad thing. (For a totally ridiculous article on "social injustice," see here.The article was written in 2004, before clinicians agreed that the cellular sufficiency for cancer lay dormant within all of us. This article is just another example of how issues of how advocates of "social justice" wish to advance an agenda that attempts to blind us to certain empirical and observable data sets.)
A simple thought problem; what is your strongest, held belief?
I believe that taking a crap in ones' house is acceptable. I believe that taking a crap in ones' hosts' house is acceptable. I believe that taking a crap in ones' hosts' living room is unacceptable. Not the mere taking of ones crap. If you, or your host, has either an outhouse or bathroom, taking a crap is an expected behaviour. That is, the taking of ones crap in a manner which is acceptable to the standards of politeness and civility is a crap worthy of taking.
As much as my training, as the product of teaching or as of temperament, has been conditioned toward the elevation of my ideals, I find that I'm constrained by those ideals in ways that others aren't. Mere assertion of a thing is not, in the way I think, sufficient for either my holding a belief, of for the beliefs held by others.
I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with the exhibition of homosexual crap in my living room. I don't have a problem with your assertion that a Woman's Right To Choose is your held belief. I have a problem with your suggestion that killing an unborn child isn't killing an unborn child. You may wish to crap in my living room. I would hope you find the civility to refrain from doing so. You may wish to kill your unborn child. Please don't expect me to accept the death of your child as your right. I view your child's rights as highly as I view yours.
I've had several conversations today about the sad state of Language Arts in our public schools. It seems that the narrative form that relies upon the statement of a thesis, and then is followed by an argument, has all but been expunged from our public schools. The level of what passes, or parses as argumentation, for language arts today, barely surpasses incoherence. Not always, successfully.
But, what is your answer to the question posited above? What is your strongest, held belief?
Mine is simple. The belief that often sufficiency, when knowledge is uncertain, is sufficient. That knowledge isn't always necessary for action. That knowledge, while preferable to belief, isn't always available. And the relative uncertainty of belief isn't sufficient to deny the individual responsibility any person faces when faced with the necessity of action.
You may choose to believe that you're not required to be responsible for taking an action. In the Valley of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Will Be King. The appropriate question for one's self should be, am I blind, singularly-sighted, or stereo-optically sighted?
The Myth of the One-Eyed Man can be traced back several hundred years. The popularization of the myth is attributable to C.S. Lewis.
The important moment, whether through the retelling of the mythic, or the story of Lewis is, is that the assertion that one can have a clear moment of assertion of positive truth may either be a gift or a sin.
The Value of the One-Eyed Man
What advantage is held by the One-Eyed Man? In the Valley of the Blind it is his sight. But, more importantly, his ability to use to his own advantage, the merits of sight to gain the allegiance of others, based upon his sight; that he alone can see.
This is an assertion. How can the blind actually know whether or not the sighted man has sight, or not?
The One-Eyed Man attempts to raise ideas to levels of thesis, posited as observations. Then, these observations are often posited as thesis/theses. Then, there are those who would use both their views or perceptions and/or others' inability to view or perceive, as an ability to expostulate those views or perceptions as having sufficient influence in order to assert argument. An assertion of argument that fails as thesis and as that which fails as a statements of thesis, which is no more nor no less than that of mere assertion fails the definition as either thesis or argument.
But, based upon a one-eyed view, upon evidence that is only discernible to the one-eyed viewer or their adjuncts, the blind, who are willingly able to accept the advice and wisdom of those who proclaim superior knowledge, as they are, the one-eyed men. That is, their willingness to assume that the mere assertion of a thing has the validity as that which is either based upon empirical evidence, or, assuming that logic is capable of playing a role that can show the meaningfulness of ones perception, thought and logic, as that of an a priori ability to perceive that which is possible, than that which is not possible. (Yes, I know that I'm setting up another scale of believability, but that which can be shown, a priori, to be impossible is another valid form of argumentation. Perfect triangles aren't possible. But they are, by definition, perfect ideals of that which is both true, and unknowable.)
The value of the One-Eyed Man is thus; we know that his ability to see is limited. He will assert that knowledge of any system of duality is unnecessary. That is, it is sufficient that one only be able to pay attention to his (The One-Eyed Man's) observations and his views in order to be fully informed as to that which is necessary for holding the views and beliefs necessary to live life as a fully informed member of the society within which he finds himself. According to the One-Eyed Man, who would be King. Choosing a different life than that which the One-Eyed Man would accord you involves a certain risk, especially if you are blind. How many times must you hear, "Don't step there!" before you begin to ask yourself whether or not this advice is worthy, or not?
Being blind? A real handicap. Finding yourself reliant upon a one-eyed man?
How would you know?
*(The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway, October, 1926, Scribner's.)
Monday, June 13, 2011
What Determines Price II
Some of the words you're going to be reading.
Command Economy
Micro-economic
Market forces
Economic analysis
Equilibrium
Gresham's Law
Price Theory
Value
Externalities
Internalities
leakage
maximize
inefficiencies
cost
price
potential
opportunity cost
It is not embarrassing to find that you do not know a thing. It is true that the manner and number of things I do not know exceeds my ability to either know, or to number. What I am attempting to share with you, is a manner of speaking about things that either you or I face in our day-to-day travail. To allow you to question the precepts that have been adopted by the elite amongst those we refer to as "economists," and to allow you to question the priors that are, and have been, expressed here. Knowledge and understanding exist hip to thigh. You cannot know that which you've never questioned, and you cannot understand that which you do not know. I am attempting to put into layman's terms questions and concepts of economic theory which have heretofore been only available within texts that tend to suppose a certain level of math, language and training. I wish that at any point, with any question, you hit the comments tab and ask. No question is too dumb. The Elite that are attempting to dominate the political discussion offer you promises that no sane or rational man would ever utter. Finding the voice with which to criticize this elite is the responsibility of every man jack of us. Finding the rationale with which to attack the arrogance and stupidity of these jackals is incumbent upon the caring, thinking citizen. The rhetoric of the attack on individual liberty is, at times, difficult and convoluted. It is my task to introduce you to both the theories and rhetoric of the Elite. And to point out how easy it can be to poke holes into the balloons of their fanciful ideas and beliefs. If you have a question, to not ask is your fault. I will answer to the tenth degree, if necessary.
Discussions of economic policy tend to adhere to a rigid form; what is the expected outcome?
When we were talking about Bill and his scheme to pay his bills through the sale of marijuana, the expected outcome of Bill was to pay his bills. The concerns of an individual economic player, firms, businesses, are referred to as micro-economic concerns, that is, the roles played by individual or individual firms when faced with market forces. At every step of economic analysis is the condition that the activities of individuals, or groups, are facing the forces that are created by the production, sale and consumption of goods and services. Free markets, or capitalist markets, are determined by the choices made independently of others as to whether or not buy or sell any particular good or service. That is, again, a decision that is made by independent individuals, without the exercise of any outside influence on the decisions being made.
Command economies, as the name infers, are based upon a different set of conditions; what is allowed.
It is true that I am a Capitalist, since I believe that you and I are the best people to rely upon for information that decides our actions in the market for goods and services. I am best able to determine that which I choose to produce to enable my existence, just as I am the best able to determine which goods and services I will buy to effect the continuance of that existence. In a Command Economy, these choices are secondary. What is best, in terms of what I produce or consume is determined from an outside authority.
This is the critical moment between liberty and slavery. The free man cannot be made to do what he wouldn't do if given the choice for himself. The slave receives that which his master allows. I'm not going to spend any time talking about the form that master takes; it is sufficient for my purpose to assert that any choice I make that is limited by the coercive authority of another is a limit on my individual liberty. And the alternative to liberty is slavery. Ask yourself, if you are not free to choose, are you free or not?
This distinction, between choice and mandate is an important one. Markets have an existence, whether or not the State wishes them to exist or not. That is, while there are those that would wish to impose obedience in markets through the controls of state functions, whether they are regulatory or police agencies, markets tend to find equilibrium, even when production is determined through centralized state agencies. Take, again the instance of Bill and his sales of marijuana.
Marijuana is an item of contraband. That is, it is illegal to possess marijuana. For decades, the possession or sale of marijuana has been outlawed by our states' and by our national governments. And yet, the market for marijuana has persisted. How has this occurred? Simple. And it is the first step toward understanding one of the contradictory evidences of economic theory; Gresham's Law.
Gresham's Law is fairly simple in its formulation; bad money drives good money out.
My first practical experience of Gresham's Law came after my first trip to the Former Soviet Union. Remember, we're going to explode the myth that graduate degrees depend upon a renewed examination of price theory. Price theory is easy. People pay the price they think is fair. Price theory is the simplest of all theories. What did Jack pay for his Magic Beans? One cow. Was that a fair price for Magic Beans? Jack thought so, and so did every reader of "Jack and the Beanstalk."
But, given Gresham's Law, would bad beans drive good beans out?
Looking at markets, constituted of both buyers and sellers, if I came onto the market with beans, what would the market require of my beans before the sale of a few beans were to equal the value of a cow?
Bill had that problem when trying to decide the price of his marijuana. His really good stuff was twice as good as the commercially available stuff. His pricing problem was based upon an external. Not the value of the good or service itself, qua marijuana; but the production cost of the really good stuff compared to the production cost of the commercially available marijuana. Irrational mandates need not be applied externally, they can be adopted mandates, as well. Selling marijuana, trafficking in juvenile prostitutes, hiring out as an hit-man are all possible examples where mandates are imposed on the actions of the individual that can either be imposed externally or internally. Moral and ethical values in transactions are imposed every day, upon trillions of transactions. Or not. Sometimes moral values overwhelm the true transaction value, as in the case of deciding to not engage in trafficking in juvenile prostitution. While trafficking in underage prostitution may not have the moral proscription in some countries as it has here--in the main--it is difficult to countenance the trafficking of underage prostitution, while prostitution in general may not only be accepted as a suitable profession, but legal under the current statutes of some states.
So, it is possible to come up with encumbrances upon price that exist externally to the value of a thing. That, in and of itself does not repudiate my assertion that price theory, while a large part of the body of economic study, is simply an idiocy of the science. Buyers determine price. Under all states and all conditions. Unless that purchase of that item is mandated externally. Then, all bets are off.
Bill was operating under the external constraints of pricing theory that depended upon his acceptance of the Labour Theory of Value. Accepting the external constraint of a moral authority which would determine price outside of the values determined through the willingness of the consumer to pay more is an economic leakage. The value of Bill's really good stuff would allow for a higher level of income for Bill, if Bill's activities weren't limited by his moral beliefs. Worse yet, for the consumer, was the action of Bill's supplier, Miguel, who confiscated all of Bill's really good stuff, under the mandate that Bill only sell Miguel's commercially available stuff. Miguel mandated the level of quality that the market would be able to consume, while taking the more commercially viable "good shit" off the market. In exchange for Bill continuing to breathe. External mandates, which limit the flow and supply of goods and services coming to market also represent an economic leakage.
Leakages occur when forces that are external to markets limit either the abilities of the suppliers of a good or service, or the purchasers of a good or service, to maximize the value of their transaction. Leakages are the unrealized values of markets that tend to create inefficiencies in markets. Efficient markets are simple to understand; buyers and sellers come together for the simple purpose to buy and sell products. If buyers offer too little for goods, goods remain unsold. When buyers offer enough, or, more than enough for goods, goods are sold. If sellers price their goods at too high a price, their products remain unsold. When sellers price their goods at, or below, the selling price, the market will clear. That is, all products offered for sale will be sold. The market clears. The market achieves equilibrium. A market in equilibrium doesn't have leakages, since the definition of price and clearing depends on some simple agreements: prices that occur without externalities are those prices that producers willingly offer for sale their products; prices that occur without externalities are those prices that buyers willing offer for the purchase of goods and services.
The moment that Mikey stepped in and demanded that Billy purchase and sell his weed, was a major moment in the imposition of externalities. And Billy's reticence to price his good shit is a laughable concern, since the internally imposed restrictions were also costs faced by his potential customers. Gresham's Law is probably better understood in the light of these internally and externally imposed costs.
Cost. According to my 1934 Merriam and Webster:
cost: n.(as., fr. ON. kostr condition, chance, choice; akin to E. CHOOSE.) 1. Manner; way; means. Obs. 2. Characteristic; disposition; quality; value.
cost: n. 1. The amount or equivalent paid, or given, or charged, or engaged to be paid or given for anything bought or taken in barter or for service rendered; charge; price; hence, whatever, as labor, self-denial, suffering, etc., is requisite to secure benefit.
This explains, in many ways, why there are so many papers written about the theory of price, when the actual discussion should be placed on an understanding of cost. Somewhere along the way, economists decided to place the question of cost on the supply side, while abjuring the question of price on the demand side. But cost is the price the purchaser is willing to pay; that is, we are all participants in the process of supply. Every consumer is a willing participant in the supply process. The product of this process remains in too many cases either undefined, or undefinable. How to define the value of a process that results in the imposition of moral forces that wreck the balance between buyer and seller? By defining price as different than cost. And yet, linguistically, we find that cost and price are equivalent. My advice to the Academy is that someone turn on the lights.
Cost is price. The advantage to the neophyte in recognizing the equivalency of price and cost, is that the concept of opportunity cost is a lot more understandable. Economists, like most cliques of the elite, are more than willing to employ language that is in the main, indecipherable. Look at the economic terms that have been introduced in this simple essay:
Command Economy
Micro-economic
Market forces
Economic analysis
Equilibrium
Gresham's Law
Price Theory
Value
Externalities
Internalities
leakage
maximize
innefficiencies
cost
price
potential
opportunity cost
Have a nice night. Thanks for your time. Remember, asking a question isn't a bad thing, it's the path to enlightenment.
Command Economy
Micro-economic
Market forces
Economic analysis
Equilibrium
Gresham's Law
Price Theory
Value
Externalities
Internalities
leakage
maximize
inefficiencies
cost
price
potential
opportunity cost
It is not embarrassing to find that you do not know a thing. It is true that the manner and number of things I do not know exceeds my ability to either know, or to number. What I am attempting to share with you, is a manner of speaking about things that either you or I face in our day-to-day travail. To allow you to question the precepts that have been adopted by the elite amongst those we refer to as "economists," and to allow you to question the priors that are, and have been, expressed here. Knowledge and understanding exist hip to thigh. You cannot know that which you've never questioned, and you cannot understand that which you do not know. I am attempting to put into layman's terms questions and concepts of economic theory which have heretofore been only available within texts that tend to suppose a certain level of math, language and training. I wish that at any point, with any question, you hit the comments tab and ask. No question is too dumb. The Elite that are attempting to dominate the political discussion offer you promises that no sane or rational man would ever utter. Finding the voice with which to criticize this elite is the responsibility of every man jack of us. Finding the rationale with which to attack the arrogance and stupidity of these jackals is incumbent upon the caring, thinking citizen. The rhetoric of the attack on individual liberty is, at times, difficult and convoluted. It is my task to introduce you to both the theories and rhetoric of the Elite. And to point out how easy it can be to poke holes into the balloons of their fanciful ideas and beliefs. If you have a question, to not ask is your fault. I will answer to the tenth degree, if necessary.
Discussions of economic policy tend to adhere to a rigid form; what is the expected outcome?
When we were talking about Bill and his scheme to pay his bills through the sale of marijuana, the expected outcome of Bill was to pay his bills. The concerns of an individual economic player, firms, businesses, are referred to as micro-economic concerns, that is, the roles played by individual or individual firms when faced with market forces. At every step of economic analysis is the condition that the activities of individuals, or groups, are facing the forces that are created by the production, sale and consumption of goods and services. Free markets, or capitalist markets, are determined by the choices made independently of others as to whether or not buy or sell any particular good or service. That is, again, a decision that is made by independent individuals, without the exercise of any outside influence on the decisions being made.
Command economies, as the name infers, are based upon a different set of conditions; what is allowed.
It is true that I am a Capitalist, since I believe that you and I are the best people to rely upon for information that decides our actions in the market for goods and services. I am best able to determine that which I choose to produce to enable my existence, just as I am the best able to determine which goods and services I will buy to effect the continuance of that existence. In a Command Economy, these choices are secondary. What is best, in terms of what I produce or consume is determined from an outside authority.
This is the critical moment between liberty and slavery. The free man cannot be made to do what he wouldn't do if given the choice for himself. The slave receives that which his master allows. I'm not going to spend any time talking about the form that master takes; it is sufficient for my purpose to assert that any choice I make that is limited by the coercive authority of another is a limit on my individual liberty. And the alternative to liberty is slavery. Ask yourself, if you are not free to choose, are you free or not?
This distinction, between choice and mandate is an important one. Markets have an existence, whether or not the State wishes them to exist or not. That is, while there are those that would wish to impose obedience in markets through the controls of state functions, whether they are regulatory or police agencies, markets tend to find equilibrium, even when production is determined through centralized state agencies. Take, again the instance of Bill and his sales of marijuana.
Marijuana is an item of contraband. That is, it is illegal to possess marijuana. For decades, the possession or sale of marijuana has been outlawed by our states' and by our national governments. And yet, the market for marijuana has persisted. How has this occurred? Simple. And it is the first step toward understanding one of the contradictory evidences of economic theory; Gresham's Law.
Gresham's Law is fairly simple in its formulation; bad money drives good money out.
My first practical experience of Gresham's Law came after my first trip to the Former Soviet Union. Remember, we're going to explode the myth that graduate degrees depend upon a renewed examination of price theory. Price theory is easy. People pay the price they think is fair. Price theory is the simplest of all theories. What did Jack pay for his Magic Beans? One cow. Was that a fair price for Magic Beans? Jack thought so, and so did every reader of "Jack and the Beanstalk."
But, given Gresham's Law, would bad beans drive good beans out?
Looking at markets, constituted of both buyers and sellers, if I came onto the market with beans, what would the market require of my beans before the sale of a few beans were to equal the value of a cow?
Bill had that problem when trying to decide the price of his marijuana. His really good stuff was twice as good as the commercially available stuff. His pricing problem was based upon an external. Not the value of the good or service itself, qua marijuana; but the production cost of the really good stuff compared to the production cost of the commercially available marijuana. Irrational mandates need not be applied externally, they can be adopted mandates, as well. Selling marijuana, trafficking in juvenile prostitutes, hiring out as an hit-man are all possible examples where mandates are imposed on the actions of the individual that can either be imposed externally or internally. Moral and ethical values in transactions are imposed every day, upon trillions of transactions. Or not. Sometimes moral values overwhelm the true transaction value, as in the case of deciding to not engage in trafficking in juvenile prostitution. While trafficking in underage prostitution may not have the moral proscription in some countries as it has here--in the main--it is difficult to countenance the trafficking of underage prostitution, while prostitution in general may not only be accepted as a suitable profession, but legal under the current statutes of some states.
So, it is possible to come up with encumbrances upon price that exist externally to the value of a thing. That, in and of itself does not repudiate my assertion that price theory, while a large part of the body of economic study, is simply an idiocy of the science. Buyers determine price. Under all states and all conditions. Unless that purchase of that item is mandated externally. Then, all bets are off.
Bill was operating under the external constraints of pricing theory that depended upon his acceptance of the Labour Theory of Value. Accepting the external constraint of a moral authority which would determine price outside of the values determined through the willingness of the consumer to pay more is an economic leakage. The value of Bill's really good stuff would allow for a higher level of income for Bill, if Bill's activities weren't limited by his moral beliefs. Worse yet, for the consumer, was the action of Bill's supplier, Miguel, who confiscated all of Bill's really good stuff, under the mandate that Bill only sell Miguel's commercially available stuff. Miguel mandated the level of quality that the market would be able to consume, while taking the more commercially viable "good shit" off the market. In exchange for Bill continuing to breathe. External mandates, which limit the flow and supply of goods and services coming to market also represent an economic leakage.
Leakages occur when forces that are external to markets limit either the abilities of the suppliers of a good or service, or the purchasers of a good or service, to maximize the value of their transaction. Leakages are the unrealized values of markets that tend to create inefficiencies in markets. Efficient markets are simple to understand; buyers and sellers come together for the simple purpose to buy and sell products. If buyers offer too little for goods, goods remain unsold. When buyers offer enough, or, more than enough for goods, goods are sold. If sellers price their goods at too high a price, their products remain unsold. When sellers price their goods at, or below, the selling price, the market will clear. That is, all products offered for sale will be sold. The market clears. The market achieves equilibrium. A market in equilibrium doesn't have leakages, since the definition of price and clearing depends on some simple agreements: prices that occur without externalities are those prices that producers willingly offer for sale their products; prices that occur without externalities are those prices that buyers willing offer for the purchase of goods and services.
The moment that Mikey stepped in and demanded that Billy purchase and sell his weed, was a major moment in the imposition of externalities. And Billy's reticence to price his good shit is a laughable concern, since the internally imposed restrictions were also costs faced by his potential customers. Gresham's Law is probably better understood in the light of these internally and externally imposed costs.
Cost. According to my 1934 Merriam and Webster:
cost: n.(as., fr. ON. kostr condition, chance, choice; akin to E. CHOOSE.) 1. Manner; way; means. Obs. 2. Characteristic; disposition; quality; value.
cost: n. 1. The amount or equivalent paid, or given, or charged, or engaged to be paid or given for anything bought or taken in barter or for service rendered; charge; price; hence, whatever, as labor, self-denial, suffering, etc., is requisite to secure benefit.
This explains, in many ways, why there are so many papers written about the theory of price, when the actual discussion should be placed on an understanding of cost. Somewhere along the way, economists decided to place the question of cost on the supply side, while abjuring the question of price on the demand side. But cost is the price the purchaser is willing to pay; that is, we are all participants in the process of supply. Every consumer is a willing participant in the supply process. The product of this process remains in too many cases either undefined, or undefinable. How to define the value of a process that results in the imposition of moral forces that wreck the balance between buyer and seller? By defining price as different than cost. And yet, linguistically, we find that cost and price are equivalent. My advice to the Academy is that someone turn on the lights.
Cost is price. The advantage to the neophyte in recognizing the equivalency of price and cost, is that the concept of opportunity cost is a lot more understandable. Economists, like most cliques of the elite, are more than willing to employ language that is in the main, indecipherable. Look at the economic terms that have been introduced in this simple essay:
Command Economy
Micro-economic
Market forces
Economic analysis
Equilibrium
Gresham's Law
Price Theory
Value
Externalities
Internalities
leakage
maximize
innefficiencies
cost
price
potential
opportunity cost
Have a nice night. Thanks for your time. Remember, asking a question isn't a bad thing, it's the path to enlightenment.
Obama's Great Leap Forward
I don't know if you caught our President's speech today from North Carolina. While none of it was notable, what is notable is his reliance upon some catch phrasing that intimates that the Way Forward, or Winning the Future, is going to be reliant upon policies that are "aimed at accomplishing the economic and technical development of the country at a vastly faster pace and with greater results." It is his belief that policies "aimed at accomplishing the economic and technical development of the country at a vastly faster pace and with greater results" are needed and if "the people could be ideologically aroused and if domestic resources could be utilized more efficiently for the simultaneous development of industry and agriculture" that we can solve the problems facing our economy.
These undertakings are going to be down to the grassroots level, as we are able to mobilize a grassroots movement, working in "factories, communes, mines, and public works projects for manual labor and firsthand familiarization with grassroots conditions."
This is Obama's Democratization Campaign for Economic Development. This campaign will be noted for "a new socioeconomic and political system created in the countryside and in a few urban areas."
The quotations provided above are from China: A Country Study (Robert L. Worden, Andrea Matles Savada and Ronald E. Dolan, editors, GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.)
What triggered this post can be found in the comments section of a post at The Volokh Conspiracy today. "First, this presumes that power generation requires large-scale projects. What about distributed smaller scale systems, like rooftop generation? While there are issued with system stability and control (provision of suitable reactive support, for example), there is no reason to believe that these are insoluble." The image that came to mind was immediately forthcoming, pig-iron production during Mao's Second Five-Year Plan during the Great Leap Forward.
California is looking at adding more than eight thousand megawatts of additional capacity. And the commenter at Volokh gets all Green and stuff, and offers up "smaller scale systems," like rooftop generation.
Yes, it is true that under the Second Five-Year Plan, production of Pig Iron was increased. What was produced was valueless, although I'm sure, at the time, certain apparatchiks were quite willing to offer, "While there are issued with system stability and control (provision of suitable reactive support, for example), there is no reason to believe that these are insoluble", the truth remains "The Great Leap Forward was an economic failure. In early 1959, amid signs of rising popular restiveness, the CCP admitted that the favorable production report for 1958 had been exaggerated. Among the Great Leap Forward's economic consequences were a shortage of food (in which natural disasters also played a part); shortages of raw materials for industry; overproduction of poor-quality goods; deterioration of industrial plants through mismanagement; and exhaustion and demoralization of the peasantry and of the intellectuals, not to mention the party and government cadres at all levels."
It may be true that Mao is a personal hero for the President's coterie. He certainly has put into positions of authority many prominent Leftist/Communist/Marxist/Socialist ideologues. Visit our current policies in international affairs, as currently being practised in our leadership in areas around the Horn of Africa. "The "soft" foreign policy based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to which China had subscribed in the mid-1950s gave way to a "hard" line in 1958." Time has been compressed for illustrious leader, moving in a span of two-years from the "Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence" to our current war-making in Libya and Yemen.
A Great Leap Forward. Winning the Future. Adolescent views on how markets "should work."
The parallels fail to surprise me.
These undertakings are going to be down to the grassroots level, as we are able to mobilize a grassroots movement, working in "factories, communes, mines, and public works projects for manual labor and firsthand familiarization with grassroots conditions."
This is Obama's Democratization Campaign for Economic Development. This campaign will be noted for "a new socioeconomic and political system created in the countryside and in a few urban areas."
The quotations provided above are from China: A Country Study (Robert L. Worden, Andrea Matles Savada and Ronald E. Dolan, editors, GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.)
What triggered this post can be found in the comments section of a post at The Volokh Conspiracy today. "First, this presumes that power generation requires large-scale projects. What about distributed smaller scale systems, like rooftop generation? While there are issued with system stability and control (provision of suitable reactive support, for example), there is no reason to believe that these are insoluble." The image that came to mind was immediately forthcoming, pig-iron production during Mao's Second Five-Year Plan during the Great Leap Forward.
California is looking at adding more than eight thousand megawatts of additional capacity. And the commenter at Volokh gets all Green and stuff, and offers up "smaller scale systems," like rooftop generation.
Yes, it is true that under the Second Five-Year Plan, production of Pig Iron was increased. What was produced was valueless, although I'm sure, at the time, certain apparatchiks were quite willing to offer, "While there are issued with system stability and control (provision of suitable reactive support, for example), there is no reason to believe that these are insoluble", the truth remains "The Great Leap Forward was an economic failure. In early 1959, amid signs of rising popular restiveness, the CCP admitted that the favorable production report for 1958 had been exaggerated. Among the Great Leap Forward's economic consequences were a shortage of food (in which natural disasters also played a part); shortages of raw materials for industry; overproduction of poor-quality goods; deterioration of industrial plants through mismanagement; and exhaustion and demoralization of the peasantry and of the intellectuals, not to mention the party and government cadres at all levels."
It may be true that Mao is a personal hero for the President's coterie. He certainly has put into positions of authority many prominent Leftist/Communist/Marxist/Socialist ideologues. Visit our current policies in international affairs, as currently being practised in our leadership in areas around the Horn of Africa. "The "soft" foreign policy based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to which China had subscribed in the mid-1950s gave way to a "hard" line in 1958." Time has been compressed for illustrious leader, moving in a span of two-years from the "Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence" to our current war-making in Libya and Yemen.
A Great Leap Forward. Winning the Future. Adolescent views on how markets "should work."
The parallels fail to surprise me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)