Thinking about economics isn't, like, my profession. But it's one of the ways I amuse myself.
So, I really cut my teeth for this with Von Mises. I don't think Human Action is gospel. I mean, he says that markets can't exist without the police. But I've heard of, say, drug dealers. So I read from other outlooks that I think might help me with refining approaches to problems. For instance, one belief I have that is apparently pretty uncommon is that agriculture is highly problematic. Anyway, Von Mises is very insistent that the mathematical manipulation of economic statistics is a poor way to make predictions. I believe that, and I also believe very strongly in the subjective theory of value. I mean, really these are the same thing.
As far as what I know about what "neoclassical" economics is, I mean, I don't believe that. I have a lot more confidence in flexible production theories than efficiency theories. I mean, I think efficiency should never be more than a local goal, and never be some kind of comprehensive goal. You lose too much information.
My concept of an "equilibrium" here is basically a peak of efficiency. My understanding is that supposedly markets tend towards these peaks, and also that the goal of neoclassical economics is to provide aid in moving towards these peaks. So if anything in this paragraph is incorrect, I would really appreciate a correction.
So I've got a couple of problems. Most importantly, the market changes with every instant of time. So I think it's a little ridiculous to assume that the supply/demand (I mean, demand? seriously?) relationship is going to have enough constancy that the potential equilibrium doesn't move.
So look, this might be useful with commodities. I have no idea why anybody would want to get involved with an economic strategy involving commodity production or pricing. I can say this having grown up on a farm. Well, I guess I would buy bullion miners because I anticipate a lot of geopolitical risk.
The other thing is that: disequilibria are where the money is at! Having a better model of the future on whatever timescale you're operating with is what allows you to estimate risk for the purposes of preparation and execution. And so I think what economic actors should really be trying to do is to seek out disequilibria and learn how to operate within them to gain profit. And, you know, create disequilibria. New Markets. Innovation. I'm playing with the idea that what money really measures is learning effectively applied.
And really, this is like, my philosophy. I seek elegance, not efficiency. I could bring in Tai Chi or TS Eliot's poetry or Viet Cong village acquisition methods, but, you know...I see it everywhere. It seems to work. I mean, if we're talking about computation theory, I know that brute force works too. But I don't want to use it, at least, any farther then the most local applications. It seems like a poor employment of capital. This is why my political ideal is something like 1 Samuel Chapter 8 or the pre-Christian Scandinavians. I'm not sure if it's permissible to say that, but I promise that I'm not going to work hard for it because I think it's gonna happen anyway. This is also why I'm a huge sKeptic about "autonomous driving will be everywhere soon".
I should say that I don't know calculus, and I don't want to learn because first of all I don't think I'd find much use for it, and secondly because I don't think humans can actually believe the idea of "infinity" without despairing. "Infinity", to me, is a boundary marker of where humans can no longer (biologically, structure of the brain) think. CPUs aren't going to solve it either. I mean, what, are you going to put a computer in the middle of the sun?
Reactions? Reflections? I'm not interested in producing dogma; I want to refine my approaches. In Tai Chi, your "energy", basically, is something that you possess and refine through the martial arts. In pre-Christian Scandinavia, your luck was a resource you managed, spent, and gained (through successful action), and your female ancestors were your sort of trustees of luck. I have a lot of unorthodox models of reality, but I try not to get intoxicated in them to the point where I make mistakes. I try to test them against reality, and try to only participate in them to the extent that they prove useful.
I do this because consensus reality is dying. I don't think that any potential consensus will ever be as comprehensive as what's dying. The future is tribal.
So, I really cut my teeth for this with Von Mises. I don't think Human Action is gospel. I mean, he says that markets can't exist without the police. But I've heard of, say, drug dealers. So I read from other outlooks that I think might help me with refining approaches to problems. For instance, one belief I have that is apparently pretty uncommon is that agriculture is highly problematic. Anyway, Von Mises is very insistent that the mathematical manipulation of economic statistics is a poor way to make predictions. I believe that, and I also believe very strongly in the subjective theory of value. I mean, really these are the same thing.
As far as what I know about what "neoclassical" economics is, I mean, I don't believe that. I have a lot more confidence in flexible production theories than efficiency theories. I mean, I think efficiency should never be more than a local goal, and never be some kind of comprehensive goal. You lose too much information.
My concept of an "equilibrium" here is basically a peak of efficiency. My understanding is that supposedly markets tend towards these peaks, and also that the goal of neoclassical economics is to provide aid in moving towards these peaks. So if anything in this paragraph is incorrect, I would really appreciate a correction.
So I've got a couple of problems. Most importantly, the market changes with every instant of time. So I think it's a little ridiculous to assume that the supply/demand (I mean, demand? seriously?) relationship is going to have enough constancy that the potential equilibrium doesn't move.
So look, this might be useful with commodities. I have no idea why anybody would want to get involved with an economic strategy involving commodity production or pricing. I can say this having grown up on a farm. Well, I guess I would buy bullion miners because I anticipate a lot of geopolitical risk.
The other thing is that: disequilibria are where the money is at! Having a better model of the future on whatever timescale you're operating with is what allows you to estimate risk for the purposes of preparation and execution. And so I think what economic actors should really be trying to do is to seek out disequilibria and learn how to operate within them to gain profit. And, you know, create disequilibria. New Markets. Innovation. I'm playing with the idea that what money really measures is learning effectively applied.
And really, this is like, my philosophy. I seek elegance, not efficiency. I could bring in Tai Chi or TS Eliot's poetry or Viet Cong village acquisition methods, but, you know...I see it everywhere. It seems to work. I mean, if we're talking about computation theory, I know that brute force works too. But I don't want to use it, at least, any farther then the most local applications. It seems like a poor employment of capital. This is why my political ideal is something like 1 Samuel Chapter 8 or the pre-Christian Scandinavians. I'm not sure if it's permissible to say that, but I promise that I'm not going to work hard for it because I think it's gonna happen anyway. This is also why I'm a huge sKeptic about "autonomous driving will be everywhere soon".
I should say that I don't know calculus, and I don't want to learn because first of all I don't think I'd find much use for it, and secondly because I don't think humans can actually believe the idea of "infinity" without despairing. "Infinity", to me, is a boundary marker of where humans can no longer (biologically, structure of the brain) think. CPUs aren't going to solve it either. I mean, what, are you going to put a computer in the middle of the sun?
Reactions? Reflections? I'm not interested in producing dogma; I want to refine my approaches. In Tai Chi, your "energy", basically, is something that you possess and refine through the martial arts. In pre-Christian Scandinavia, your luck was a resource you managed, spent, and gained (through successful action), and your female ancestors were your sort of trustees of luck. I have a lot of unorthodox models of reality, but I try not to get intoxicated in them to the point where I make mistakes. I try to test them against reality, and try to only participate in them to the extent that they prove useful.
I do this because consensus reality is dying. I don't think that any potential consensus will ever be as comprehensive as what's dying. The future is tribal.
