Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Money Flow

    Mar 26, 2020, 1:35 PM

    —“Dear Curt, I’ve watched several of your discussions with John Mark over the past year or so. Your ideas are very interesting. Tell me, have you tested your concepts, as outlined The Steps To American Restoration, by running a cost analysis and economic money flow? If the answer is yes, then would it be possible to view it? Yours sincerely,”— P de H.

    There are a number of policies involved in our “Proposal”. The principle objectives are to (a) eliminate the possibility of financial rent seeking on consumers, (b) convert the banking system infrastructure (access to physical and digital cash) that disinter-mediates the citizenry from the treasury, (c) force investors into riskier returns on longer term capital investments – principally concentrating capital in tech, medicine, and automation that produce multipliers, (d) and redirect the savings to the production of investment impossible for the private sector – principally repatriation of medicine and tech, and further research and development, especially basic research (physics etc), (e) with the ambition of restoring the possibility of single income two parent households necessary for (non-dysgenic) intergenerational production of western high-investment human beings. Where western high investment parenting directs people to the production of commons and aggregate returns versus the asian and jewish production of familial goods. This will end the drastic cost to the working and middle class by the financialization of the economy necessary during the 20th to fight the world wars, the war against communism, and the conversion of the world to the anglo system of rule of law, finance, and trade, the continuation of our 1400 year war war to contain fundamentalist islam, and our present attempt to compensate for collapse of reproduction by immigrating consumers given our failure to produce increases in productivity without destroying gains by war, bureaucracy, inflation, and financial parasitism. For the audience: Circular Flow of the Economy

    (see diagram attached) The economy can be thought of as two cycles moving in opposite directions. In one direction, we see goods and services flowing from individuals to businesses and back again. This represents the idea that, as laborers, we go to work to make things or provide services that people want. … In the opposite direction, we see money flowing from businesses to households and back again. This represents the income we generate from the work we do, which we use to pay for the things we want. … Both of these cycles are necessary to make the economy work. When we buy things, we pay money for them. When we go to work, we make things in exchange for money. … The circular flow model of the economy distills the idea outlined above and shows the flow of money and goods and services in a capitalist economy. What is Money Flow? Money flow is calculated by averaging the high, low and closing prices, and multiplying by the daily volume. Comparing that result with the number for the previous day tells traders whether money flow was positive or negative for the current day. Positive money flow indicates that prices are likely to move higher, while negative money flow suggests prices are about to fall. Economic Money Flow “Economic money flow” would refer to how money would flow through the economy under this model instead of the current model. Calculability: Proposal also includes right to repair. Consumer protection, creditor shall bear risk, elimination of hazard fees, prohibition on churning. all of which drive to higher quality lower volume more durable goods. Proposal restores intergenerational housing, zoning for it, limits on mortgage duration, suppression of housing prices, direction of savings to retirement savings, direction of retirement savings to long term investment. North et all did work as by product of MMT debate. MMT can’t work without continuous inflation. This strategy divorces the long term strategic economy (state-taxes), the innovative and adaptive economy (private sector), and the family consumer economy credit systems (treasury-debt). Modeling Produces: – increased search for stability if consumer credit rents are not available. – much more rapid restoration and adaption of the economy in response to socks, crises, business cycle shifts. – increased pressure on long term contracts to adapt to possible inflation – shifts in consumption – shift in rates of reproduction More later for those interested.’  

  • No We Cannot Return to Commodity Money

    A return to commodity money can’t be done. It privileges investors at the expense of ordinary people, and managing the supply of money is too valuable for an economy. No economy can compete without it. And there are other vehicles for storing capital – including commodity money, real estate, commodities (how oil functions today). Commodity Money has value external to it being used as money. Currency only has value as commodity money substitute. Asking a country not to use currency (shares of stock in the economy) is as ridiculous as telling companies that they can’t issue public shares of stock, nor release additional shares of stock. Like all things, libertarian ideas were attempts to westernize jewish diasporic ethics of the pale that depended upon specializing in extractive usury, and using the proceeds to construct rent seeking, and baiting into hazard. (Falsification of Libertarian Dogma: “What right do you have to the appreciation of the purchasing power of a currency without contributing to the production of that value?” And “What right do you have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a currency?” And “Why does an lender have right to price stability at the expense of the rest of the marketplace?” Those are the three demands that drive the (((usury))) philosophy we call’ libertarianism.)

  • No We Cannot Return to Commodity Money

    A return to commodity money can’t be done. It privileges investors at the expense of ordinary people, and managing the supply of money is too valuable for an economy. No economy can compete without it. And there are other vehicles for storing capital – including commodity money, real estate, commodities (how oil functions today). Commodity Money has value external to it being used as money. Currency only has value as commodity money substitute. Asking a country not to use currency (shares of stock in the economy) is as ridiculous as telling companies that they can’t issue public shares of stock, nor release additional shares of stock. Like all things, libertarian ideas were attempts to westernize jewish diasporic ethics of the pale that depended upon specializing in extractive usury, and using the proceeds to construct rent seeking, and baiting into hazard. (Falsification of Libertarian Dogma: “What right do you have to the appreciation of the purchasing power of a currency without contributing to the production of that value?” And “What right do you have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a currency?” And “Why does an lender have right to price stability at the expense of the rest of the marketplace?” Those are the three demands that drive the (((usury))) philosophy we call’ libertarianism.)

  • Market timing is impossible. But Antifragility is NOT.

    Mar 29, 2020, 11:32 AM

    Ok. So using civilizational development, demographic, generational, technological, and business cycles I’ve been within a month or two of every major correction (opportunity exhaustion) since I started working (except china). Market timing is impossible. But Antifragility is NOT.

  • Market timing is impossible. But Antifragility is NOT.

    Mar 29, 2020, 11:32 AM

    Ok. So using civilizational development, demographic, generational, technological, and business cycles I’ve been within a month or two of every major correction (opportunity exhaustion) since I started working (except china). Market timing is impossible. But Antifragility is NOT.

  • Fiat Currency or “infinity” Money (Share-In-Economy Money) Is a Competitive Necessity.

    Mar 29, 2020, 12:34 PM

    —“Boomers hate crypto for some reason even though crypto still seems more real than printing infinity money.”—Avin Welleci

      Fiat Currency or “Infinity” money (share-in-economy money) is a competitive necessity. We can’t survive in a world economy without it. And we certainly can’t insure one another against disasters without it. Special Fiat Currency such as Food Stamp Money is extremely useful. There is no reason we don’t add ‘utility money, housing money’ as well. Conversely, Crypto money (token money) is a means of saving. And commodity money an even more fault tolerant means of saving – albeit a costly one. They all have their roles. I suspect it’s not occurring to you that the central issue is having one currency rather than multiple. Fiat Housing < Fiat Utility < Fiat Food < Fiat General < Digital Savings < Gold(commodity money). There is too little gold to serve as commodity money. Oil is too variable for commodity money. It’s possible to crate a basket of commodity money, from all the precious metals. My argument was that (a) crypto cannot serve as money substitute given current tech and costs of computing, (b) that self hosted crypto means the network is institutionally fragile (c) that a monolithic transaction system is faster, less fragile, and unassailable by the state. (d) the state will not tolerate the us of it for the reasons it was invented: drug money. Don’t assume boomer means bias (I’m a jones generation by the way – between boomers and x’s – like bill gates, steve jobs) It might mean (as it does in this case) i know more than you do. ’cause I do. 😉

  • Fiat Currency or “infinity” Money (Share-In-Economy Money) Is a Competitive Necessity.

    Mar 29, 2020, 12:34 PM

    —“Boomers hate crypto for some reason even though crypto still seems more real than printing infinity money.”—Avin Welleci

      Fiat Currency or “Infinity” money (share-in-economy money) is a competitive necessity. We can’t survive in a world economy without it. And we certainly can’t insure one another against disasters without it. Special Fiat Currency such as Food Stamp Money is extremely useful. There is no reason we don’t add ‘utility money, housing money’ as well. Conversely, Crypto money (token money) is a means of saving. And commodity money an even more fault tolerant means of saving – albeit a costly one. They all have their roles. I suspect it’s not occurring to you that the central issue is having one currency rather than multiple. Fiat Housing < Fiat Utility < Fiat Food < Fiat General < Digital Savings < Gold(commodity money). There is too little gold to serve as commodity money. Oil is too variable for commodity money. It’s possible to crate a basket of commodity money, from all the precious metals. My argument was that (a) crypto cannot serve as money substitute given current tech and costs of computing, (b) that self hosted crypto means the network is institutionally fragile (c) that a monolithic transaction system is faster, less fragile, and unassailable by the state. (d) the state will not tolerate the us of it for the reasons it was invented: drug money. Don’t assume boomer means bias (I’m a jones generation by the way – between boomers and x’s – like bill gates, steve jobs) It might mean (as it does in this case) i know more than you do. ’cause I do. 😉

  • A predator preys upon its food. A producer transforms resources. A cooperator tr

    A predator preys upon its food. A producer transforms resources. A cooperator trades production. A parasite extracts resources from a dependent life form. Redistribution is parasitism. Evolution and continuous negative selection against the defective is a biological necessity. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-23 20:23:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264290826215096320

    Reply addressees: @hugo909 @TheRealFMCH @Maroeladalx10DB @laurenboebert @austere1717

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264287237526761472

  • “Curt, What About Socialism”

    Apr 16, 2020, 10:32 PM Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine. Edit

  • “Curt, What About Socialism”

    Apr 16, 2020, 10:32 PM Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine. Edit