Economic Rates of Change

Not that I'm advocating mathematical economics, but as a mental exercise, why don't more economists make reference to rates of change in economic well-being?  Why aren't there extensive studies in everyday conversation that show, not just how policy affects change, but how policy affects rates of change over time.

A specific policy will affect prices, employment, capital accumulation or consuption, land/material use, etc. and all its "lengthening" or "shortening" the capital structure relative to those changes, over time.  Point being, i.e., employment could be on the rise, while the 2nd order derivative (acceleration, or momentum, or whatever physics corollary you choose) could have a negative impact.

dreamers of all sorts.

I can't help noticing that it never matters what one person's view of utopia is; in the end the only thing that matters to everyone is satisfaction of want, and disutility of labor.  In this, libertarians and specifically austro-libertarians have the only complete, consistent plan for maximizing satisfaction of want, while requiring less labor over time.

Mises Boot Camp

I thought this Boot Camp was a pretty good introduction, although it seems they employed a couple summer fellows to give lectures that I think could use some practice.  As usual Jeff Deist makes a great case for why we should be interested.

But its the Austrian's who aren't scientific.

I always find myself cringing at the phrase "not falsifiable by experience". I think it's because the reaction is always to the effect of calling Austrians non-scientific. The point isn't that it isn't falsifiable by "experience". The point is that under the "scientific method" itself for an experience to verify or falsify anything, to demonstrate cause and effect, it requires controlling all the variables--something fundamentally impossible in economics. This is the key issue I think most Austrians fail to make abundantly clear in their explanation of "experience".

I repeat, they fail to make it abundantly clear. They have a tendency to mention it, but not emphasize it's critical importance. This becomes obvious when people aren't immediately convinced of the correctness of the Austrian method.

The once widely used "ceteris paribus" phrase implies this used to be common knowledge.  The Austrians just didn't fall for scientism and physics envy.

Another campaign begins

8 years ago I started paying attention to the specific problems politicians were harping on most loudly.  Wall street speculation, corporate control of the economy, the military industrial complex, religious zealots of different faiths assuming power over governments here and abroad, "deregulation", etc.

By the time i'd absorbed a year+ of being bombarded with propaganda and the talk of oncoming recession, up to my eyeballs and ears in shit, i cast a vote for Barack Obama.  I was looking for hope and change.

The economy collapsed into recession that loomed on for years and my interest in worldly concerns grew.  I'd say reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson​ was a major eye opener that set me on a path to seek truth first, and action later.  How could this man make so many points of contention appear so easy to understand, as well as so obvious as to the truth?  5 years of self-study in economics later I find myself much closer to the truth, yet significantly removed from popular (allowable) opinion.

The past month or two have seen a revival of presidential politics and a surprising pair of hot ticket names.  Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  In the USA, a self-described Socialist and a comb-over celebrity.  Perhaps that's enough said.

Economy to hell.  As I look back I see the useful idiot I was and how much further we've gone down the same road.

Vick, the scourge of Pittsburgh?

Oh come on! I know Vick is no martyr and he's sure no sweetheart.  But I seriously think he's become the scapegoat for all things wrong with professional sports culture over talking to Pittsburgh.  Has everyone forgotten the murderers?  the drug dealers?  the guys who shoot themselves in clubs?  or flagrantly disrespect the law?  How about the fact that the vast majority of professional athletes live it up like kings and then go bankrupt immediately after retirement?  I don't even mean offense when i say, they're idiots.  Why the big deal that won't die in Vick?  Why The Donald, MJ, or OJ?  Bread and Circus.

I'm not defending Vick.  I do attempt to apply principle to my life.  Principle and Virtue.  Principle suggests the NFL, NBA, MLB, and a host of others are full of bad people doing bad deeds all the time.  But I still think forgiveness is a virtue.  And Vick at least did his penance.

Jesus Huerta de Soto

Simply put, Huerta de Soto is the best explainer of these concepts I've encountered.  This is basically an entire semester of lectures but well worth it.

Climate Change Alarmists and Science

This article got the ball rolling for me today.  First, I'd like to note that coming from Slate, I almost didn't have to read it to get the idea.  As an article about an upcoming article, it is lacking most of the substance necessary to convince me and leaves me with nothing refutable.  The basic idea was:

"The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years."

And so naturally the answer is to immediately halt fossil fuel use, right?  I have some serious questions.

 First, is there even enough water in every piece of ice on the planet to raise sea levels 10 feet?  An interactive map of earth if the sea level rose 216 feet shows much of the eastern sea board and Caribbean underwater along with the fringes of Eurasia, Africa, and somewhat large portions of south america and Australia appearing like massive bays.  216 feet.  Let that sink in for a minute.

Also, I generally can't help thinking the Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmists (AGWA) have tunnel vision and see civilization as relatively static.  If we have 50 years, and daily updates on sea-level change, do they think we will fail to adapt?  I'll come back to these questions shortly.  More from the article:

"Hansen called for a “human tipping point”—essentially, a social revolution—as one of the most effective ways of combating climate change, though he still favors a bilateral carbon tax agreed upon by the United States and China as the best near-term climate policy. In the new study, Hansen writes, "there is no morally defensible excuse to delay phase-out of fossil fuel emissions as rapidly as possible.""

Clearly he sees adaptation coming from government intervention into the economy, complete with a denial of the catastrophic effects of limiting the use of our cheapest sources of energy.  What about the poorest countries?  How will they build?  Are they supposed to stay in poverty?  As for a morally defensible excuse, Alex Epstein makes a great case.  He continues here, and here(I recommend all 6 videos here, especially this one, where around 4:50 a girl shows how tainted our moral psychology can become when we don't engage in critical thinking, but I digress.)  A bit of an oversimplification, but Epstein's case boils down to: human life is made longer, healthier, and at higher standards through the use of fossil fuels; and to phase out their use before the poorest of the poor have benefited from their use is morally reprehensible.

Meanwhile back at the IPCC, the UN's panel for proving AGW--right, proving it, not researching it.--Chairman R.K.Pachauri in his resignation letter says:

"For me, the protection of planet earth, the survival of all species and the sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma." (emphasis in original)

As for the 10' in 50 years, well it sounds to me like people in low lying areas might not want to stay put.  Although there are ways to combat rising water.  The american experience of westward expansion even before the transcontinental railroads was rapid.  Granted homesteading was still an option then, but this thought experiment isn't about legality, merely feasibility.

I don't argue AGW, but I refuse to get alarmed.  Skepticism is healthy when the price is freedom.  History shows how difficult it is to reclaim once lost.   I think taking the long view of climate and climate shifts helps mold a different, less concerned perspective.

I'll just end here with a somewhat random quote from Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, demonstrating the odd nature of conservationism which is of course behind the global warming phobia:

"Compulsory thrift, or attacks on potential savers for not saving and investing enough, are examples of this line of attack. Another is an attack on the user of a natural resource that is being depleted. Anyone who uses such a resource at all, whatever the extent, “deprives” some future descendant of the use. “Conservationists,” therefore, call for lower present use of such resources in favor of greater future use. Not only is this compulsory benefaction an example of the first line of attack, but, if this argument is adopted, logically no resource subject to depletion could ever be used at all. For when the future generation comes of age, it too faces a future generation. This entire line of argument is therefore a peculiarly absurd one."