They won’t ban it. It’s too useful. But they can regulate it by preventing money in or out of it, and a hundred other things. LIke I said, the state will eventually treat BTC as an off the book privately donated research and development program for totalitarian currency.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-24 02:37:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364403997038305281
Reply addressees: @opaqueguy1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364403369415241732
Very pro. But because I argued against some of the false claims I got the reputation of being against it. But like I said, if successful enough (and it’s getting there) then it will be institutionalized and regulated and that’s on the way.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-24 02:31:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364402544450146306
Reply addressees: @opaqueguy1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364401850552885253
THE MARXIST SOLUTION WILL ALWAYS FAIL BUT AS AN ALTERNATIVE…
The Marxists insist on repeating an impossible solution dependent on employee participation in the firm under the presumption of employee interest and competency. Which even in the one unicorn firm they use as an example, we find the theory fails.
In part this is because any and all distortions of the economy by interference of the state in firms causes externalities that negate the benfits they seek to obtain. By capturing the financial sector (because the state is both the issuer and the insurer) the state, the firm, and the people have identical interests.
The present discord is because the state, the financial sector, the firms, and the people – especially the left – have conflicting interests. For example, immigration would directly reduce redistributions, and the financial sector would lose all political influence, restoring political influence to the competition between the people and the firms (industry).
So instead of tying employees to the profitability of non-durable firm we can tie citizens to the profitability of the durable polity – w/same consequences for the financial sector.
The firm isn’t profitable or stable enough, and employees never competent enough, and incentives not political enough to achieve redistribution via firm rather than as shareholders in the state. But capturing the parasitic financial sector for redistribution is trivially easy.
So I disagree slightly with the 1599 proposition and instead suggest that the problem was the failure of the British state to capture the banking industry given its role as insurer of last resort. There was no reason after fiat script to maintain the figure 8 financial sector.
Marxists are obsessed by and distracted by a world economy that no longer exists, positing a community that doesn’t and cant exist, and incentives and knowledge that doesn’t and can’t exist under a geostrategic order that ended twenty if not thirty years ago, and was squandered.
The only ‘firm’ of consequence is the polity, and without the empirical operation of that polity, and the least possible friction of its economy, the incentive of the workers is to reduce adaptability of firms vs decreasing the rent-seeking of both peers and state.
In this sense, citizens have a positive incentive if treating the state as a firm, but a negative incentive if treating firms as the state. We cannot ever limit the demand for human adaptability. We can only pay the cost of it. There are no regularities any longer.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-20 22:06:02 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105765847878570563
–“Students are handed a bill of indentured servitude for their student loans because the bureaucracy has basically conspired to determine how to pick the pockets of the student’s future earnings in exchange for extended adolescence with no quality control.”–JP
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-19 16:41:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362804534393925643
SHRUNKEN HEADS: THE OPTIMUM FORM OF HARD CURRENCY?
I would be happy to pick up on the scalp, and shrunken head thing. In fact, now that I think about it, I’m not sure shrunken heads aren’t the best form of hard currency we could develop….
SHRUNKEN HEAD MARKET VALUE
In 1919 shrunken heads were worth around $4.00, the equivalent of $57.33. Then in the 1930âs victim heads were made to order for around $25.00, which is around $275.02 in todayâs economy. By 1952 a head was advertised in The Times for $250, which would be $2,231.36 now.
Shrunken heads are a light, high value, commodity money substitute.
THE ECONOMICS OF SHRUNKEN HEADS.
OK. Let’s pretend this is a serious question.
Heads are heavy and expensive. (About ten pounds).
Scalps are light and expensive, but easy to fake.
Shrunken heads are costly to produce.
Skull pyramids are costly to produce.
Therefore shrunken heads make an exceptional substitute for a ‘gold standard’. So, buy-in for the franchise, (the number of shares you acquire) can best be paid in shrunken heads.
The skull pyramids are just status symbols that demonstrate one’s contribution to the common good.
QUIZ
For an extra ten points please explain how Inflation can be affected by shrunken-head backed currency, and how inflation can be limited.
HOW TO MAKE A SHRUNKEN HEAD.
(humor)
Optional: the candidate can be alive or dead – choose per taste.
1 – Cut a large ‘bib’ into the flesh of chest to make a large flap to later close the bottom of the neck.
2 – Cut around the back of the neck and a one or two inches of the shoulders and back, completing the ‘bib’.
3 – Slit from the back to the base of the neck to the crest at the rear of the skull.
4 – Pull forward, peeling the skin off the skull. (Note: if candidate is living, assistants will be needed to hold the candidate in place.)
5 – Cook the head at a simmer for 90 minutes – any longer it will lose its hair. It should be 1/3 to 1/4 its original size.
6 – Turn the head, inside out, and scrape off any remaining flesh that may later spoil.
7 – Turn the head right side out, and sew up lips, eyes, back of skull.
8 – Fill with hot rocks to shrink the head further.
9 – Once rocks won’t fit, fill the head with hot sand to shrink it further. (Note: Some professionals only use repeated fillings of sand.)
10 – Fill with lightweight such as sawdust or dry grass, then sew the flap (bib) across the base of the skull.
That’s it. Have fun!!
THE GAULS AND THEIR SHRUNKEN HEADS
theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/07/the-gauls
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-18 18:35:04 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105753693667001467
Marxists are obsessed by and distracted by a world economy that no longer exists, positing a community that doesn’t and cant exist, and incentives and knowledge that doesn’t and can’t exist under a geostrategic order that ended twenty if not thirty years ago, and was squandered.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-17 17:35:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362093442738900993
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362092694403756032
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
So I disagree slightly with the 1599 proposition, and instead suggest that the problem was the failure of the british state to capture the banking industry given its role as insurer of last resort. There was no reason after fiat script to maintain the figure 8 financial sector.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1362092694403756032
So I disagree slightly with the 1599 proposition, and instead suggest that the problem was the failure of the british state to capture the banking industry given its role as insurer of last resort. There was no reason after fiat script to maintain the figure 8 financial sector.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-17 17:32:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362092694403756032
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362092692965064705
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
The firm isn’t profitable or stable enough, and employees never competent enough, and incentives not political enough to achieve redistribution via firm rather than as shareholders in the state. But capturing the parasitic financial sector for redistribution is trivially easy.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1362092692965064705
@yanisvaroufakis gave a solid lecture at Tubingen recently identifying problems of the present order but repeating an impossible solution dependent on employee competency. Instead we can tie them to durable polity not non-durable firm w/same consequences for the financial sector.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-17 17:32:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362092691664830469
I could give a similar lecture that would reduce economics to a science, and my claims would be obvious, and obviously true, and they would terrify the audience. In large part, economics is a pseudoscience that tries to circumvent the laws of the universe just as do philosophy and religion, when the underlying science is rather simple: The demographic composition and distribution of a people, the institutional sequence and time necessary to produce rule of law of natural law, by the incremental suppression of irreciprocity, resulting in the highest trust, least friction in an economy at whatever of level of effort (work hours) the population prefers in exchange for its standard of living (consumption). What’s the problem? markets perform natural selection if they can suppress reproduction of the unfit for markets, and democratic politics suppress natural selection until the population’s abilty to maintain pace with competitors eliminates the possibility of redistributions by investments in commons. In other words, the only long-term variable that maintains competitive advantage is human capital and the single most important human capital is the combination of intelligence and conscientiousness both of which are the result of neotenic evolution by natural selection for cooperation in increasingly complex markets. Or in simple form: economic science is and always will be limited to the measurement of the success of institutions in producing human capital by adherence to the logical, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe by the implementation of rule of law, markets, and meritocratic reproduction. Now try to sell that inescapable scientific law of the universe under democracy, the entire function of which appears to be to use fiat credit to evade the laws of the universe, and return us to Malthusian limits. That’s the science. So like I said, what we call positive economics is an attempt to cheat mother nature and it’s just never going to happen. The only economic science is like the law, negative: eliminating what we should NOT do.
I could give a similar lecture that would reduce economics to a science, and my claims would be obvious, and obviously true, and they would terrify the audience. In large part, economics is a pseudoscience that tries to circumvent the laws of the universe just as do philosophy and religion, when the underlying science is rather simple: The demographic composition and distribution of a people, the institutional sequence and time necessary to produce rule of law of natural law, by the incremental suppression of irreciprocity, resulting in the highest trust, least friction in an economy at whatever of level of effort (work hours) the population prefers in exchange for its standard of living (consumption). What’s the problem? markets perform natural selection if they can suppress reproduction of the unfit for markets, and democratic politics suppress natural selection until the population’s abilty to maintain pace with competitors eliminates the possibility of redistributions by investments in commons. In other words, the only long-term variable that maintains competitive advantage is human capital and the single most important human capital is the combination of intelligence and conscientiousness both of which are the result of neotenic evolution by natural selection for cooperation in increasingly complex markets. Or in simple form: economic science is and always will be limited to the measurement of the success of institutions in producing human capital by adherence to the logical, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe by the implementation of rule of law, markets, and meritocratic reproduction. Now try to sell that inescapable scientific law of the universe under democracy, the entire function of which appears to be to use fiat credit to evade the laws of the universe, and return us to Malthusian limits. That’s the science. So like I said, what we call positive economics is an attempt to cheat mother nature and it’s just never going to happen. The only economic science is like the law, negative: eliminating what we should NOT do.