Author: Curt Doolittle

  • READING: WHY MALTHUS

    http://lindert.econ.ucdavis.edu/seminars/papers/WuLeminJMPMalthusianConstancy.pdfWORTH READING: WHY MALTHUS


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-23 13:42:00 UTC

  • LEFT COULD NOT WIN THE PEOPLE – SO IT IMPORTED THEM AND DESTROYED THE CONSTITUTI

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.htmlTHE LEFT COULD NOT WIN THE PEOPLE – SO IT IMPORTED THEM AND DESTROYED THE CONSTITUTION, AND OUR CIVILIZATION

    Most of this has happened during my lifetime. The left could not win the hearts and minds of the people. It had to change the meaning of words. Make bads into goods, and goods into bads. It had to immigrate millions. It had to undermined the rule of law, destroy the constitution, and destroy the rights of states.

    All in pursuit of creating a democratic socialist utopia.

    It won’t take until 2050. I wrote in 2002, that it would only take until 2020, or 2025 at the longest. The only choice that the ‘middle civilization’ has against the immigrant coasts and the rust belt, is to secede. And since that won’t happen. The left will have won. And the continent will be lost, by the time those entering school graduate.

    THE LEFT HAS WON.

    A) Immigration of the third world.

    B) Feminism, and the anti-family left.

    THE LEFT HAS WON.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-23 10:49:00 UTC

  • GOOD REASONS WHY HOMESCHOOLING IS AWESOME

    http://childrensmd.org/uncategorized/why-doctors-and-lawyers-homeschool-their-children-18-reasons-why-we-have-joined-americas-fastest-growing-educational-trend/EIGHTEEN GOOD REASONS WHY HOMESCHOOLING IS AWESOME


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-22 07:18:00 UTC

  • REWRITING ECONOMIC HISTORY TO INCLUDE R&D. Finally. FInally we’re getting our ec

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/we-are-essentially-rewriting-economic-history.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FKupd+(Economist’s+View)FINALLY: REWRITING ECONOMIC HISTORY TO INCLUDE R&D.

    Finally. FInally we’re getting our economic data updated. Now, if they’d just do the same with household income data, we might have a worthwhile set of data to work from.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-22 07:16:00 UTC

  • THE STATE VS GOD I’m not really sure how a bureaucracy run by human beings under

    THE STATE VS GOD

    I’m not really sure how a bureaucracy run by human beings under the auspices of the common good, is any different under the state theocracy or the religious theocracy.

    They’re both bureaucratic monopolies, and bureaucratic monopolies are made of human beings with human incentives. The bigger a bureaucracy gets the fewer of its members are elites and the more of them are average people who are insulated from the competition of the market and increasingly act like they are insulated from the competition of the market.

    And if history is any measure, a weak federal church is a lot less warlike and oppressive than a strong federal legislature.

    I mean, the data is the data.

    The state is worse than the church.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-22 00:34:00 UTC

  • FUTURE OF EUROPE IS GERMANY AND RUSSIA – OR IRRELEVANCE. The catholic countries

    http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire/THE FUTURE OF EUROPE IS GERMANY AND RUSSIA – OR IRRELEVANCE.

    The catholic countries are dead weights.

    As a political economist, I will have to say, in technical terms, this article is utter nonsense.

    Strategically the best scenario, long term, for Europe, is a strong Germany allied with a strong Russia. Catholic Europe is a basket case and will remain so, because the family is the economic unit and the moral boundary, and corruption is pervasive for this reason. Germanic countries treat the individual as the economic unit, and the entire society as the moral boundary, with the family responsible for manufacturing good citizens. This is why these cultures are so much less corrupt that the catholic cultures.

    An ongoing ‘euro’ project that allows political rather than economic dependency of the southern states will leave a weak Germany, and an expansionist russia.

    Why the past, whose economics are completely irrelevant today, should be what europeans fear, rather than a future wehre the USA is no longer economically able to police world trade and therefore grant Europe client state privileges. The only solution for Europe is integration of european labor with Russian resources and russian militarism.

    I’m happy to argue this with any economist in the world., But the fact of the matter is, that any economist in the world able to argue it, will probably agree with me.

    The catholic countries are irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. The problem is natural resources, economic interdependence with Russia, and the slow conversion of the catholic and byzantine states to credible commercial economies, dependent upon the alliance of the two countries capable of producing competitive goods and services.

    http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-21 13:56:00 UTC

  • Measurable Planetary Boundary for the Biosphere Steven W. Running Forty years ag

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6101/1458.summaryA Measurable Planetary Boundary for the Biosphere

    Steven W. Running

    Forty years ago, Meadows et al. published a landmark first analysis of global limits to human activity (1). Based on a primitive computer model of the Earth system, they concluded that by the early decades of the 21st century, tangible limits to key global resources would begin to emerge. A reanalysis of the original results in 2008 found that the original global resource depletion projections were remarkably accurate (2). Since then, Rockström et al. (3) have defined a new term—planetary boundaries—to describe nine variables of high importance to habitability of Earth, including climate change, ocean acidification, land-use change, and biodiversity loss. These metrics are compelling conceptually, but many are not easily measured globally; explicitly defining a critical boundary is even more challenging. I suggest a new planetary boundary, terrestrial net primary (plant) production (NPP), that may be as compelling conceptually, integrates many of the currently defined variables, and is supported by an existing global data set for defining boundaries.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-21 13:34:00 UTC

  • Should The Personal Socio-political Views Of Individuals Working At A Company Dissuade Potential Job Applicants If They Disagree With Those Beliefs?

    REALITY:
    People organize.  They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, . 

    When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association.  They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.

    As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.

    For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.

    There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo.  There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation.  It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.

    This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along.  Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers. 

    While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into  a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern). 

    I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others.  THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you.  If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place.  And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs

  • Should The Personal Socio-political Views Of Individuals Working At A Company Dissuade Potential Job Applicants If They Disagree With Those Beliefs?

    REALITY:
    People organize.  They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, . 

    When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association.  They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.

    As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.

    For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.

    There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo.  There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation.  It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.

    This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along.  Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers. 

    While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into  a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern). 

    I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others.  THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you.  If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place.  And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs

  • What Advantages Or Disadvantages Do Social Media Contribute To The Educational Development Or Problems Among Our Youth Today?

    I don’t think the concept of ‘problem’ makes a great deal of sense in this context – or at least I’m not sure what you are referring to.  Our world changes.  Agrarianism, organized religion, government, literacy, industrialization, and even electric light, have had a dramatic impact on people’s lives.  We are always in a state of change.  I don’t see this as a ‘problem’ unless it creates some outcome or other that is demonstrably a material ‘bad’ that we can measure. And I have a problem seeing social media as anything other than a free market for information that is not impeded by organized mysticism or organized statism.

    I think that the way we educate children in schools could easily be described as prisons, where we subject them to artificially exaggerated social stresses because they interact with too few adults and do so in abnormal circumstances. We artificially induce extended childhoods, and delay the onset of mature adulthood.  This not only causes absurd stresses but creates alienation from the nuclear family that would normally provide the adaptive environment that creates the calm, confident and healthy mind. So, we create  alienation as a systemic condition in society.  (Childhood as we understand it is a recent invention. And probably a bad one.)

    I think that social media provides a form of competition against this destructive environment, that reduces alienation.  And that the internet in general, provides so much information, that it is possible for children to find membership in groups regardless of locale. 

    So I think the argument is that school is the problem of alienation and we see social media providing a solution to alienation, and that some of us would prefer that such alienation did not need to be mollified by social media, and instead a healthy individual was developed inside of the nuclear family.  But the problem here is not social media. It is education and the incentive for two parent incomes that make possible our intergenerational redistribution.

    So, the net is, that social media, and the interenet in general, are net goods.  The problem is everything else.

    https://www.quora.com/What-advantages-or-disadvantages-do-social-media-contribute-to-the-educational-development-or-problems-among-our-youth-today