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.
Farmers want to trade stocks because they don't know anything about them. City folks trade commodities because they think that must be where all the money is. The future is capitalism and more of it. The capitalistic future is unknown and therefore only randomly like the socialists predict it will be. All life from the big bang to the 2009 crash can be summed up as buy low sell high. Anything else is unsustainable and leads to failure and eventually extinction.
A couple of thoughts on your excellent topic.... ** Time = Money = Energy = Mass*C². ** LIFE is curveilinear -- while humans have struggled to evolve a fair degree of *linear* pattern recognition. ** "Cultural Overlay" -- that morass of thinking that separates our cognition from reality -- the *thinner* the overlay, the more "in-touch" you are with reality. Think of any *thick* reality -- there's a culture that does not do well. Think of any circumstance where somebody sez, "This shit just got *real*, man!" -- and there's someone who realizes that A WHOLE RAFT OF THINGS don't really matter -- your hair style as you enter an emergency room, the race of the brain surgeon about to operate on your child, the sex of the programmer who set up the lab equipment...... You get the idea. Those three ideas..... well, a *lot* of beer could be consumed in thinkin' on that stuff.
Poor man want to be rich Rich man want to be king And a king ain't satisfied Till he rules everything ...."Badlands"
A King ruling everything wants to be a ruler forever. A long-lasting ruler King wants to live eternally.
It's good to be king and have your own way Get a feeling of peace at the end of the day And when your bull spread barks or your call butterfly sings You're out there with winners, it's good to be king..... ....Tom Petty
%% Power poem. Good thing USa has balance of power\ king [or exec] lawgivers/ judges + lawyers. And power of press like ''Watchdog on Wall Street''LOL, Forbes magazine ,CBN, SRN, Bloomberg,WSJ, IBD