Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Art is inseparable from economics and market demand for signals via art, and the

    Art is inseparable from economics and market demand for signals via art, and the cultural narrative of the civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 22:50:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801196114007314432

    Reply addressees: @Graf_von_Dienen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

    IN REPLY TO:

    @von_dienstmann

    @curtdoolittle What is your opinion as an art scholar on contemporary and modernist art movements? (Pollock, Mondrian, impressionists, etc)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

  • Secondly, cheaper furniture, cheaper buildings, panel products etc were better r

    Secondly, cheaper furniture, cheaper buildings, panel products etc were better reflected in cheaper (simpler) decoration.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 22:45:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801194968723443714

    Reply addressees: @Graf_von_Dienen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

    IN REPLY TO:

    @von_dienstmann

    @curtdoolittle What is your opinion as an art scholar on contemporary and modernist art movements? (Pollock, Mondrian, impressionists, etc)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

  • The central benefit of the ‘modern’ artists, like the print makers of earlier er

    The central benefit of the ‘modern’ artists, like the print makers of earlier eras, is the cheapness of production.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 22:45:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801194811235647488

    Reply addressees: @Graf_von_Dienen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

    IN REPLY TO:

    @von_dienstmann

    @curtdoolittle What is your opinion as an art scholar on contemporary and modernist art movements? (Pollock, Mondrian, impressionists, etc)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

  • Now, the Impressionists – that’s different. They were a reaction to the advent o

    Now, the Impressionists – that’s different. They were a reaction to the advent of photography. Innovation for Art markets.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 22:34:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801192276869414912

    Reply addressees: @Graf_von_Dienen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

    IN REPLY TO:

    @von_dienstmann

    @curtdoolittle What is your opinion as an art scholar on contemporary and modernist art movements? (Pollock, Mondrian, impressionists, etc)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

  • And they were open about it. (((they))) wanted to create new heroes of consumpti

    And they were open about it. (((they))) wanted to create new heroes of consumption not retain those of savings.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 22:32:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801191557990928384

    Reply addressees: @Graf_von_Dienen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

    IN REPLY TO:

    @von_dienstmann

    @curtdoolittle What is your opinion as an art scholar on contemporary and modernist art movements? (Pollock, Mondrian, impressionists, etc)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801147178345435137

  • WHY DON’T WE HAVE SOME FORM OF COMMUNISM? The problem is quite simple. It’s just

    WHY DON’T WE HAVE SOME FORM OF COMMUNISM?

    The problem is quite simple. It’s just unpleasant. But the universe is not kind. It has no mercy. And science tells us uncomfortable truths.

    if you cannot find a means of survival in the market, and others can do so but at lower prices, humanity does not need you. If humanity does not need you then your only choice is to find a means to make your nation, region, tribe, kin, or family need you. The problem with any MONOPOLY order (Fascist, Libertarian, Socialist), and the problem we created in the enlightenment promise that all people could join the middle upper middle, or aristocratic classes, if we expanded either the authoritarian, market, or socialist forms of economy. Instead, we need economies for each of the major classes, because we need to organize each of those classes differently. So monopolies, even monopoly democracy (majoritarianism) turns out to be the problem rather than the solution to the differences in the productivity of the estates of the realm (martial-order, burger-managemnet, craftsman-producer).

    There exist only three possible axes of coercion:

    – Violence:Law,

    – Bribery: Markets and Insurance

    – Fraud: Religion, Propaganda, and Deceit

    There exist only three axes of cooperation:

    – Parasitism:Takings,

    – Exchange:Markets,

    – Avoidance:Boycott

    There exist only three rational axes:

    – Predation when possible (immorality),

    – Exchange when Possible (morality);

    – Avoidance when possible (amorality).

    There exist only three methods of negotiation on cooperation.

    – Truth(science), Truthfulness, Honesty

    – Falsehood: Error, Bias, wishful thinking, suggestion/framing/loading, overloading/pseudoscience/pseudorationalism/propaganda, and deceit.

    – Silence.

    There exist only three axes of Organization

    – Predation(parasitism,

    – Exchange(production),

    – Separation (resistance)

    There exist only three possible axes of decidability for cooperative organizations:

    – Deliberate Selection via Authoritarianism (Fascism)

    – Pragmatic Eugenic Meritocracy (Markets)

    – Dysgenic Malthusian Equalitarianism (Socialism)

    The earth tells us a very clear, very obvious, very loud message: there are too many of us. Humans are not precious or special or valuable or intrinsically good. We are rational super predators organized by the application of violence and law, market and productivity, and norm and family.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 14:46:00 UTC

  • Whenever someone suggests efficiency other than exchange they’re trying to steal

    Whenever someone suggests efficiency other than exchange they’re trying to steal from someone.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 11:19:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Sanguine (@SanguineEmpiric): Marx was just Anglo-capitalisms primary d

    Retweeted Sanguine (@SanguineEmpiric):

    Marx was just Anglo-capitalisms primary diagnostician. He was observing their culture’s capitalism’s tendency. Capitalism’s have form too.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-21 04:10:00 UTC

  • Well, if Krugman says China’s about to crash, I’m gonna say that it’s his (albei

    Well, if Krugman says China’s about to crash, I’m gonna say that it’s his (albeit limited) area of expertise, and he’s probably right. And that, as I suggested, the next ‘great upheaval’ will occur in the 2020-2025 range.

    (I thought they couldn’t make it past 2010.)

    They’re preparing for their civil war, just as we are preparing for ours. And we can only hope that they happen at the same time, so that both are occupied internally by the end of the capitalist universalist era, and the return to nationalism and kinship.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-20 12:12:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES? —“Could you elaborate on

    Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES?

    —“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley

    No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).

    SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes.

    The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market.

    So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes.

    I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 18:53:00 UTC