Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • There is no problem with paying dividends on the economy. I don’t see why that’s

    There is no problem with paying dividends on the economy. I don’t see why that’s a problem. But every time I do the math I come to the same conclusion: that surpluses sufficient to create a marginal difference in the quality of life of the individuals are not possible.

    In other words, it’s pretty much impossible to implement a basic income scheme. What is possible is to provide chaotic windfalls, and distribute liquidity through to consumers. The data just hold up under that.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 05:55:00 UTC

  • The philosophy of Money is kind of stupid really. Money stores time. It’s time t

    The philosophy of Money is kind of stupid really. Money stores time. It’s time that’s the first object of construction in cooperation. Everything else in cooperation evolves from the problem of time.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 05:37:00 UTC

  • MONOPOLY THINKING IN ECONOMICS: THE CALCULATION PROBLEM IS MONOPOLY-THINKING Eve

    MONOPOLY THINKING IN ECONOMICS: THE CALCULATION PROBLEM IS MONOPOLY-THINKING

    Even if you can solve the calculation problem (decision) you cannot solve the incentive problem, nor the innovation problem, meaning that you can create a tri-part economy with (a) a market for discovery, (b) with some common production of commodities such as energy and rice (c) and a military economy where there is little innovation.

    But then, this mirrors what occurs in both market and mixed economies (ask the people who produce paper products). Whether we discuss calculation ( planning production) or incentive (personal choices) the problem is the same. discovery and innovation, voluntary organization (incentives), and commodity production, and virtual slave labor (military), all weigh incentives, calculation, and innovation differently.

    We always have mixed economies, the question is how much interference do we put into them? The answer is, that we use voluntary, semi-voluntary, and involuntary organizations of production depending on the production and innovation cycle, and the ability or inability of the market to solve the problems.

    Markets are bad at military orders (homogenous interests) and markets are great at consumption orders (heterogeneous interests), And mixed production is superior at those orders that voluntary organization is difficult to produce (some civic commons). We incorrectly place this as “market Failure.

    But it’s just using the right organization for the job.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 04:32:00 UTC

  • Q&A: MR DOOLITTLE: QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC ORDERS —“Can you please elaborate o

    Q&A: MR DOOLITTLE: QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC ORDERS

    —“Can you please elaborate on this “Once cheap labor stops, and marginal differences in knowledge are exhausted, what remains is a nation’s ability to dynamically reorganize production in real time, and to competitively innovate in real time.”

    Are you saying that productivity and innovation are not dependent on a nation’s wealth, size or population, but instead on how it organizes its existing resources to achieve maximum output? Basically, higher social capital = better long term growth and innovation?”—

    Yes. Thank you, I don’t think of putting it that way. But for example, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, are small countries with small populations. But they are homogenous germanic peoples with high trust polities. This trust is just like having oil, gold, great farmland, or any other local asset. It’s an economic advantage.

    So all resources being equal, the competitive difference between societies would be determined by the absence of corruption and the presence of rule of law.

    The conflict generally comes with the tradeoff between military, trade, and credit capacity at scale, and ability to suppress corruption and tailor law, policy, and norms to the needs of local groups.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 07:14:00 UTC

  • FORCING PEOPLE TO COME TO THE TABLE TO TRADE If you don’t understand what I’m do

    FORCING PEOPLE TO COME TO THE TABLE TO TRADE

    If you don’t understand what I’m doing, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all.

    Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same.

    So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).

    This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments).

    The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal.

    I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violece, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations.

    They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist.

    But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 06:01:00 UTC

  • STATE HEALTHCARE IS NOT A PROBLEM IF ITS NOT A MONOPOLY The problem is MONOPOLY

    STATE HEALTHCARE IS NOT A PROBLEM IF ITS NOT A MONOPOLY

    The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 04:35:00 UTC

  • It’s a tautology. An apriori statement is “minimum wages will cause increases in

    It’s a tautology. An apriori statement is “minimum wages will cause increases in unemployment”.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 19:01:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768161181705973760

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768158926521012224

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768158926521012224

  • And it has more to do with why we focus on liquidity and interest distributed th

    And it has more to do with why we focus on liquidity and interest distributed through credit, rather than improve information.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 18:23:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768151648812269568

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768114061615570946

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768114061615570946

  • This has nothing to do with why keynes and mises both erred

    This has nothing to do with why keynes and mises both erred.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 18:22:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768151392934658048

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768114061615570946

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768114061615570946

  • If you’re asking for the relationship between the movement of investment and the

    If you’re asking for the relationship between the movement of investment and the natural rate of interest, it’s insufficient.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 18:21:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768151191389872128

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768114061615570946

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768114061615570946