Author: Curt Doolittle

  • FACEBOOK AS SOCIAL SCIENCE I love Facebook. You can sort of ask man-on-the-stree

    FACEBOOK AS SOCIAL SCIENCE

    I love Facebook. You can sort of ask man-on-the-street questions of people who are (at least reasonably) self selected for topical literacy.

    It’s like having your own really large pool of first year grad students to ask willing questions of without having to offer ten dollars a head, and getting your prof’s to promote it to their students.

    I mean really. It’s awesome. You can sort of wander from club to club commenting and chatting with people in all these rooms, and there isn’t any cover charge, and the bouncers just use harsh language.

    I love Facebook. lol.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-09 07:56:00 UTC

  • I love this country. Every soul in it. Because they think about the government,

    I love this country. Every soul in it.

    Because they think about the government, exactly like I think of all government.

    Thirty seven flavors of Baskin Robbins Ice Cream? How about 230 flavors of government corruption.

    LOL


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-09 07:32:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS OF FEMALE REJECTION The emotional cost of rejecting someone an attempt

    ECONOMICS OF FEMALE REJECTION

    The emotional cost of rejecting someone an attempt at seduction is higher than the emotional cost of rejecting someone for attempting to obtain attention by gifts. The first is a rejection of the individual, the second a rejection of the individual that is attributable to the thing.

    LOL. Women are fascinating creatures.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-09 03:27:00 UTC

  • Despite The Obvious Differences In Cultural Work Ethic Between American And Chinese Workers, Why Has America Remained The Most Productive Nation Per Worker In The World?

    The chinese will lose their Work Ethic just like American Ethnicity and People and Japanese, when enough of them are in the Middle Class (social class) and urbanized that they no longer fear going back to the farm – where real hard work must be done.
    🙂

    https://www.quora.com/Despite-the-obvious-differences-in-cultural-work-ethic-between-American-and-Chinese-workers-why-has-America-remained-the-most-productive-nation-per-worker-in-the-world

  • INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTS: BELIEFS, NORMS, and FORMAL INSTITUTIONS 1) A BELIEF is

    INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTS: BELIEFS, NORMS, and FORMAL INSTITUTIONS

    1) A BELIEF is adhered to as a demonstration of PREFERENCE – even if that preference is only the discount value of habits.

    2) AN INFORMAL INSTITUTION: A NORM is adhered to out of PRACTICAL utility – they are observed to obtain benefit, and avoidable at a cost.

    3) A FORMAL INSTITUTION is adhered to out of practical NECESSITY – they are unavoidable if you want to pursue your objectives.

    The differences are not arbitrary. All three systems are institutions. Those institutions differ because of the choice we possess in bearing the costs, and gaining the rewards of adhering to them.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-08 02:21:00 UTC

  • DID YOU NOTICE… That Americans are starting to look like Brits? Traipsing arou

    DID YOU NOTICE…

    That Americans are starting to look like Brits? Traipsing around the world as if the empire still existed, had influence… living off past glory?

    Before we were just wealthy well intentioned hicks.

    Now we’re declining bullying rabble.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 13:25:00 UTC

  • I”M NOT SURE THE LOGIC FOLLOWS. INSTEAD I HAVE A BETTER ANSWER FOR UKRAINE. If i

    http://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/why-should-ukrainians-care-about-intellectual-property-rights/IP? I”M NOT SURE THE LOGIC FOLLOWS. INSTEAD I HAVE A BETTER ANSWER FOR UKRAINE.

    If intellectual property rights helped countries prosper, then China would demonstrate the worst performance. But it’s just the opposite.

    Ukraine’s problems are (a) a lack of property rights in courts (b) a lack of insured identity provided by the government, (c) a lack of credit because of (a) and (b). There is a lot of sound and fury here that the government is corrupt, but the truth is, all government’s are corrupt – the USA”s included, if not spectacularly so. Systemic corruption (involuntary transfer, free riding, rent seeking, privatization of public goods, and socializing private losses) is no different from interpersonal corruption (bribery, graft) and oligarchical rent seeking and privatization – and we can argue pretty effectively that interpersonal corruption( bribery, graft) is far less harmful than systemic corruption.

    The problem in Ukraine is that the judiciary would need to be replaced, or a parallel judiciary for consumer contracts created using lawmakers from western (common law) countries. If this judiciary were married with an insurance company that people paid to prove their identity so that they could have access to credit, because credit would then be insured, then this would RAPIDLY, within three to six years, revitalize the Ukrainian state.

    WHY? Because the problem for any country is generating consumption, and consumption of complex goods requires credit. Consumption must come BEFORE production. This is a common problem, in economic understanding pervasive in all nations except perhaps for China.

    In the United States, the state acts as insurer of last resort, and will adequately find and punish people for credit crimes. (Other than identity theft which for some reason the USA is legally incompetent to solve.) In the Ukraine, the courts are too corrupt to insure consumer credit, and no government organization capable of providing insurance is sufficiently free of corruption to act as an insurer. It is quite possible that european countries could provide these services, but they have no means of extracting violators or their assets from ukraine. Therefore the only possible solution is either reform of the court against the existing Ukrainian Constitution, or creation of a parallel court, and insurance provider, so that credit from the willing west can be used to fund consumption in Ukraine. And consequently, local production can arise to meet that consumption.

    My admittedly short analysis of the progress of Ukrainian law is that lawmakers are taking adequate measures, but that the endemic corruption in the post-soviet bureaucracy, and certain cultural norms, make it impossible to ensure that citizens have property rights, that their contract rights are upheld, and that credit can be created as a tolerable risk for anyone.

    Once this system was in place, and member judges had the incentives that come with such status, it could be used to defend against the arbitrary seizure of property, and the graft and bribery that is pervasive in the country.

    But back to the original topic – it is very hard to make a functionally moral argument in favor of any Intellectual Property Right other than trademarks. Patents and Copyrights are hunting licenses to extract higher prices from a population than could be achieve by the process of meritocratic competition alone. Trademarks are weights and measures that prevent fraud. If you want to make a country wealthy, intellectual property rights are just another burdensome tax on a challenged economy. And that is both the logical outcome of any analysis, and the empirical evidence that will result from any analysis.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 10:04:00 UTC

  • WHY CONSERVATIVES RETAIN POWER? Liberals (the political wing of the Postmodernis

    WHY CONSERVATIVES RETAIN POWER?

    Liberals (the political wing of the Postmodernist Religion) rely on counter-factual IMMORAL arguments, while conservatives rely on counter-factual MORAL arguments. Everyone knows everyone’s arguments are counter-factual. The difference is that they vote for morality. Since liberal arguments are immorally counterfactual, the public rejects them.

    The only reason democratic candidates win is the single female, single mother vote, because it is an rent-seeking demographic. Females are rent seekers. It is their reproductive strategy. They can rent seek against husbands, rent seek against tribes, and rent seek against the state. It is far easier to rent seek against the state than rent seek against a husband, because the number of alpha husbands is increasingly limited under commercial capitalism.

    If not for the single mother, single woman vote, we would never have a liberal anything in this country.

    This is the outcome of the feminist revolution and the attack on men and the nuclear family. As a response, the conservatives and libertarians (my side) hired the capitalists (on their own side) against the state – by giving them free reign to undermine the expansionist liberal movement, and the democratic socialist state. It has largely worked. Except that immigration has ruined the demographics anyway. So the liberal strategy has also won. That is why we are at a stalemate until one of these sides conquers the other.

    And demographically, at least on the coasts, white people with the moral code of the nuclear family with high transaction costs in rural areas are going to lose the battle against rent seekers with low transaction costs in the urban centers.

    I suspect the outcome isn’t going to be the idyllic star-trek future we envisioned. I could argue pretty effectively that the only solution is to break up the country into some permutation of the ‘nine nations of north america’, or at least the center vs, the coasts. This would create enormous opportunity, and eradicate the US debt structure.

    But I suspect that such a rational outcome isn’t likely.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 08:55:00 UTC

  • (HUMBLING) Right about now, I finally understand why it takes seven to ten years

    (HUMBLING)

    Right about now, I finally understand why it takes seven to ten years to write these great works. Because few people have that kind of staying power. And because it takes that long to create something of marginal difference, even if you’re very bright. And really, even when you write something profound, you’re just distilling the information collected by your generation, because of the work of the generations before.

    Same thing for why it takes a PhD to write something interesting in most fields. Because it takes a long time (6+ years) to get a PhD in anything meaningful. And it takes at least that long to learn anything meaningful about anything. So, it isn’t the PhD that matters. Its the fact that you have to stick with a PhD program for a long time. And to write something meaningful you have to stick with it for a long time too. So numbers work their consequences.

    The problem with most PhD work is that it’s micro work, not macro. And most people get lost in specializations that are dead ends – or exhausted of opportunity. And the time is lost. Your subject matters. You can’t get time back to do over again.

    Einstein was right. He just ‘thought about the problem longer than anyone else.” This is a combination of his usual humility, humor, and fundamental truth.

    Sitting in church at age 12 I made a promise to God (Fate/Man/Myself). That was over 40 years ago. It’s taken me this long, and I’m not done yet.

    I rarely tell anyone this. I’m just terribly humbled at the moment. But I’ve spent most of my life trying to fulfill that promise (contract). Really. Even if it’s for no other reason than that I haven’t really found anything I’d rather do. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 08:19:00 UTC

  • QUESTION (REALLY) ON TRUTH If I argue that truth is a spectrum with different st

    QUESTION (REALLY) ON TRUTH

    If I argue that truth is a spectrum with different standards, is this weaker than it is illustrative? In the sense that the erroneous conclusions that can be drawn are substantial vs incidental?

    Please understand before you jump on me too much that I think I understand the rules of science and the rules of human interaction pretty thoroughly. And I am trying to describe the difference between the two in propertarian language (as, well, what you would think of as a supply-demand curve).

    1) In order to state something is absolutely true, it must be a tautology, or perhaps better stated, an identity.

    (The Correspondance Theory or Identity Theory of Truth)

    2) In order to state something is scientifically true, the standard of truth is that one is describing causal relations that are free from error given the totality of scientific knowledge currently at our disposal. And given that so much scientific knowledge is correlative, this is a lower standard than identity.

    (The Correspondance theory of Truth)

    3) In order to conduct an exchange, the standard of truth is that I must not lie. Err is permissible, and it’s assumed that we err.

    (The Pragmatic Theory of Truth)

    4) An individual’s perception, (not statement) of truth is simply preference. We lie to ourselves as a matter of course. But the need to construct an intellectual compromise with our arational emotional framework, that allows us to act in order to suit our preferences is simply a functional necessity.

    (The cohesive theory of truth)

    5) Truth doesn’t exist, the only purpose of language is to obtain power, and the end justifies the means.

    (The postmodernist/gnostic, Relativistic “Consensus” Theory of Truth)

    Now, I keep shooting this full of (small) holes, but I can’t do any better. And I have to be able to say it in language that is at least vaguely comprehensible to non-specialists.

    Help? Kenneth Allen Hopf? Matt Dioguardi? Anyone?

    Thanks.

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 07:41:00 UTC