------ Econometric Data -----
* World Data:
- Penn World Table
http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt_index.php
The new page (Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business):
https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/productivity/pwt/
- IMF Data Mapper
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
- Penn Center for International Development at Harvard University (CID)
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/ciddata/ciddata.html
- eurostat, Data Base
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
- Gleditsch and Ward, ‘Minimum Distance Data // Kristian Skrede Gleditsch ‘(2001)
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~ksg/mindist.html
- Penn Actualités du CEPII, Geodesic Distances’
http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/distances.htm
- CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing :: Area
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2147.html
- MarineWaypoints.com - Great Circle Distance Calculator
http://www.marinewaypoints.com/learn/greatcircle.shtml
- Paul Hensel's General International Data Page
http://www.paulhensel.org/dataintl.html
- Happy Planet Index
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/
- OECD Statistics
http://www.oecd.org/statistics/
* UK and Scottish Data:
- Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics
http://www.sns.gov.uk/
- nomis - official labour market statistics
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/
- General Register Office for Scotland (GROS)
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/
------ Philosophy and Law ------
* Project Gutenberg (Public Domains):
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
* Max Stirner
- Egoism:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
- Max Stirner (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/
* Jeremy Bentham
- An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
http://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/index.html
- A Fragment on Government
http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/bentham/government.htm
- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/bentham.html
* Jean Jacques Rousseau
- THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
* Matthew Arnold
- Culture and Anarchy
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4212/pg4212.html
* Charles de Montesquieu
- The Spirit of Laws
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-02.htm
-- The Spirit of Laws
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_01.htm
* J. S. Mill
- A System of Logic
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=daQAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+System+of+Logic&source=bl&ots=_ObnctNc3D&sig=1YQntmmSeX6wmta0QRzQiOwa3NI&hl=en&ei=IDYjTZ35HMq2hQfwxpW4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
* Erik Olin Wright
- http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/
* Adolf Hitler
- Mein Kampf:
http://magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.htm
* Egoism
- Rational Egoism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#3
- Rational The Ego and His Own: Introduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiyxnxId_4&feature=related
- Stirner on Egoism vs. Immorality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF4pyh5KESs
* Law
- A Primer on the Civil-Law System
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/CivilLaw.pdf/$file/CivilLaw.pdf
- Wikipedia, Comparative law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_law
- Wikipedia, Civil law (legal system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29
- Wikipedia, Equity (law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29
- Wikipedia, Custom (law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law
* Russian New Year Tradition Movie:
- The Irony Of Fate
http://video.kylekeeton.com/2008/12/russian-video-new-year-tradition-movie.html
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Reading list of articles on line
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
The oil price inflation is over exaggerated!
As there is still a plenty inventory of oil enough to calm the stagflation down
all the investors are just over-anticipating the bad news in the future.
That is why the oil price is rising, but this price rise will be just temporary.
Therefore, we should not be confused between the fake shock and the real shock.
According to the commentator on this video clip, the current oil price shock is the fake shock.
I would recommend not to react against the current shock on the oil price.
The oil price will goes down after a while.
My concern is that the reactions toward this shock (e.g. the interest rate hike due to the expected inflation caused by this oil price shock) themselves will induce another economic recession.
The controlling inflation is a top priority of any monetary policy so that the reaction toward the current fear of the oil price inflation itself (raising the interest rate) is right.
However, the monetary policy has to re-set the interest rate down soon as the "temporary" price shock calms down in order to avoid the recession caused by the excessly high interest rate undermining a healthy economic recovery.
Hense, I recommend you neither to intend to purchase the oil in the forward rate agreement nor to buy the share related to the oil industry in the forward rate agreement.
Otherwise, you are predicted to make a loss in the trade.
all the investors are just over-anticipating the bad news in the future.
That is why the oil price is rising, but this price rise will be just temporary.
Therefore, we should not be confused between the fake shock and the real shock.
According to the commentator on this video clip, the current oil price shock is the fake shock.
I would recommend not to react against the current shock on the oil price.
The oil price will goes down after a while.
My concern is that the reactions toward this shock (e.g. the interest rate hike due to the expected inflation caused by this oil price shock) themselves will induce another economic recession.
The controlling inflation is a top priority of any monetary policy so that the reaction toward the current fear of the oil price inflation itself (raising the interest rate) is right.
However, the monetary policy has to re-set the interest rate down soon as the "temporary" price shock calms down in order to avoid the recession caused by the excessly high interest rate undermining a healthy economic recovery.
Hense, I recommend you neither to intend to purchase the oil in the forward rate agreement nor to buy the share related to the oil industry in the forward rate agreement.
Otherwise, you are predicted to make a loss in the trade.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Concerning Fiscal Conservativism and Keynesian, and European Integration
My friend wrote as follows (shown in Italic letters):
I'd introduce a massive, wholesae Keynesian policy, of state spending to invest in infrastructural development and to uphold demand across manufacturing and industry. Then, utilise the subsequent growth to pay down the subsequent high debt levels.
Coalition is monetarist and fiscall conservative, thus I disagree. Labour aren't real Keynesians, they just want to spend money haphazardly all over the place - thus they are even more dangerously irresponsible than the coalition. Labours non-economics would merely result in protecting vested interests.
(My comment)
Although I quote a lot of Keynesian analysis, I am monetary and fiscal conservative. There is an example: One of the reason why I say is that I often refer to the "liquidity trap" mentioned by Keynesian analysis to reject the "hypowered money" mentioned by the one type of monetarists.
By the way, your theory faces on the contradiction:
(1) You support liberal economism,
(2) you support Keynesian policy,
(3) you support the European Monetary and Fiscal integration,
(4) you support the Federalism in the European Union level
(5) then you support Human right in the European Unionism
Then, (4)+(3)+(2) contradicts (1),
although (2) or (2) + (3) itself does not necessarily contradicts (1) if it is in a smaller scale.
If I were supporting your policy, I would add
(6) Abolition or minimisation of trade unions in the EU (at least to the US level), and setting minimum wage at the level of the most deprived EU member country.
and
(7) strong Fascist social policy intervention to enforce to replace the national governments with the branch local authorities of the European Federal government and to eliminate the enermies and the social defectors who disrupt the smooth European integration under the federal rule.
But if you add all up from (1) to (7), you MUST subtract (5) to accomplish all the rests.
If German 3rd empire had conquelled the whole Europe, the true and stable united Europe would have been established.
The current speed of the both economic and social European integration is too slow and too unstable!
At least, Britain should keep away from the wave of this danger...
I'd introduce a massive, wholesae Keynesian policy, of state spending to invest in infrastructural development and to uphold demand across manufacturing and industry. Then, utilise the subsequent growth to pay down the subsequent high debt levels.
Coalition is monetarist and fiscall conservative, thus I disagree. Labour aren't real Keynesians, they just want to spend money haphazardly all over the place - thus they are even more dangerously irresponsible than the coalition. Labours non-economics would merely result in protecting vested interests.
(My comment)
Although I quote a lot of Keynesian analysis, I am monetary and fiscal conservative. There is an example: One of the reason why I say is that I often refer to the "liquidity trap" mentioned by Keynesian analysis to reject the "hypowered money" mentioned by the one type of monetarists.
By the way, your theory faces on the contradiction:
(1) You support liberal economism,
(2) you support Keynesian policy,
(3) you support the European Monetary and Fiscal integration,
(4) you support the Federalism in the European Union level
(5) then you support Human right in the European Unionism
Then, (4)+(3)+(2) contradicts (1),
although (2) or (2) + (3) itself does not necessarily contradicts (1) if it is in a smaller scale.
If I were supporting your policy, I would add
(6) Abolition or minimisation of trade unions in the EU (at least to the US level), and setting minimum wage at the level of the most deprived EU member country.
and
(7) strong Fascist social policy intervention to enforce to replace the national governments with the branch local authorities of the European Federal government and to eliminate the enermies and the social defectors who disrupt the smooth European integration under the federal rule.
But if you add all up from (1) to (7), you MUST subtract (5) to accomplish all the rests.
If German 3rd empire had conquelled the whole Europe, the true and stable united Europe would have been established.
The current speed of the both economic and social European integration is too slow and too unstable!
At least, Britain should keep away from the wave of this danger...
Friday, January 07, 2011
Currently, both the EU and the USA are against the free market principle
In terms of microeconomic point of view, the common currency is beneficial to trade between companies across the border.
Nonetheless, the common currency does not imply the free market. The beneficiality of introducing a common currency in the EU is that the trade frequency between countries in the EU is significantly higher than the USA. However, the labour mobility rate between countries in the EU is significantly lower than the US counterpart.
It is not fully proven yet whether a common currency leads the economy to have a high trade frequency and the labour mobility across the border or these factors require introducing a common currency.
If the statement "Free market demands common currency" is valid, it should be that both the trade frequency and the labour mobility have been high before a common currency is introduced, and then a common currency should be introduced afterward. However, if the reason to introduce the common currency is to "expect" the trade frequency and the labour mobility to become high after introducing the currency, the aspect does not fulfill the natural mechanism of the free market. Under the free market, needs induce the supply; expectations are not necessarily relevant to induce the supply.
Under the current European situation, although the aggregate level of trade frequency across the border is high there are a few countries which do not fulfill the condition such as Ireland and Greece. Furthermore, there is a huge barrier of introducing a common currency under the free market principle which is the labour mobility. If the EU situation is that the free market demands the Euro, the labour mobilty should have been much higher than what the EU has got.
All in all, I would like to strongly put emphasis on the statement that both the EU and the USA do not hold their own single currency used among their own states or countries inside them due to the free-marketism.
For example, as a matter of fact, the USA should abandon the single currency system and her federal government interaction into her market if she wants a free market! The US market has a significantly lower trade frequency across the borders between her countries than the EU and Asian economic regions. The current US situation craves for the strong federal planned economic intervention in order to stick these individual states with being the United States of America!!
In order to accomplish to estabilish a free market system, abolition of nation states is necessary in order to allow all individual regions to become free from any planned economic intevention. Overall, nationalism and unionism never go well together with a free market! "Anarch-Capitalism" is only the answer to support free market!!
Nonetheless, the common currency does not imply the free market. The beneficiality of introducing a common currency in the EU is that the trade frequency between countries in the EU is significantly higher than the USA. However, the labour mobility rate between countries in the EU is significantly lower than the US counterpart.
It is not fully proven yet whether a common currency leads the economy to have a high trade frequency and the labour mobility across the border or these factors require introducing a common currency.
If the statement "Free market demands common currency" is valid, it should be that both the trade frequency and the labour mobility have been high before a common currency is introduced, and then a common currency should be introduced afterward. However, if the reason to introduce the common currency is to "expect" the trade frequency and the labour mobility to become high after introducing the currency, the aspect does not fulfill the natural mechanism of the free market. Under the free market, needs induce the supply; expectations are not necessarily relevant to induce the supply.
Under the current European situation, although the aggregate level of trade frequency across the border is high there are a few countries which do not fulfill the condition such as Ireland and Greece. Furthermore, there is a huge barrier of introducing a common currency under the free market principle which is the labour mobility. If the EU situation is that the free market demands the Euro, the labour mobilty should have been much higher than what the EU has got.
All in all, I would like to strongly put emphasis on the statement that both the EU and the USA do not hold their own single currency used among their own states or countries inside them due to the free-marketism.
For example, as a matter of fact, the USA should abandon the single currency system and her federal government interaction into her market if she wants a free market! The US market has a significantly lower trade frequency across the borders between her countries than the EU and Asian economic regions. The current US situation craves for the strong federal planned economic intervention in order to stick these individual states with being the United States of America!!
In order to accomplish to estabilish a free market system, abolition of nation states is necessary in order to allow all individual regions to become free from any planned economic intevention. Overall, nationalism and unionism never go well together with a free market! "Anarch-Capitalism" is only the answer to support free market!!
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Land tax is both fair and progressive
Income tax is progressive i.e. an effective tax collecting method if we consider about the marginal propensity to consume and save.
But, it has a high risk to disturb "equity" (synonym of fairness).
It discourages the wealth accumulation by hard working and penalises those who bring an income and/or a talent into that economic region.
The most effective tax is on "land"! Land is a common good and its externality such as pollution and over-population is high contiguous to the others.
Furthermore, land based tax is effective to control the business cycle more than income tax.
Income earners may earn their income in a particular region and spend and invest it in outside this region. Therefore, the effect of income tax is contigent to areas which are not accountable to controlling a business cycle of a particular region.
In addition, the means of production of income is a combination their working effort and a reward from investment. Income tax simply means to penalise working effort and investment. Therefore, income tax has a risk to stagnate the economic productivity.
By contrast, if some one uses a land, it simply means s/he utilises the value of this land. People can utilise to live in a household on it, earn income in the firm on it, and invest into a property on it. These activities also contain working effort and beneficiality of investment. However, unlike income tax, people utilise land to do these activities. These activities can cause pollution, over-population, and business cycle overhear or slump. Furthermore, the means of land tax is hardly contiguous because it directly burdens taxes on the land where the economic activity is derived from. All in all, the land tax accounts on the "equity" of utlising and costing it. Thus, it fulfils the condition of "equity" i.e. fairness.
In addition, land tax can be not only fair but also progressive. High income earners are more able to buy and keep the land with a high value and/or high costs than the rest. Then, land tax is able to tax in proportion to the marginal propensity to saving (In terms of the absolute income hypothesis, consumption of permanent items such as households and lands and investment are considered as a part of saving).
P.S.
I support abolition of taxes on consumption such as sales tax and VAT.
As long as the price elasticity of demand is low, it is a fair indirect taxation because individuals pay as they use.
It is regressive but fairer than the inflation tax (High inflation)
Nonetheless, tax on consumption stagnates economic active level because it harms not only on consumers but also producers. If the price elastiicity of demand is high, then the penalty on producers is much higher than on consumers. Therefore, it is NOT FAIR because it pernalises those who increase the sum of utility among individuals!
Tax on consumption is highly contiguous to those who are not accountable to pay the tax. As we know this tax is not able to control over business cycle and burdens those from outside the economic regions where this taxation exists. Therefore, it disturbs the business cycle and causes moral hazard of taxation (Those who are not responsible for the tax also pay tax!).
Corporations which have a high volume of export gain a high volume of tax rebate. This fact discourages small businesses, creates a barrier for new firms to get into the market, and reduces the internal aggregate demand.
But, it has a high risk to disturb "equity" (synonym of fairness).
It discourages the wealth accumulation by hard working and penalises those who bring an income and/or a talent into that economic region.
The most effective tax is on "land"! Land is a common good and its externality such as pollution and over-population is high contiguous to the others.
Furthermore, land based tax is effective to control the business cycle more than income tax.
Income earners may earn their income in a particular region and spend and invest it in outside this region. Therefore, the effect of income tax is contigent to areas which are not accountable to controlling a business cycle of a particular region.
In addition, the means of production of income is a combination their working effort and a reward from investment. Income tax simply means to penalise working effort and investment. Therefore, income tax has a risk to stagnate the economic productivity.
By contrast, if some one uses a land, it simply means s/he utilises the value of this land. People can utilise to live in a household on it, earn income in the firm on it, and invest into a property on it. These activities also contain working effort and beneficiality of investment. However, unlike income tax, people utilise land to do these activities. These activities can cause pollution, over-population, and business cycle overhear or slump. Furthermore, the means of land tax is hardly contiguous because it directly burdens taxes on the land where the economic activity is derived from. All in all, the land tax accounts on the "equity" of utlising and costing it. Thus, it fulfils the condition of "equity" i.e. fairness.
In addition, land tax can be not only fair but also progressive. High income earners are more able to buy and keep the land with a high value and/or high costs than the rest. Then, land tax is able to tax in proportion to the marginal propensity to saving (In terms of the absolute income hypothesis, consumption of permanent items such as households and lands and investment are considered as a part of saving).
P.S.
I support abolition of taxes on consumption such as sales tax and VAT.
As long as the price elasticity of demand is low, it is a fair indirect taxation because individuals pay as they use.
It is regressive but fairer than the inflation tax (High inflation)
Nonetheless, tax on consumption stagnates economic active level because it harms not only on consumers but also producers. If the price elastiicity of demand is high, then the penalty on producers is much higher than on consumers. Therefore, it is NOT FAIR because it pernalises those who increase the sum of utility among individuals!
Tax on consumption is highly contiguous to those who are not accountable to pay the tax. As we know this tax is not able to control over business cycle and burdens those from outside the economic regions where this taxation exists. Therefore, it disturbs the business cycle and causes moral hazard of taxation (Those who are not responsible for the tax also pay tax!).
Corporations which have a high volume of export gain a high volume of tax rebate. This fact discourages small businesses, creates a barrier for new firms to get into the market, and reduces the internal aggregate demand.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
"There is no such a thing like society" because "Human-beings are naturally social"
THERE IS NO SUCH A THING LIKE SOCIETY!!
We'd definitely better say "community" or "institution" if you want to mention the macro environment where a cohort of individuals gathers into.
Human-being is social itself. There is no such a superstitious thing called society! Therefore, human-beings are social each other, so any institute such as a state or a corporation does not need to concern about the empty meaningless superstition called society!
If any instiute enforces individuals to be social by following their vision of sociality, it fails into the oppressive totalitarian serfdom which transforms majority of individual human-beings to beasts!
Only the best alternative policy is to leave individuals and their family alone to allow them naturally social themselves. All in all, the sociability of individuals is not a business of any institute and community!
Oh, I must note that I despise Burkean philosophy so much!
Burke said the tradition is a fundamental guidance of how human-beings should live. I know Burkean theory remains some freedom and liberty, but the idea of common sense guided by tradition is a burden on progress and liberty.
Although human-beings are social, but not capable to define what is a true natural law. Aristotle did not much mention about the tradition although Aristotle is a natural law theorist. Aristotle mentioned the natural law is invisible and difficult to define. Even some academic commentators claimed that although Aristotle said virture is a significant factor of human-beings he has never indicated virture as a moral objective.
By contrast, Burke seemed to insist that virture is an objective and derived from the tradition. But, using tradition as a moral guide line is a dangerous idea. As Bentham said the moral guide line should exist for the future not the past. Tradition, i.e. the past experience, might have been functional in the past, but never 100% significantly functional in the future. This guide line is not able to the existence level and the future optimum level of the pleasure and the pain for individuals. We are able to regress some past data sets and experiences to construct our future plan, but there is always an error in them! The errors derived from psychological senses and indoctrinating moral entreneurs should be omitted by civil action and people's party!
All in all, I declair to say that I am strongly against the statement "Society is the only true state of nature, and reason is to be conducted within tradition". Only the thing whose reason is to be conducted within tradition is a mal-functional guidance of miss-used moral entrepreneurship. It is waste of time to define society as there is no such a thing like society: There are only individuals and their family...!
We'd definitely better say "community" or "institution" if you want to mention the macro environment where a cohort of individuals gathers into.
Human-being is social itself. There is no such a superstitious thing called society! Therefore, human-beings are social each other, so any institute such as a state or a corporation does not need to concern about the empty meaningless superstition called society!
If any instiute enforces individuals to be social by following their vision of sociality, it fails into the oppressive totalitarian serfdom which transforms majority of individual human-beings to beasts!
Only the best alternative policy is to leave individuals and their family alone to allow them naturally social themselves. All in all, the sociability of individuals is not a business of any institute and community!
Oh, I must note that I despise Burkean philosophy so much!
Burke said the tradition is a fundamental guidance of how human-beings should live. I know Burkean theory remains some freedom and liberty, but the idea of common sense guided by tradition is a burden on progress and liberty.
Although human-beings are social, but not capable to define what is a true natural law. Aristotle did not much mention about the tradition although Aristotle is a natural law theorist. Aristotle mentioned the natural law is invisible and difficult to define. Even some academic commentators claimed that although Aristotle said virture is a significant factor of human-beings he has never indicated virture as a moral objective.
By contrast, Burke seemed to insist that virture is an objective and derived from the tradition. But, using tradition as a moral guide line is a dangerous idea. As Bentham said the moral guide line should exist for the future not the past. Tradition, i.e. the past experience, might have been functional in the past, but never 100% significantly functional in the future. This guide line is not able to the existence level and the future optimum level of the pleasure and the pain for individuals. We are able to regress some past data sets and experiences to construct our future plan, but there is always an error in them! The errors derived from psychological senses and indoctrinating moral entreneurs should be omitted by civil action and people's party!
All in all, I declair to say that I am strongly against the statement "Society is the only true state of nature, and reason is to be conducted within tradition". Only the thing whose reason is to be conducted within tradition is a mal-functional guidance of miss-used moral entrepreneurship. It is waste of time to define society as there is no such a thing like society: There are only individuals and their family...!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)