Comments on: Chaos Patch (#36)

By: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 05:36:56 +0000

[…] really get too much of that. Nick Land also makes a irregularly regular habit of it with his Chaos Patches, which if I call correctly didn’t start out as link fests. That property must have emerged. […]

By: Kgaard

Kgaard — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:54:03 +0000

Well in Southern Europe real estate prices were really cratering there for a while. Widget prices were falling at street level and especially at the wholesale level for many things. Wages are down hard there and youth unemployment (sub-25 y.o.) like 50%. In America we don’t have deflation so it’s not an issue. In Japan real estate prices fell for like 25 years but they are just now bottoming out and starting to rise.

By: Aeroguy

Aeroguy — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 06:15:08 +0000

Much of this is built on the assumption that we’re already in a deflationary world. So can you point out to me where I can go get some more bang for my buck? I’m wondering if maybe it’s a deflationary environment for the very rich and perhaps maybe to some extent the poor but I don’t see how it’s deflationary to the middle class. Is this one of those things like globalization where it’s going to screw the middle class hard but benefit the economy as a whole?

By: Kgaard

Kgaard — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:47:45 +0000

Here is a good post from Lars Christensen at Danske Bank, in which he discusses Mussolini’s attempt to strengthen the lira in 1934. Result? Deflation, unemployment, stagnation, Abyssinian invasion in 1935 … and perhaps the alliance with Hitler soon thereafter. If Mussolini’s monetary policy had been wiser — i.e. not so uber-tight — would he have perhaps chosen a different route in the 30s? Seems like there’s an obvious lesson for today’s ECB in here …

http://marketmonetarist.com/2014/11/15/mussolinis-great-monetary-policy-failure/

By: Kgaard

Kgaard — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:39:13 +0000

@Kgaard

It’s totally overblown, Hurlock. Here’s a link for you.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28030

Unemployment is still at rock-bottom levels. How can you have a recession when unemployment is falling? Sumner calls it a growth pause and I agree. His take on it matches what I see coming through on the quarterly earnings at the company level.

Here is Ambrose Evans Pritchard, also with good commentary on Abenomics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11236884/Japans-Abenomics-can-survive-quadruple-dip-recession.html

It really is important to think about what Japan is doing and stack that up against the travesty unfolding in southern Europe. We are in new era. Two generations of sub-replacement fertility in the west is really effing with traditional economic models.

By: Tripletap

Tripletap — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:37:05 +0000

Will you make me a sandwich?

By: Hurlock

Hurlock — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:25:13 +0000

So, Kgaard, what are your thoughts on that Japanese triple dip rece-, whoops, I mean triple dip recovery…

By: Butler

Butler — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:37:45 +0000

Well put; I’m inclined to agree. An Enlightenment-inherited misunderstanding of human nature means leftism isn’t a political programme for homo sapiens; it’s a political programme for homo sovieticus. If we’re feeling generous we might even speculate that leftism could function as advertised, if homo sovieticus existed. But alas, here we are, scrubbing it out in stupid reality.

As for the thing about leftism = chaos, I do think there’s something in the notion. In the sense that utopian leftist party line holds that, unencumbered by such ‘stifling’ mores as hierarchy or wage-slavery or biological gender, homo sovieticus would choose to pursue eudaemoniac ends: and co-operative, ethnically diverse, skipping-through-a-field-of-daises order would arise spontaneously from a sufficiently perfect chaos.

But as you say, when you give homo sapiens chaos, they tend to opt for things other than human flourishing.

By: Hurlock

Hurlock — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:05:33 +0000

@SanguineEmpiricist

Ok, the links opened for me, but my question still stands. How do any of the points made in those posts argue against my and Alrenous’ formulation of property and why is it better?

By: Hurlock

Hurlock — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:40:18 +0000

I am afraid I don’t understand.

First of all, none of your propertarianism links open for me so I can’t compare anything.
So because they don’t open are you saying that my and Alrenous’ account of property rights is wrong? And if so, how?

“There is a somewhat reductionist foundation for property rights can be defined as having a baseline in executive functioning/pre-executive functioning which can be used as a foundation for proto-ethics & ethics. Executive functioning is necessary for reciprocal exchange as defined as

a)trading behavior
b)& large delayed exchanges over time
c) social cooperation
d) social competition
e) social symbiosis/mutualism”

You need to expand on this a bit. How would any of this discount my and Alrenous’ account and in what way?