Cybernethics / Cybernéthique

One of the first thing that any so-called "macro-economist" does when studying a phenomenon, is to postulate a deterministic model in which there is no choice and all economic costs are thus zero. That is, whenever they introduce mathematical tools, which they do so as to pose as physics-like hard scientists, they begin by negating the very essence of economics: the notion of economic cost. They are actually based upon an epistemology that explicitly denies individuals the essence of their human nature: the ability to make relevant choices. This is true of all economists from all schools of economics, save the few libertarians from the austrian school and its direct relatives. And the crooks include the neo-classical schools (that dictates the economic orthodoxy in most rich countries), and the keynesian and marxist schools (that dictate the economic orthodoxy in France and other socialist countries). No wonder why all these schools of economics produce only lies, in the form of deceitful statistics and bogus assumptions smuggled under the veil of meaningless mathematics.

If mathematical models were to be used at all in economic science, we would need non-deterministic models, replacing (neo)classical economics with quantum economics. And then we'd find that we're not able to even imagine the Feynman diagrams of all possible interactions over which to integrate our economic functions, because the relevant interactions that will take place between agents are precisely those based upon information that others don't have, including the person trying to build the model.

PS: Oh yes, one particular crook from the top of the Establishment just called me ridiculous for rejecting the results of so many scientific studies based on empiricism. You may find more about the fraud that is empiricism in social sciences by reading e.g. Hoppe, whom you may hear in this course.

Is it possible that Political Power be used in the interest of Liberty? Yes, sometimes it just does happen. Does that imply that on the whole, Political Power is good? Nope. But before you may reply to this kind of question, you have to be familiar with economic reasoning, as opposed to accounting fallacies. Then you will understand that before it may be answered, the question has to be refined: good as compared to what?

J'interromps vos programmes habituels pour vous rappeler qu'aujourd'hui, nous commémorons la façon dont l'Etat nous protège de la mort violente par des criminels. Dieu-L'Etat notre sauveur. C'est clair, sans l'Etat, ce serait l'anarchie.

Since several friends did recommend this movie, including David Madore, and despite the gripes of Lew Rockwell, I went to watch I, Robot this weekend with my cousin. As was expected, it is quite far from being an immortal chef d'œuvre, but it's indeed a rather well-realized action flick. However, it is only in the very end, and with a twist, that it turns out to be somewhat faithful to the claimed inspiration from Isaac Asimov, and not at all with the original Robot series. Beware: big spoilers ahead.

I am relieved to announce the release of Economic Reasoning vs Accounting Fallacies -- The Case of "Public" Research. This is the translation to English of my 2003 article Raisonnement économique contre sophismes comptables -- Le cas de la recherche « publique ». Many thanks to Bruno and Johan for their help in translating. Please feel free to comment on the expression as well as on the ideas.

Rich people without particular talent paying for their entry in university do not do it to the detriment of less fortunate people; on the contrary, by subsidizing university, they make it cheaper for other people. Not only don't they take university away from the poor, they create university for the poor, and pull up the whole education system to everyone's benefit.

Yet, static thinkers often criticize liberty in education because it would ``favor the rich to the detriment of the poor''. Once again, they see society as a static zero-sum game of distribution without ever considering the dynamic nature of creation and destruction. They think about a choice they don't have -- switching with a rich man -- which is but plain jealousy, and use it to justify a criminal choice that leads but to more poverty: forceful intervention.

Darn, if education is of any value (to you), then what the hell could money serve to, if not buy you a better education?

One of the most frequent fallacy amongst statists is the fallacy of dynamic contradiction. The reason being that statists don't understand dynamics: they indulge in accounting fallacies.

A lot of nevrotic behaviour is related to this accounting tendency of assigning blame and praise for past facts, where there should be economic reasoning of allocating resources to some or some other future alternative.

Could anyone make a first pass at translating my article raisonnement économique contre sophismes comptables ("economic reasoning vs accounting fallacies")? The more I discuss with various people, the more I realize that the difference is not clear to them.

Elle: Est couvert qui peut payer ?
Moi: Non. Couvre qui peut payer.
Elle: ??

I first heard of Clay Shirky through Slashdot, with his article The Case Against Micropayments. But actually, I like all his articles. This guy has a lot of insight, and his approach of problems is definitely of the same kind as for austrian economists: taking information costs into account.

Après un (trop long) voyage en automobile de Metz à Paris, voici quelques miennes ruminations sur l'automobile...

mood: blah

music: Jacques Brel - La valse à mille temps

Au cours d'une conversation, un ami m'affirme que Si 80% des anglais sont prêts à combattre Hitler, grâce à l'État, les 20% restant devront contribuer aussi; et c'est 20% d'efficacité supplémentaire pour la bonne cause. Bien. C'est ce qu'on voit. Comme d'habitude, Le problème c'est tout ce qu'on ne voit pas.

I've once written an article about Microkernels, where I denounce them as being mostly an intellectual fraud.

Someone from the internet (possibly a random student doing homework) sent a mail to me and Jonathan Shapiro asking whether a Kernel was faster than a Microkernel. Here is what I replied.

[Darn, I didn't insist enough on the whole kernel/microkernel issue being irrelevant in the face of the overwhelming issue of the structuration of the higher-level system components. And about the solution being of course no kernel and expressive contracting between components instead. Reminds me of the metaphor of system as society and kernel as government: no one needs a government; everyone needs an expressive market of property rights.]

L'étatisme est fondé sur la croyance superstitieuse en l'État, entité divine abstraite incarnée dans l'Administration transsusbtantiée, et donnant une âme à la société. À ce titre, il est la version moderne de la superstition primitive en un Dieu incarné par l'Église et donnant une âme au monde.

Or, l'État -- principe de coercition dans les rapports humains -- est véritablement l'antithèse de la Société -- principe de coopération entre les hommes. Partout où l'État avance, la Société recule. Nous l'allons illustrer tout-à-l'heure.

Vraiment, la politique n'a rien à voir avec la redistribution. La redistribution n'est qu'un paravent pseudo-moral pour justifier le pouvoir politique; ce n'est que la couverture d'un jeu de dupe. La nature réelle de la politique, c'est d'écraser les uns pour leur imposer la volonté des autres.