Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Um. Retail bank locations are closing for the same reason all other retail locat

    Um. Retail bank locations are closing for the same reason all other retail locations are closing: there are rapidly declining reasons for foot traffic. There is very little value in banks other than to support commercial cash transactions. And commercial cash transactions are only necessary because of credit disparities.

  • Um. Retail bank locations are closing for the same reason all other retail locat

    Um. Retail bank locations are closing for the same reason all other retail locations are closing: there are rapidly declining reasons for foot traffic. There is very little value in banks other than to support commercial cash transactions. And commercial cash transactions are only necessary because of credit disparities.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 15:05:00 UTC

  • RT @Steve_Sailer: The Law of Supply and Demand points to immigration driving dow

    RT @Steve_Sailer: The Law of Supply and Demand points to immigration driving down wages and driving up rents, as does the history of the la…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-03 15:59:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959818746499125249

  • My answer to Did products and home appliances last more in the Soviet Union than

    My answer to Did products and home appliances last more in the Soviet Union than in the capitalistic world? https://www.quora.com/Did-products-and-home-appliances-last-more-in-the-Soviet-Union-than-in-the-capitalistic-world/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-02 23:36:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959571372983881728

  • Did Products And Home Appliances Last More In The Soviet Union Than In The Capitalistic World?

    Great posts. The decline in durability of goods, and the replacement of durability with signals goods. I’ll put it in economic terms:

    Markets, like Democracy, when combined with cheap consumer credit, produce ever cheaper results with ever higher signal value, until they drive out all quality and durability. This is a universal law of economics. So the problem is not so much capitalism or markets, but cheap consumer credit. (really).

    Soviet Military goods were produced to be cheap, durable, and easy to use, and easy to repair, but not necessarily comfortable. The consumer goods followed this design strategy. And when you are trying to rapidly modernize a ‘backward’ economy, it’s actually a fantastic strategy.

    The only problem I see is that it was fairly obvious fairly early, that correcting a backward economy is *all* that centralization can do, and that changing from near-non-existent industrialism, to industrialism can in fact be done, but the change from industrial production to markets and incentives is eventually necessary.

    The soviets did some good things too. I still prefer Ukrainian and Russian culture to my own

    https://www.quora.com/Did-products-and-home-appliances-last-more-in-the-Soviet-Union-than-in-the-capitalistic-world

  • Trump Supporters Claimed He Was Doing A Good Job Because The Dow Was Up. Now The Dow Is Crashing. Do Trump Supporters Now Admit He Is Doing A Bad Job?

    It wasn’t the dow, but ALL the economic factors that are up. ALL OF THEM. The stock market is succeptible to ‘irrational exuberance’ and ‘animal impulse’. So the market overreacts in both up and down directions as it expands and contracts.

    The market was overheated because speculation that the trump tax plan would have beneficial effects, drove up the prices. Now that they’re here, some people are taking profits because they can foresee a correction.

    https://www.quora.com/Trump-supporters-claimed-he-was-doing-a-good-job-because-the-DOW-was-up-Now-the-DOW-is-crashing-Do-Trump-supporters-now-admit-he-is-doing-a-bad-job

  • Did Products And Home Appliances Last More In The Soviet Union Than In The Capitalistic World?

    Great posts. The decline in durability of goods, and the replacement of durability with signals goods. I’ll put it in economic terms:

    Markets, like Democracy, when combined with cheap consumer credit, produce ever cheaper results with ever higher signal value, until they drive out all quality and durability. This is a universal law of economics. So the problem is not so much capitalism or markets, but cheap consumer credit. (really).

    Soviet Military goods were produced to be cheap, durable, and easy to use, and easy to repair, but not necessarily comfortable. The consumer goods followed this design strategy. And when you are trying to rapidly modernize a ‘backward’ economy, it’s actually a fantastic strategy.

    The only problem I see is that it was fairly obvious fairly early, that correcting a backward economy is *all* that centralization can do, and that changing from near-non-existent industrialism, to industrialism can in fact be done, but the change from industrial production to markets and incentives is eventually necessary.

    The soviets did some good things too. I still prefer Ukrainian and Russian culture to my own

    https://www.quora.com/Did-products-and-home-appliances-last-more-in-the-Soviet-Union-than-in-the-capitalistic-world

  • Trump Supporters Claimed He Was Doing A Good Job Because The Dow Was Up. Now The Dow Is Crashing. Do Trump Supporters Now Admit He Is Doing A Bad Job?

    It wasn’t the dow, but ALL the economic factors that are up. ALL OF THEM. The stock market is succeptible to ‘irrational exuberance’ and ‘animal impulse’. So the market overreacts in both up and down directions as it expands and contracts.

    The market was overheated because speculation that the trump tax plan would have beneficial effects, drove up the prices. Now that they’re here, some people are taking profits because they can foresee a correction.

    https://www.quora.com/Trump-supporters-claimed-he-was-doing-a-good-job-because-the-DOW-was-up-Now-the-DOW-is-crashing-Do-Trump-supporters-now-admit-he-is-doing-a-bad-job

  • The Us Has Very Few Listed Firms. Why?

    Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do. What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies. —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms. The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects. In fact, going public can hurt them. The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets. US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value. Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”—

  • THE US HAS VERY FEW LISTED FIRMS. WHY? Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s

    THE US HAS VERY FEW LISTED FIRMS. WHY?

    Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do.

    What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies.

    —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms.

    The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects.

    In fact, going public can hurt them.

    The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets.

    US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors

    A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value.

    Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 20:28:00 UTC