Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • WILL CHANGE BUT NOT OCCUPATIONS —”It seems plausible that the future, too, wil

    http://www.voxeu.org/article/technological-progress-thing-pastTECH WILL CHANGE BUT NOT OCCUPATIONS

    —”It seems plausible that the future, too, will create occupations we cannot imagine, let alone envisage.”— Joel Mokyr

    But have professions really changed in 2500 years?

    Looks much more like a limited set of roles adapting to technology.

    All we seem to see is shifting to increasingly abstract tools, and abandoning the tail jobs as utility of tail technologies dissipate..

    Tech changes, But do occupations?

    Research, Invention, Entrepreneurship, Investment, Production, Distribution, Trade, and Consumption, and Reproduction all continue.

    Those are our Occupations. Technology is merely a product.

    What about Disciplines? Coercion by Force, Coercion by Exchange, Coercion by words.

    We have constant disciplines and occupations, but the technology merely rolls on through them.

    We have made the earth our anthill.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 05:31:00 UTC

  • Market Failure? Political Failure? No. Our Failure.

    [W]e can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’). We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction. We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve. The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons. The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all. We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes. We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common. We have failed more so by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Market Failure? Political Failure? No. Our Failure.

    [W]e can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’). We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction. We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve. The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons. The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all. We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes. We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common. We have failed more so by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • MARKET FAILURE? GOVERNMENT FAILURE? NOPE. OUR FAILURE. We can fail to construct

    MARKET FAILURE? GOVERNMENT FAILURE? NOPE. OUR FAILURE.

    We can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible.

    If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’).

    We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible.

    If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction.

    We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible.

    Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve.

    The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons.

    The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all.

    We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes.

    We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common.

    We have failed moreso by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 06:41:00 UTC

  • “Apple remains the most important stock to the entire market. The brutal 30% dro

    —“Apple remains the most important stock to the entire market. The brutal 30% drop in the stock from its high has erased $224 billion in investors wealth – which exceeds the market value of all but a handful of the stocks in the Standard & Poor’s 500. Apple’s profits are so large and important, they are expected to account for 7.2% of the operating earnings reported by all the companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500”—

    Like I said

    (a) Apple will have to go for the business market once the consumer market peaks

    (b) Enterprise software will have to catch up on its underinvestment in order to sell hardware.

    I was kind of hoping we had two more years before it happened so that we could get oversing up there.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 03:05:00 UTC

  • Yet another bit of feedback. Everyone is telling me the same thing: Entering an

    Yet another bit of feedback. Everyone is telling me the same thing: Entering an oversold position because of fears over china and oil. I think it has a few more weeks to play out. I am having trouble undrestanding why vaporizing institutional portfolios, and chaos in the international political debt cycle are going to affect consumers, or fundamentals. Usual suspects are quiet. So I’m sticking with it will level out soon and we will have a recovery once the stress wears off. (watch me be wrong…fuk)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 18:11:00 UTC

  • My @Quora answer to Is Keynsian economics better for America than Austrian econo

    My @Quora answer to Is Keynsian economics better for America than Austrian economics? https://www.quora.com/Is-Keynsian-economics-better-for-America-than-Austrian-economics/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=5f4fde62

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 22:00:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689568184530255876

  • IS THE MOST ACCURATE FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC MOVEMENTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US

    https://t.co/CYn1I4nXmXTHIS IS THE MOST ACCURATE FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC MOVEMENTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US.

    1 – Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of knowledge so that people can cooperate voluntarily under the optimum possible conditions. So as a movement, Austrian economics was a social science. In other words, they want to improve our information.

    2 – American (Chicago) economics seeks to identify rule of law, so that economics can be constructed as a formula under rule of law – eliminating discretionary toying with the economy, just as rule of law eliminates discretionary toying with the polity. In other words, they want to manipulate information as little as possible.

    3 – Saltwater (New York/California) economics seeks to identify the maximum disinformation that the government can insert into the economy with which to farm taxes, consume, and redistribute them, while preserving the incentive to keep working and risking capital (the hamster wheel), and to create sufficient knowledge of how to use disinformation that policy makers have full discretion.

    My @Quora answer to Is Keynsian economics better for America than Austrian economics?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 17:00:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Keynsian-economics-better-for-America-than-Austrian-economics/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=5f4fde62

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 17:00:00 UTC

  • Is capitalism good? Yes is a half statement. A statement of the OBVERSE. But it

    Is capitalism good? Yes is a half statement. A statement of the OBVERSE. But it lack the REVERSE: If and only if all parasitism under it is still eliminated by rule of law and universal standing.

    There are few unlimited theories. Parasitism is the limit of cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 08:55:00 UTC