25Apr2013 09:30 CDT
Doug just finished reading Robert J. Samuelson's Washington Post article titled 'The Rogoff/Reinhart Brawl.' Doug had just read a 24Apr2013 KWN blog by John Embry titled 'Panic in Gold Market Creating Problems for Shorts' which stimulated Doug to search for <Rogoff Reinhart> thus finding Samuelson's article. Doug agrees with Embry and Samuelson in spite of their innate dialectical predilections.
What Doug found most interesting in Samuelson's article is a simple 'state-ment,' which we might hermeneut as an interrogative, by him: "It's, 'austerity versus stimulus.(?)' "
Doug isn't an economist and doesn't even pretend to be one. Doug's quantum 'normalcy bias' is that 'Keynesians are morons.' Why? They are died in wool dialecticians. Too, TBTF cartels, banks, interventionalists, and socialist governments. Doug knows, 'That sounds Austrian.' Agree.
Doug's abductive (Peircean) thought begs Samuelson's statement as an interrogative thus, according Peirce, emerscing quite naturally and phase~mentally (phasementing via quantum~complamentality) a multitude of apparent hypotheses as answers. Imagine doing a phase-time 3D antinomial hyper~phasemental exegesis of 'austerity' and 'stimulus,' like this one for Au and Ag. Thanks to a ZH™ blog for that link. Doug - 2May2013.
Guided by that series of heuristics, we can complamentally view Austrian economics antinomially (somewhat akin Samuelson's use of 'versus' except quantonically, 'not' dialectically). If that is acceptable to you, then we can say Austrian Economics (AE) comes in many phasemental flavors two of which are fairly general: AEc and AEq. That is AE~classical and AE-quantum. Quantum versus classical as: quantum antinomial classical. Doug is simply making a point that we can view Austrian economics using dialectic (classical) and complementarity (quantum). We can offer two omniffering views via exercise of two omniffering mindsets: classical vis-à-vis quantum.
OK then, almost everyone does it (thingks fundumbmentally) classically. What happens when we look at 'austerity versus stimulus' quantumly? Antinomially with quantum~complementarity emphasized?
When we do that both austerity and stimulus are treated as quantons. They can then inherit many quantum attributes like self~other~: ~everywhere~associativity, ~middle~inclusion, ~recursion, ~mutability, ~adaptability, ~transmutative~evolution via quantization~scintillationings' chancings, choosings, and changings, etc. Essene~tially, we stop looking at austerity and stimulus as dead dialectical-objects, and start looking at austerity and stimulus as living quantum~processes. We start an ostentation (literally, a quantum: 'stretching out of our view;' colloquially, 'taking off our eyemuffs') that austerity coobsfects stimulus and stimulus coobsfects austerity. Even more extreme, due these two quantons' quantum~complementarity of one another, we can ostense austerity is ihn stimulus and stimulus is ihn austerity, "without contradiction."
Doug is taking this approach as an applied exemplar of what he learned in his attempts to antinomially fathom both chaos and equilibria quantumly. Doug is applying quantonics strategically (extending Samuelson's more classical usage) to both austerity and stimulus.
What did Doug learn about chaos and equilibria? They are coobsfective quantum~complements of one another. Clearly, Doug is using that learning on austerity and stimulus: quanton(austerity,stimulus), akin quanton(chaos,equilibria).
What else did Doug learn? Key, a core standingunder that harmony is productive. When chaos and equilibria are harmonious, good (better) happens.
When austerity and stimulus are harmonious, good (better) happens.
Too much chaos? Use equilibra antinomially to reduce chaos and increase equilibria. Too much equilibria? Use chaos antinomially to reduce equilibria and increase chaos.
Keep in mind that too much stimulus means too much growth. Harmony demands a slowing (intentional) of growth. Growth is antinomial contraction: quanton(growth,contraction).
Key here: to achieve harmony we need both antinomials as moderators and mediators of one another! Focusing on just one has an unintended consequence of bubbling it, unmediated by its ignored complement(ings).
Real Austrian Economists would denigrate Doug for 'not' doing antinomials on 'what kind of stimulus?' and 'what kind of growth?' Doug deserves that denigration. We want Value stimulus and Value growth. We do not want fiat debt driven consumptive growth and stimuli. For those kinds of comparisons (antinomial complementarities) see Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Latter is more quantum (via his subjective stochastics), but n¤t quantum there yet.
Doug - 25Apr2013.