Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • The Incentive to Produce Quality Goods, Services, and Information

    by Steve Pender In a village/polity populated entirely by family/loved ones, there is lower incentive to produce low quality goods, since the only people using them would be allies/family, and their use of those goods diminishes the survival of the polity. Voluntarily producing lower quality goods and profiting more due to higher markup opportunities would be seen as a form of treason to one’s people. 3 scenarios: EMPIRE: Individual with high quality production ability + lower-quality strangers = incentivized to lower production standards and privatize profit COSMOPOLITAN FREE MARKET: Individual with high quality production ability + high-quality strangers = incentivized to maximize producer surplus (profits) since no long-term alliance NATIONALISM: High quality production ability + high quality family/allies = incentivized to maximize production quality, lower incentive to profit (since profit is just a means to ensure privatized survival) Why do people maximize profit? Because they can’t guarantee long-term alliances with those around them, and maximizing profit is the means to increase long-term survival. We don’t feel the strong need to profit with trade between friends/family. Why is that? Because long-term survival is more important.
    May 14, 2018 8:31am

  • THE INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE QUALITY GOODS, SERVICES, AND INFORMATION by Steve Pende

    THE INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE QUALITY GOODS, SERVICES, AND INFORMATION

    by Steve Pender

    In a village/polity populated entirely by family/loved ones, there is lower incentive to produce low quality goods, since the only people using them would be allies/family, and their use of those goods diminishes the survival of the polity. Voluntarily producing lower quality goods and profiting more due to higher markup opportunities would be seen as a form of treason to one’s people.

    3 scenarios:

    EMPIRE: Individual with high quality production ability + lower-quality strangers = incentivized to lower production standards and privatize profit

    COSMOPOLITAN FREE MARKET: Individual with high quality production ability + high-quality strangers = incentivized to maximize producer surplus (profits) since no long-term alliance

    NATIONALISM: High quality production ability + high quality family/allies = incentivized to maximize production quality, lower incentive to profit (since profit is just a means to ensure privatized survival)

    Why do people maximize profit? Because they can’t guarantee long-term alliances with those around them, and maximizing profit is the means to increase long-term survival. We don’t feel the strong need to profit with trade between friends/family. Why is that? Because long-term survival is more important.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 08:31:00 UTC

  • The NYT article conveys is that it is that virtue signaling is a form of conspic

    The NYT article conveys is that it is that virtue signaling is a form of conspicuous consumption that one forces others to pay the indirect cost of.
    Or stated directly: we are burning the most valuable form of capital in the world (homogeneity and high trust) for virtue signals.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 14:32:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994585863207182336

    Reply addressees: @KennethBuff @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994585245491040257

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KennethBuff @sapinker Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them. He stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (“The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/994585245491040257

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @KennethBuff @sapinker Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them. He stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (“The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/994585245491040257

  • BTC – Initial Generation Issues

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

  • BTC – Initial Generation Issues

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

  • —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”–

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions. You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity. You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably. You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars. But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking. It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

  • —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”–

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions. You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity. You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably. You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars. But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking. It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

  • “Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just th

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman

    No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions.

    You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity.

    You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably.

    You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars.

    But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking.

    It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 09:35:00 UTC

  • Libertarians Are Wrong. War Is the Best Industry After Rule.

    LIBERTARIANS ARE WRONG. WAR IS THE BEST INDUSTRY AFTER RULE.
    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/03/war-drove-18th-century-industrial-revolution-great-britain/
    WAR, RULE, FINANCE … Everything else is just noise.

  • Libertarians Are Wrong. War Is the Best Industry After Rule.

    LIBERTARIANS ARE WRONG. WAR IS THE BEST INDUSTRY AFTER RULE.
    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/03/war-drove-18th-century-industrial-revolution-great-britain/
    WAR, RULE, FINANCE … Everything else is just noise.