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.

So these halfwits say that rational people ought to be bayesian. Sure. But bayesian about just what? By imposing not the right a priori probability distribution (that will eventually be fixed by experience) but the right descriptional paradigm, the right "meta-context", memetic parasites can have even "bayesian" people believe a lot of nonsense; just propose as "independent" facts on which to be bayesians things that are not so independent after all -- by bombarding readers with systematically biased data to evaluate, you will easily tip their opinions toward the direction of your choice; and they don't even have to choose "right" rather than "wrong" -- they only have to accept your problematics, your choice of data to evaluate. That's where Solomonoff induction comes into play.

Selon les néo-classiques, keynésiens et autres marxistes, une redistribution pure n'altérerait pas les processus créatifs, tout en permettant de s'approcher de leur pseudo-idéal égalitariste matérialiste de richesse également répartie. Or, il n'y a de redistribution pure que dans leurs modèles déconnectés des réalités humaines les plus élémentaires. Dans la pratique, ces slogans servent à justifier des interventions arbitraires, en faveur des causes défendues par l'intelligentsia (ipso facto sélectionnée par l'adéquation de ces causes à ses intérêts), et au détriment de toutes les autres, à commencer par celles dénoncées par cette même intelligentsia (avec là encore une pression de sélection correspondante).

Bien sûr, même quand par quelque miraculeuse sainteté, les décisionnaires sont intéressés par la satisfaction des membres du public, toute intervention empêchera les calculs économétriques ou les rendra non pertinents à mesure même de son ampleur, privant ainsi ces décisionnaires de tout moyen de décision rationnelle. Non seulement la politisation détruit les moyens d'expression par les individus de leurs préférences réelles (la liberté du choix), mais elle corrompt ces préférences mêmes, en détruisant les moyens d'apprentissage de ces préférences (la responsabilité du choix). En fin de compte, les détenteurs du pouvoir argueront que tous les choix se valent, -- entendu pourvu que ce soit les leurs, -- et le seul argument qu'ils pourront en fin de compte faire valoir sera: la force brute. La dynamique ainsi mise en place dans le peuple sera que chacun fera des efforts dans le sens de moins de spoliation à son détriment, et davantage de spoliation à son profit, -- tous efforts qui seront autant de richesse détruite, autant de soumission à un ordre extérieur imposé contre la volonté des individus concernés, autant de souffrances. -- et un peuple de tricheurs, de menteurs, d'hypocrites, de voleurs et d'assassins professant l'altruisme, pratiquant l'égotisme le plus étriqué.

I am not a Libertarian. At least not in the sense argued against by Daniel C. Dennett in chapter 4 his book Freedom Evolves.

If economics has to have any future as a science, it will probably be as Quantum Economics: a science describing human interrelations in terms of uncertain discrete transactions, where information matters, where it has a value and a cost; where it is acquired by interaction, and used by interaction; where it is unknown until the interaction happens, and where it is uncertain when the interaction will happen and what it will be, but where it is certain that the interaction will eventually happen, leading to an inevitable according reduction of the packet wave.