Let me red pill you on time preference real quick, goy.
If you're looking for a TLDR, it's that demand for instant gratification destroys civilization when you have a hyper-inclusive mass democracy.
If you're looking for a more nuanced explanation, read on.
A lot of people don't want to talk about economics until after we've solved some political problems, but there is one economic topic in which there appears to be near-universal interest: time preference. Time preference is relevant to solving political problems because drops in the rate of societal time preference facilitate the process of civilization, and because each new political problem is caused by and results in the implementation of public policies which result in higher rates of societal time preference, the effects of which manifest as higher rates of crime, drug abuse, divorce, single motherhood, sexual degeneracy, mistrust, rent-seeking, laziness, etc.
After all, the higher one's rate of time preference, the more tolerant and supportive they will be of the democratic redistribution of people and goods, and the more willing they will be to disregard private property norms and trespass against others.
To understand time preference, we must also understand the action axiom. The action axiom says that humans act with the expectation that their chosen action will result in less psychological discomfort, which implies that a product or service is only an economic good when psychological value is attached to it by a purposeful, human actor.
This is true a priori, though it may be necessary to point out that it's impossible to disprove the action axiom because every attempt to do so requires one to act, thus invoking it.
It is impossible to remain indifferent with regard to the passing of time. It is scarce and rivalrous. We ascribe value to it because our lives are finite and our bodies can not be in more than one place at the same time.
Time preference describes the intertemporal aspect of the action axiom which arises from the willingness to defer present gratification, or to give up some good now in exchange for an even greater good later. Economists define time preference as the premium placed on present goods over future goods, but correctly understood within the context of the action axiom, we use the term to describe our preference for taking action in the present over our preference for taking action in the future. If you expect to benefit more in the future than you would in the present by deferring present action/consumption, we would say that your rate of time preference is lower than someone who would instead prefer to forego the deferment of gratification and consume that good in the present.
In other words, if you want what you want now and you're not willing to wait, we would say that your rate of time preference is comparatively high. If you want what you want at some point in the future, we would say that your rate of time preference is comparatively low.
If you expected this article to answer that question by now, we would say that your rate of time preference is higher than that of the author's (me). We're getting there, trust me.
Sit tight.
Rates of time preference aren't static. As your supply of a particular good increases, each additional unit of that good will be employed toward a less preferred end than each previous unit in accordance with the law of diminishing marginal utility. This is true regardless of whether we're talking about bananas, bread, or money, but the utility of each unique good does not diminish at the same rate. Diminishing marginal utility only applies to homogeneous, interchangeable goods, though the rate at which marginal utility diminishes can be affected by the availability of cheaper, substitutable goods (for example, the marginal utility of horses diminished much more dramatically after automobiles hit the market).
To illustrate, let's say you have a garden full of watermelons - six of them. Your most preferred use for the first watermelon you harvest may be to eat it, if you're hungry enough. Your most preferred use for the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth watermelons may be to save them for later.
Now let's say you have an entire field of ripe watermelons -- way more than you can eat yourself before they spoil and putrefy. Your most preferred use for the first watermelon you harvest may be to eat it, if you're hungry enough. Your most preferred use for the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth watermelons may be to save them until later. It may be the case that you'd like to save more watermelons, but you don't have a lot of space in your refrigerator and you don't think you'll even eat the first six before the rest spoil. In that case, your most preferred use for all of the other unharvested watermelons may be to exchange them for something with a lower rate of diminishing marginal utility, like money.
I am.
As you can see, property ownership gives rise to economic planning and intertemporal calculation with regard to the best (most preferred) use of a particular good or supply of goods. Accordingly, rates of time preference fall as private property ownership increases. In the context of our garden example above, we can say that your time preference schedule only extended as far as you expected those six watermelons to last, and that each additional watermelon extended your time preference schedule just a little bit further into the future, thus satisfying successively less valued ends. We saw that effect become even more pronounced when our garden became a field and we were able to exchange our extra watermelons for money from which we expected to derive even more utility even later in the future.
Unabated, private property ownership (and mutually consensual exchange) will cause rates of time preference to fall and standards of living to increase. As you saw above, the exchange part is important because labor can not be divided across entire societies without it. By producing more watermelons than you could consume, you spared others the burden of having to grow watermelons, thus freeing them up to invest their time, energy, and resources in the pursuit of other ends. If someone were to bar your entry to the market by threatening to physically aggress against those who wish to do business with you, there would be no reason to produce watermelons in excess of what you can personally consume because they would just spoil and go to waste.
This would make you, your family, your potential customers, and your entire community worse off than you otherwise would have been.
Just about.
As a watermelon farmer, shrinkage (acts of theft, instances of spoilage, etc.) will sometimes reduce your available supply of watermelons, thus interrupting your time preference schedule and slowing the rate at which your time preference rate falls, but it will never REVERSE your declining rate of time preference because occurrences will be irregular and infrequent.
By contrast, government intervention occurs regularly and is always increasing in degree and scope. By regulating your production of watermelons and taxing your income in perpetuity, the government has the ability to indefinitely shift your time preference schedule forward, increase your rate of time preference, and increase the rate at which your time preference rate increases.
In reality, government intervention does occur frequently and regularly at all stages of production in every industry. This frequent and regular trespass against private property owners institutionalizes interruptions in the rate at which time preference rates fall. In all likelihood, it has probably reversed the downward trend in time preference rates, thus shifting time preference schedules forward, indefinitely rendering society more present-oriented, as evidenced by higher rates of crime, drug abuse, divorce, single motherhood, sexual degeneracy, mistrust, rent-seeking, laziness, etc.
The greater the degree of intervention (taxation, regulation, prohibition), the more pronounced the effect on rates of time preference.
It is well accepted that interest rates are an indicator of societal time preference rates. Interest rates have generally trended downward throughout most of modern history, but this trend has been punctuated by periods where interest rates were high during post-war recoveries. This makes sense because democratic wars are typically financed through fiat inflation. The decreased purchasing power of currency coupled with the atmosphere of volatility associated with post-war armistice increases future uncertainty, which makes people more present-oriented, thereby making lenders more hesitant to lend. Hesitance to lend coupled with increased demand for money means a comparatively smaller supply of available capital, which means higher prices for borrowing, i.e higher interest rates.
We can safely speculate that rates of societal time preference would have fallen more dramatically absent fiat inflation and war, but we're at a point in human history now where the government is always at war, it always intervenes at all stages of production in every industry, and it maintains monopolies on the circulation of fiat currency, thereby allowing the state to bid resources out of the economy on a whim (and on the credit of unborn children).
All of this increases future uncertainty and short-sightedness.
The state's government protected banking monopoly allows it to suppress interest rates and temporarily hide the deleterious effects of its intervention, but this temporary stopgap only makes things worse because it results in even more present-orientedness as people use the democratic process to clash with each other over the consumption of all available resources. This degree of government intervention most certainly is resulting in higher degrees of societal time preference and higher quantities of people with an inability or unwillingness to defer their desire for instant gratification.
1. Recognize and accept that time preference rates are not distributed equally across racial or ethnic groups.
Time preference and intelligence are not one and the same, but there is a strong correlation between the two because far-sightedness requires that one have the intellectual capacity to plan ahead. There is likewise a strong relationship between race and intellectual aptitude. While not indicative of the ability of all individuals within each group, there are real, discernible differences in the average levels of innate intelligence of disparate ethnic and racial groups that are not muted or erased through education or proximity to groups with higher levels of average intelligence -- especially when immigration occurs en masse as a government program.
2. Total moratorium on inbound immigration from non-white countries.
A total moratorium on all immigration would also be acceptable, at least for a period of time. This is not outside of the realm of possibility with Trump in office and populism on the rise in the west. Subsidizing the birthrates of less intelligent groups at the expense of more intelligent groups will result in greater quantities of comparatively unintelligent people and lesser quantities of comparatively intelligent people, which increases present-orientedness permanently above and beyond what is possible through institutionalized trespass alone. The continued importation of groups with comparatively low intelligence and high time preference who reliably vote for expansions of government will render our social decay completely irreversible if it isn't stopped.
3. Close the borders.
Also within the realm of possibility with Trump as president and populism on the rise in the west. Conflict over private property is maximized above and beyond what the state is capable of alone when no one is allowed to exclude anyone else. This likewise contributes to future uncertainty and present-orientedness, thus the state should put a stop to the free trespass that occurs when the production of territorial defense is monopolized and borders aren't enforced.
4. Promote and encourage the use of technologies, products, and practices that undermine the fiat inflation of central banks.
Use and keep cash (as opposed to digital fiat) whenever possible. While the cost of producing cash is low, the cost of producing digital fiat is even lower, and the existence of cash is going to be a problem for central banks who are increasingly desperate to hide monetary inflation, their dependence on which has resulted in systemic increases in present-orientedness.
Use and keep crypto-currencies. Its price is currently volatile in terms of fiat, but it allows one to hedge one's long term savings despite uncertainty with regard to the future of the dollar, thereby reducing short-sightedness. Crypto-currency is used as money in countries where the national currency has collapsed under the weight of fiat inflation and serves as a speculative investment instrument in countries where the effects of fiat inflation haven't yet destroyed the economy. The available supply of crypto-currency isn't inflated in unison with the supply of digital fiat issued by central banks, thus price inflation will tend to show up in the exchange rates between crypto and fiat as demand for the former grows relative to supply and supply of the latter grows relative to demand.
Use and keep precious metals. The argument for keeping and using crypto-currency likewise applies to precious metals except precious metals have a different set of associated advantages (like physical presence) and costs (like storage fees). Precious metals have a longer history of use as money but are harder to use as a turnkey solution to fiat inflation because their use as currency is legally prohibited by tender laws. However, that could always change as the legal tender those laws are intended to protect probably isn't long for this world.
5. Physically remove and separate those who are unwilling or incapable of respecting private property, including all illegal immigrants.
Far-sightedness must be encouraged and rewarded. This isn't possible when private property rights are extended to people who reject them; they merely become the method by which trespassers justify their trespasses and hem up their victims in red tape. These people and their families must be removed as soon as possible, and certainly before they are allowed to vote or run for office in the next democratic election.
6. Restrict suffrage and access to public office.
Free entry into democratic government as a voter or public official makes everyone into a potential expropriator, thus maximizing future uncertainty and present-orientedness. By restricting suffrage and the privilege of holding public office to net tax-paying, private property owners, the ability to expropriate will be limited to those who bear the greatest burden of its disadvantages, thus creating a powerful disincentive which deters voters and government caretakers from demanding and engaging in intervention which would otherwise increase future uncertainty.
7. Promote the abolition of regulation, especially anti-discrimination laws.
While it often sounds good in theory, regulation is used by corporate behemoths to enrich themselves at the expense of customers, competitors, and taxpayers. Regulatory capture invariably leads to cartelization of entire industries, thereby increasing price and inefficiency (and short-sightedness, by extension). Anti-discrimination laws are particularly egregious as they constitute "coerced cooperation" and forced inclusion, thus maximizing conflict and diminishing present utility of private and public property, which means a greater degree of government intervention and future uncertainty.
8. Let everyone secede. Especially the commies.
Going to war over peaceful separation will only result in future uncertainty and more short-sightedness. Allow and encourage every group to secede regardless of the basis on which it wishes to individuate, even if you expect their social order to fail post-secession. Political decentralization diminishes each government's access to material resources, thus minimizing the burden on private property owners and promoting far-sightedness and the deferment of gratification.
9. Accept that Social Security will fail.
The failure of Social Security is a mathematical inevitability. Instead of trying to remedy this situation, it should be embraced. There are not enough new taxpayers entering the workforce to pay for the retiring Boomers who are exiting it. Importing third world welfare shoppers who are a net burden to taxpayers and who have higher present-orientation than the domestic population will not solve this problem; it will exacerbate it. Other government-facilitated "social safety nets" should likewise be allowed to fail or even abolished because they destroy the incentives which otherwise form and reinforce the bonds of families and communities.
When people can depend on the government to bail them out regardless of their decisions or how they treat other people, they have less of an incentive to defer gratification or hold themselves to high standards of conduct, resulting in higher rates of crime, divorce, single motherhood, rent-seeking, etc. -- all of which stimulate increased demand for government intervention and increased present-orientation. Further, borrowing from the future to fund these programs in the present is a moral crime which increases future uncertainty and present-orientation, especially for those who are forced to repay the debt -- people who are currently children.
