Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • WILL THE USA ATTACK IRAN? AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC INCENTIVES THE USA WILL l

    WILL THE USA ATTACK IRAN? AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC INCENTIVES

    THE USA WILL likely intervene because Iran is developing an alternative exchange for oil that is not denominated in dollars. THis exchange will eliminate the ability of the USA to finance it’s debt and to finance its military program by eliminating foreign demand for dollars in order to buy oil that is denominated in dollars.

    The USA is only able to provide the extraordinary level of income to its citizens because of its control over world finance, trade and oil, made possible by the inheritance of the British naval system after the second world war, and the USA’s ongoing military supremacy from the buildup of the cold war.

    More importantly, the USA pays for its military program through an inventive and progressive alternative to taxes: which is to export debt then deflate it. This effectively charges growing economies for the USA’s policing of world trade without the difficulty of extracting tariffs or taxes on individual states — which would be intolerable to politicians and populations alike.

    However, this strategy was most advantageous when most of the world was either economically primitive or embroiled in the luddist, anti-modernity World Communism movement, leaving commodity prices comparatively low for Americans. At this point in time, there is no one for the USA to charge for policing the world, because the entire world has abandoned tribal agrarianism and adopted consumer capitalism as its economic model. In this new world, it is in the interest of everyone else to pay their portion of world defense costs purely out of self interest.

    Therefore the USA must either stop Iran and retain its military complex, or allow the world oil system to fall under the control of a pan-islamic movement led by Iran and funded by oil revenues.

    There are arguments in favor of either direction. Our current president is perfectly happy to see the rise of a well funded militarily expansionist iran as the core state of islam. Libertarians are by their nature comfortable. Conservatives by their very nature are not.

    Israel is aware of this strategy (I know, because I know people so to speak) and is attempting to force the hand of Obama during the election season and force him to go along or lose his election, or have to wait four more years, during which Iran will be able to finish making all the materials without having to actually assemble a bomb. But having the materials is a s good as having the bomb. Further, they will move into production with their exchange and begin to undermine the dollar.

    China had hoped to use the Euro as a competitor to the dollar, but that is not going to happen. Europe cannot stand. So china will support the rise of this currency. So will the rest of the world, in order to contain the americans. The net effect is that the USA will have to withdraw its military and very likely europe will have to remilitarize rather than continue to have the USA and the developing world subsidize their economies.

    I can see a possible future for the world that is built on an iranian currency, not an american, where the US government collapses and sovereignty falls to the regions so that the west returns to its natural form: a collection of small states. My libertarian side likes this view. My conservative side argues that the quality of life of the average american will so significantly be reduced that this alternative is simply intolerable.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-30 12:18:00 UTC

  • ACTUAL COST OF AN IPHONE 4s (Of course the argument being made is that we should

    http://www.businesspundit.com/iphone-costs/THE ACTUAL COST OF AN IPHONE 4s

    (Of course the argument being made is that we should make them in the states rather than in china. And that’s not going to happen.)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-30 10:17:00 UTC

  • (Its it me, or did nothing interesting actually happen today?)

    (Its it me, or did nothing interesting actually happen today?)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-27 21:37:00 UTC

  • Is Facebook Making A Strategic Error, Or Is Their Current Problem Just A Matter

    Is Facebook Making A Strategic Error, Or Is Their Current Problem Just A Matter Of Timing? http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/26/is-facebook-making-a-strategic-error-or-is-their-current-problem-just-a-matter-of-timing/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-26 21:53:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/195631777837101057

  • CANNOT ACHIVE ANY NOTION OF “JUSTICE” BY VOLUNTARY MEANS WITHOUT FORMAL INSTITUT

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/26/the-institutional-answer-to-bleeding-heart-libertarianism/YOU CANNOT ACHIVE ANY NOTION OF “JUSTICE” BY VOLUNTARY MEANS WITHOUT FORMAL INSTITUTIONS.

    (Sorry Rothbard, Sorry BHL’s. It is entirely possible to create institutions that assist in inter-temoral coordination between the classes. We do with with banking all day long. But we can’d do it without formal institutions that forbid privatization of public goods.)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-26 18:12:00 UTC

  • The Institutional Answer To Bleeding Heart Libertarianism

    From Econlib

    RE: “they insist that social justice ought to be part of libertarianism but are unwilling to tell us what it means.”

    Thats right. They have no program, no argument, no artifice. Only a sentiment. This is why they’ll fail. But libertarianism, or at least propertarian reasoning within libertarianism, provides the solution to ‘social justice’ — if that term has any meaning other than ‘redistribution’. The solution arises from insight is that the ethic of voluntary exchange does not require unanimity of belief in anything. It only requires institutions that provide a means by which we can construct exchanges between groups that are not possible to construct by alternative means due to pervasive ‘cheating’. Cheating which is expressed as competition, is beneficial in a market for consumer goods, but a form of privatization or corruption when applied to infrastructure or services (commons). Institutions are necessary for creating those exchanges free of ‘cheating’– private appropriation of common investments. The problem for us lies in constructing the institutions that allow exchanges between groups. Even assuming representative government is a good, if for no other purpose than to divide the labor of decision making, the classical liberal model of multi-class government should have been expanded and reinforced so that classes could conduct exchanges, most of which are inter-temporal borrowings from one another. Instead we undermined that feature of the classical liberal government with fully democratic solutions disconnected from the material differences in interests in the population. Furthermore, institutions of all forms are under attack by ideological libertarians. Rothbardian Anarchism has stolen the libertarian movement. But, we don’t need to give up on institutions. We need to give up on creating institutions that depend on a unanimity of belief in ends, means and virtues. A requirement that does not pass the most casual scrutiny. Most ‘justice’ is simply accounting for and settlement of differences in production cycles. There is no reason we cannot bring forward to the disadvantaged the benefits of the difference in production cycles between the classes, in the same way we bring forward productivity through borrowing and interest between capitalists and entrepreneurs. There is no reason that is, other than we lack the political institutions to accomplish in politics what we accomplish daily in banking as a matter of course. That’s the answer to bleeding heart libertarianism: institutions. But we have to understand Rotbardianism as all but a prohibition on organization first. Curt

  • Is Facebook Making A Strategic Error, Or Is Their Current Problem Just A Matter Of Timing?

    1) Yes, FB is trying to pump its share price via advertising in anticipation of the IPO. We should expect advertising higher costs as the public awareness of FB’s income limitations increases. 2) Even if FB produces only 1B a quarter in revenue or only $5 per user, the costs of running that company are small in practice, and marketing expenses are controllable. It can be a profitable business. The question for investors is, can it be a GROWTH business? 3) If FB solves mail and search and duplicates the Google advertising tools, it can improve its value to advertisers even if its knowledge of customers is not as thorough as they hope, because customers will prefer less noisy searches to Google’s noisy and dirty searches. This is probably the strategic internal error they are making. They are very likely overvaluing the data about the individual in pursuit of mass advertising dollars instead of accurately valuing the desirability to the user of the interface and the protection from ‘noise’. FB will not become another Google. Google profits from the fact that its results are BAD. Because its results are bad, it can sell advertising to small business. FB however, can profit from the fact that its search results CAN be GOOD by narrowing acceptable results and narrowing advertising and therefore increasing advertising rates over those of Google. The problem Google has is that it CANNOT ATTRACT TOP BRANDS. The virtue of FB is that it CAN if it creates a walled garden. FB can strategically create a flight to quality for good brands just as Google has created a flight to opportunity for small and weak brands. “FB is television, and Google is the yellow pages.” 4) THE QUESTION FOR INVESTORS THEN is whether FB will pursue the short term trend, and continue to overvalue customer information — which looks bad but may not indicate anything other than an issue of timing — or whether FB will pursue the long term opportunity, of creating a less cluttered garden on the internet which converts their perceived weakness into a strength that is both desirable for users, consumers and for brands, and one which can rival google’s revenue, but rival it with UPMARKET revenue. The important point here, is that investors can INFLUENCE THAT STRATEGIC DIRECTION. I have no idea whether this strategy is commonly understood inside the company or without. But as one of the few people who has built a large scale technology and marketing company (Top 25 Digital Agency), and who has worked with other strategic Fortune 100 technology leaders to try to solve this problem, the business opportunity is obvious to me since Google’s challenge at attracting top brands due to its all-encompassing aspirations is legion. Google helps small business. FB can help large brands. And advertising large brands requires a bit of a garden. And FB has it. But the client interface for that business model is not Google’s. It’s more intimate. It has to be. That is what I suspect FB’s strategic error is: they’re looking in the wrong direction. That direction can be fixed however. And investors should invest in the OPPORTUNITY to create that wealth even if FB’s numbers look depressed because of timing. Curt Doolittle

  • LONG WINDED LIBERTARIAN? 🙂 I prefer the term ‘verbose’ myself. lol (A necessary

    LONG WINDED LIBERTARIAN?

    🙂 I prefer the term ‘verbose’ myself. lol (A necessary consequence of analytical philosophy unfortunately.)

    I’ll comment when and if Nigel approves my friend request?

    You’re awesome.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-26 16:49:00 UTC

  • INSTITUTIONS CANNOT SURVIVE IF THEY EXIST TO DENY PEOPLES AMBITIONS- THEY MUST A

    INSTITUTIONS CANNOT SURVIVE IF THEY EXIST TO DENY PEOPLES AMBITIONS- THEY MUST ASSIST THEM IN ACCOMPLISHING THEM.

    In Politics, you cannot tell a group that it may not have something. Even stating it such a thing is irrational. You must tell them that if they want something, there is a way to achieve it. But, our political system doesn’t work that way. It says the only way to win is to defeat the opposition. That’s why we have ideological class, race, religious and cultural warfare.

    Our classical liberal institutions could not, and did not survive the addition of the lower classes, women and other cultures into the polity.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-26 16:34:00 UTC

  • THIS BEFORE CHOOSING TO INVEST IN FACEBOOK OR NOT –Facebook Has A Growth Strate

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/26/is-facebook-making-a-strategic-error-or-is-their-current-problem-just-a-matter-of-timing/READ THIS BEFORE CHOOSING TO INVEST IN FACEBOOK OR NOT

    –Facebook Has A Growth Strategy, But Are They Pursuing It, Or Lost In Folly?–

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-26 13:54:00 UTC