Representation Of Dynamic Creation In Double-Entry Bookkeeping. It Doesn't Exist.

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

Finally, an economist who speaks my language!

[Economics] "is a classic example of trying to understand something that is essentially dynamic - innovation - in a static model focused on calculating the optimal or the most efficient allocation of resources."

Ya think? NeoClassical economics is absolutely blind to the greatest return by far, the return on coordination.

To economists of all stripes, it's like the history of evolution, and the history of the universe, never happened. Only this quarter matters. Yeah right, to them and dinosaurs!

And Peter Thiel is an example of an idiot savant, so naive that it's laughable, no matter his Buffet-like talent at over-adapting to a transient context.

Speaking of evolution, it's the art of charting an optimal path through an unpredictable series of transient contexts, occurring with unpredictable intervals. Over-adapting to any transient context is the surest way to fail to prepare for the next one, and hence a good way to commit suicide.

Economics is the art of optimal asset allocation for a single context. 

Hence, long term cultural survival is about USING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS WITHIN PRACTICAL BOUNDS. Is that really so difficult?

Having economists dictate the limits of Aggregate Policy is like an architect letting a carpenter with a hammer dictate design limits. All you can end up with is dents in everything, and a lot of damage.

Risk management is NOT leadership. Nor is asset allocation. 

Where can cultural evolution take us? Where will it take us? Don't ask lawyers, and for humanity's sake, do NOT ask economists. All they can tell us are the risks to today of going to someplace else or becoming anything else tomorrow, and hence they also can't grasp the risk of NOT changing, and not going somewhere else from here.

Capiche?

Any nomad would understand the risk of not moving on. You'd think human Context Nomads would understand the risk of listening to lawyers & economists, when it comes to deciding where to go next.

Don't ask me why they won't.  Ask yourself.

The Sane Human Test. See if YOU Pass. Dedicated to Jane and Joe Sixpack.

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)



You'll probably STILL hear the following myth, from ~139 million of our ~140 million eligible voters

"... tax the Rich ... Because that's where the money is?"

Uh ... that was true on a gold std.

However, since 1933 that is NOT where the fiat is!

Please read Marriner Eccles first address to the Senate, in 1932.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/ecctes33.pdf

Then read Beardsley Ruml's revelation, 1946
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/cmt/ruml_obsolete.pdf

(Yes, it took BR 13 years to realize what Ben Franklin noted in 1727! Let's discuss that delay for another time. BR probably suffered from a degree in economics.)

Per definition, "fiat" = public initiative.

No, we can NOT let gold-hoarding plutocrats manage our currency supply "for" us, ever again. They screwed that up so badly, so many times, that we can NEVER fall for that BS again. We couldn't have ended the Depression, or mobilized to win WWII on a gold std. If we were on a gold std, our rate of mobilizing for a WWII initiative would still be picking up steam at the station!

So, since 1933, we accelerate agile management of our own, distributed, Public Initiative, using FIAT currency - where every transaction allowed by our culture is - in theory - instantly denominated as a matching debit/credit to buyers/sellers. That still means public responsibility, of course, but the metrics we must co-manage AS OUR NATION GROWS, are increasing national output AND controlled inflation. It is completely irrelevant to "balance" the yearly supply of a floating denomination metric (fiat currency). For those struggling with this as a novel context to picture, managing a fiat currency supply is analogous to managing the amount of oxygen/CO2 which an individual breathes in and out. How much fiat currency do we need? Answer: as much as our activities dictate. No more and no less. Same as during WWII. Breathing, initiative or fiat currency is not something we need to regulate in any way EXCEPT to avoid the extremes of hyperventilating for no reason, or holding our public initiative until the MiddleClass turns blue. 

How the heck does one "balance fiat?" What does that even mean?

Today? We're voluntarily letting fiat-hoarding plutocrats manage OUR fiat for us? Today that's called "fiat austerity" and class disparity. Whatever the semantics, do you think that will turn out any better than letting the same charlatans manage our gold-std currency supply did in 1929? Dream on! I've go a derivative on Wall St. to sell to you, along with that virtual bridge in Arizona.

Next, read:

15 Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism
http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html

7Difs
http://moslereconomics.com/2009/12/10/7-deadly-innocent-frauds/

& Luther Gulick's original SocSec memo
http://www.ssa.gov/history/Gulick.html

Are you thoroughly FURIOUS yet?

If you're now mad as hell, and refuse to take the class warfare anymore ... then CONGRATULATIONS! You pass the sane human test!!!

It's the 1% idiot savant sociopaths who are insane, NOT you.

Now please leverage YOUR sanity for the net benefit of your culture and nation.

Paraphrasing Gen. Patton: "Never let some faux 'leader' in a slick suit tell you HOW to run YOUR Democracy. Let all citizens suggest Desired Outcomes, then participate in impressing all of us with EVERYONE'S ingenuity."

None of us is as smart as all of us? That's true ONLY if each of us listens, often enough, to ALL of us.