Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • I don’t think it’s so obvious, but it is to those of us with deep knowledge of e

    I don’t think it’s so obvious, but it is to those of us with deep knowledge of economics, that banks are rapidly becoming an unnecessary institution.

    Why? because the next step in financialization is to bypass the banks with liquidity distributed directly from the Treasury, and the near elimination of consumer interest.

    It actually makes no sense at all to charge interest on consumption. The reason we need interest in business is for the purposes of economic calculation (determining inter-temporal profit and loss).

    There are three services that need to be performed: payment capacity, escrow on warranties, and collection – all of which can be performed by publishing actuarial limits the way we publish interest rates today.

    Furthermore there is no longer a need for a single currency in a digital era, and we can issue currencies that are exchangeable only for different purposes

    The roadblock to such reform is the government, financial sector, and institutional sector, all of whom prey upon citizenry through financialization.

    And the citizenry is suspicious of such solutions primarily because until the government cannot enact legislation(pseudo-law) to further interfere with the economy, it remains in the interest of citizens to use banks and hard money as means of controlling the ability of the state to engage in parasitism.

    Therefore the independence of the treasury must be a constitutional guarantee and attempts to thwart it punished with the same severity as treason or war crime.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-20 04:37:00 UTC

  • Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. At least up until the exter

    Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. At least up until the externalities inhibit group competitiveness.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-19 11:32:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711153343821914112

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JonHaidt @sapinker Sadly, the distribution of philosophers is worse than that of psychologists prior to Operationism. For the same reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JonHaidt @sapinker Sadly, the distribution of philosophers is worse than that of psychologists prior to Operationism. For the same reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176

  • Keyensian is Mainstream. It is better to see mainstream as attempting to moderat

    Keyensian is Mainstream. It is better to see mainstream as attempting to moderate all three forms of inquiry: rule of law for the central bank(monetary policy). Keynesian Discretion for the policy makers (fiscal policy). Keyensian sociology for the population (maximize consumption and tax revenues to maximize redistribution).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-18 12:11:00 UTC

  • How Would A Pure Communist State Look Like?

    It would look like a unicorn, a fairy tale, or a dystopian science fiction novel.

    Communism is impossible for two related reasons: inability to calculate anything economic, and lack of availability of incentives.  Communism is a farm for free ridership.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-pure-communist-state-look-like

  • What Is Libertarian Communism?

    Like “meritocratic communism” it is either an impossibility, or a lie. Most likely a lie to cover an impossibility. Most such lies are created in order to perpetuate fraud by political means by making false moral appeals in an effort to avoid exchanging behavioral limitations for material rewards.

    Libertarianism: universal individual ownership of property, and voluntarily constructed commons.

    Socialism: Universal state ownership of property, and the involuntarily constructed commons, where bureaucratic or authoritarian leaders determine the assignments of work and the distribution of proceeds from the work – (which usually don’t end up existing)  Socialism is a failed experiment.

    Mixed economy: Involuntary organization of the production of commons using representatives who appropriate the proceeds of production.  Plus the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds that are later redistributed as commons. This is in practice the western model since voters demonstrably do not vote for policy but ideology.

    Direct Economic/market Democracy: The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting for desired commons with the contributions that one has produced.  Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds some portion of which are used to produce commons.  In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary.  But competitive commons are class-weighted.  This is an unlikely experiment except in small, very wealthy communities.

    Direct Redistributive/Shareholder Democracy:  The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting a SHARE of the proceeds from a mixed economy. Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services, which generates the proceeds some portino of which are used to produce commons.  This means meritocratic contribution to commons but egalitarian decision  of commons. In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary. This is a likely next generation of Government since it eliminates the unnecessary conflcit of monopoly commons and eliminates the existence of politicians who engage in corruption.

    We must organize cooperation (morality)
    We must organize reproduction (family)
    We must organize production (market)
    We must organize commons (government)
    We must organize a monopoly with which to hold our territory (military)

    If you aren’t using these terms then you’re probably engaged in error or lie.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-libertarian-communism

  • Is Socialism Dangerous?

    Isn’t 100 Million dead in one century because of a pseudoscientific economic and political system propagated by tyrants from the underclasses enough evidence? Isn’t India’s continued problem with ever-present corruption evidence?

    How do you price the damage done by the soviets, the chinese, the southeast asians, the south americans, the hindus from these experiments with socialism?

    The most capitalist societies provide the greatest benefits by redistribution.

    The most socialist societies provide the worse benefits by redistribution.

    THE ONLY PEOPLE TAUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT SOCIALISM?

    Are liberal arts, and ‘extended high school’ students who are not smart enough to get into STEM classes.  The kind of people who can learn by reading  100-120 IQ) but who are not smart enough to manage science (abstract empiricism).   THe people who follow these mere literary believers in the sub-100 IQ space cannot be blamed. They cannot grasp these matters anyway.  They imitate those that they understand.

    Think of Socialism and Communism as a literary equivalent of Science Fiction and Fantasy (which constitute a libertarian movement).  They are both nonsense extremes.  The arose in nearly the same fashion at nearly the same times, as the myths of the new age.  Socialism and communism the restatement of peasant christianity, and science fiction and fantasy the restatement of pagan aristocracy.

    Rule of law under the common law under natural law, with which we suppress parasitism and free riding;  the credit society under which our behavior is regulated more so by credit and job than by law and religion;  and macro economics in which we attempt to stimulate production sufficiently to keep all employed; and finally genetic and cognitive science – are relatively scientific disciplines.  They are not literary fantasies of socialism or  science fiction.

    Communism, socialism, and the myth of the horrid worker who chose the factory happily, willingly, and enthusiastically, over the subsistence of the farm, are all literary inventions.  None of it is real. None of it happened.

    Utopias always fail.  Socialism and communism were the second attempt to spread a new religion – this time by pseudoscientific literature.  The first time by religious mysticism in ancient era’s version of literature – myth.

    Both have had nothing but evil consequences. 

    Why?  Because only very stupid people believe them, and very stupid people can be led by them.  Unfortunately, very stupid people make up more than half of the living population. In many countries they make up three to four fifths of the population.

    We all seek justification of our reproductive strategies.  The problem for the undesirable, unintelligent, and unproductive is that they are aware of their incompetence but must seek lies to justify their existences.    It must be someone else’s fault. It cannot be that they are human waste products the result of dysgenic over reproduction, and the only reason they live is that we have petroleum products to keep them warm and feed them in winter…  (ouch)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-socialism-dangerous

  • How Would A Pure Communist State Look Like?

    It would look like a unicorn, a fairy tale, or a dystopian science fiction novel.

    Communism is impossible for two related reasons: inability to calculate anything economic, and lack of availability of incentives.  Communism is a farm for free ridership.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-pure-communist-state-look-like

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Nordic Socialism And Other Flavors Of Socialism, And Is There An Example Of Nation That Has Prospered Under It?

    Nordics do not practice socialism but very high levels of taxation and redistribution. They are highly capitalist economies.  The reasons that they can achieve this state are that

    1. Northern europeans have been selectively eliminating the troublesome lower part of the gene pool for thousands of years (impulsivity and IQ under 80.)  Cold weather, short summers, darkness, manorialism, lots of hanging, no immigration from north Africa, Levant,  central Asia, steppe, or Asia to damage the gene pool.)
    2. These are very small countries.
    3. They have no diversity to create political conflict over redistributed wealth.
    4. They have no competitors on their borders to meaningfully defend against.
    5. They are bordered by near kin who have similar values and are not competitors.
    6. They are educated protestants exposed to Hanseatic and pre-Hansa cultures for many centuries.
    7. Northern european women have been able to use property and breed late for centuries.

    (BTW: I get very tired of these fake questions dreamed up by paid workers in india in order to generate clicks.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-Nordic-socialism-and-other-flavors-of-socialism-and-is-there-an-example-of-nation-that-has-prospered-under-it

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Nordic Socialism And Other Flavors Of Socialism, And Is There An Example Of Nation That Has Prospered Under It?

    Nordics do not practice socialism but very high levels of taxation and redistribution. They are highly capitalist economies.  The reasons that they can achieve this state are that

    1. Northern europeans have been selectively eliminating the troublesome lower part of the gene pool for thousands of years (impulsivity and IQ under 80.)  Cold weather, short summers, darkness, manorialism, lots of hanging, no immigration from north Africa, Levant,  central Asia, steppe, or Asia to damage the gene pool.)
    2. These are very small countries.
    3. They have no diversity to create political conflict over redistributed wealth.
    4. They have no competitors on their borders to meaningfully defend against.
    5. They are bordered by near kin who have similar values and are not competitors.
    6. They are educated protestants exposed to Hanseatic and pre-Hansa cultures for many centuries.
    7. Northern european women have been able to use property and breed late for centuries.

    (BTW: I get very tired of these fake questions dreamed up by paid workers in india in order to generate clicks.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-Nordic-socialism-and-other-flavors-of-socialism-and-is-there-an-example-of-nation-that-has-prospered-under-it

  • are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their orig

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Keynesian-economics-and-Austrian-economics/answer/Curt-DoolittleThere are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals

    Austrian economics seeks to eliminate symmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. T is also the most eugenic system.

    Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another.

    Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk.

    I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-17 06:48:00 UTC