Form: Argument

  • You can testify to what you claim, or you can’t. You can’t. Your claims can past

    You can testify to what you claim, or you can’t. You can’t. Your claims can past the test of testifiability, or they can’t. They can’t. Then we are left only with incentives. You have incentives to lie. So you have means, motive, and opportunity to lie. Ergo: Judgment: Guilty.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-26 16:14:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1309889107141763072

    Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS @William68332190 @SepteusT @JFGariepy @KeithWoodsYT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1309882277191651328

  • You can testify to what you claim, or you can’t. You can’t. Your claims can past

    You can testify to what you claim, or you can’t. You can’t. Your claims can past the test of testifiability, or they can’t. They can’t. Then we are left only with incentives. You have incentives to lie. So you have means, motive, and opportunity to lie. Ergo: Judgment: Guilty.

    Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS @William68332190 @SepteusT @JFGariepy @KeithWoodsYT

  • No. A modern government, capable of issuing its own currency, cannot go bankrupt

    No.

    A modern government, capable of issuing its own currency, cannot go bankrupt per se. It cannot be unable to pay its debts as long as the debts are denominated in the government’s currency.

    It can just pay off its DEBTES as a counterfeiter could.

    What the government CAN do is print and SPEND money and inflate its way into zero purchasing power.

    When people look at Venezuela or zimbabwe or most failed state economies, it’s because the government has spent the currency out of purchasing power. But there are a lot of ways to do that.

    This is more difficult in relatively autarkic countries (America, France) that consume their own production and import very little than it is for countries that depend on imports and exports because of insufficient local production and productivity.

    If you need imports and you spend your currency into low purchasing power, you might be able to get credit, or credit denominated in foreign currencies. And then you can go bankrupt on that debt. (ie: Greece).

    If you need imports (particularly energy), and you spend your currency into zero purchasing power, then you’re the equivalent of bankrupt. Not because you have no money to spend, but because the money you have to spend has no purchasing power (isn’t worth anything.)

    The problem European countries have, especially Italy, is that they can’t control their currencies so they can’t inflate away their debt by printing money. Occasional Inflating away debt (printing money to pay off debt) isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it takes time for such payments to work their way through the economy.

    Borrowing against yourself – meaning printing money you expect to collect later in taxes somehow, or otherwise, turn into some sort of returns on capital (like airports or railways our energy production), isn’t a bad thing either. What you want to avoid is systemically affecting the pricing structure so that finance, industry, business, and consumers alter their behavior (stop spending).

    What causes problems for all governments are ‘rents’ (privileges). Like.. you know, all those benefits we like to have. All those government salaries. …

    Why is this problem serious? Because there is no feedback loop, so the problem of market correction is extended into the government leading to ‘government correction’ – and that’s really, really, really, bad.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 20:36:00 UTC

  • “Q: Curt: Why is Russia not in the top 10 of the 2019 global competitiveness ind

    —“Q: Curt: Why is Russia not in the top 10 of the 2019 global competitiveness index?”—

    THE SOCIAL ANSWER

    Read the comment [on Quora] by Dima Vorobiev as it gives the Russian perspective – which isn’t wrong so to speak. In particular, it’s still a hierarchical rather than majority middle-class civilization. They don’t have the institutions of, or morals of, a rule of law people like northern Europeans – these are rules of a majority middle-class civilization. They don’t have a participatory government – that is a system of middle-class majority civilization. Northern Europeans developed rule of law because we developed a majority middle-class civilization (West Ukraine did – it was under Austrian rule, hence the division in Ukraine.). Russia only stopped serfdom in the late 19th century, never developed a middle class, and transitioned right into Bolshevism, Leninism, Soviet Communism. So, instead, as Dima states, they remain an aristocratic civilization, where there is an aristocratic political class, an aristocratic commercial class, and ‘the people’. My experience of life in Ukraine and Russia (which I prefer to America), that the people go about their civil and family work, the business class goes about its business, and the state goes about its business, and as such there is less conflict because everyone isn’t involved in everyone else’s business – which is a good thing since they don’t know enough to do so. (Unlike the presumption of Americans.) Russia had to bear the soviet era but has not fallen for western ‘decadence’ (destruction of the family, morals, civil life, and social responsibility). Family and civil life are still meaningful. And the only problem is the time it takes to create infrastructure and employment across eleven terribly cold time zones with only 140m people with an economy the size of Texas.

    THE ECONOMIC ANSWER:

    The correct answer is of course that the GCI is a political tool as much as an empirical one. Russia like China has been through the perils of the international system, which favors certain countries and not others.

    The principle answer is Time. They need more time to develop. Unreported in the west is Putin’s success at creating rule of law in Russia. Overreported in the west is the Russian use of Jingoism to inspire the people. If you view Russia from the lens of 1992 until today, it’s not as grand as china, but it’s pretty impressive.

    The second reason – which is just plain incomprehensible – is the decline the Russian workforce which is particularly suited to engineering and technology work (I prefer to hire them myself). This decline is due to declines in education and is in part due to the increase in (bad) entertainment. Seriously. Russians had the world’s best education system. And it needs it.

    The third reason is the condition of the financial sector, which is not sufficiently entrepreneurial (risk-tolerant). This is (in my opinion) the central problem. Until sanctions are lifted OR Russia succeeds in building a sufficiently trustworthy entrepreneurial credit sector, it will be difficult to get the 1/3 of the population who still lives in ‘rustic’ conditions, out of them.

    The fourth reason is the low trust society and its impact on rule of law. I tried to buy about a dozen tech companies in Russia rather than start one and it’s impossible to determine what’s true; difficult to trust a contract will hold; So relationships matter and always will. Russia is just like Americans except they trust the government 1000x less, and friends and family 1000x more.

    In other words, Russians wouldn’t take this report very seriously. It just feeds into the hands of the same people who spent the past 70 years putting us in the current precarious position.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 18:07:00 UTC

  • Ergo, all argument with leftists is non rational, non scientific, and nothing bu

    Ergo, all argument with leftists is non rational, non scientific, and nothing but pre-conscious reaction because of differences in amplitude overriding agency. All 20th century pseudoscience depends on leftism’s technique. So debate is pointless. It’s an exercise in self service.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-18 12:58:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1306940591368962048

    Reply addressees: @blackseraphim2 @TopHatRod @JadeBai85455803

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1306933166641475588

  • Ergo, all argument with leftists is non rational, non scientific, and nothing bu

    Ergo, all argument with leftists is non rational, non scientific, and nothing but pre-conscious reaction because of differences in amplitude overriding agency. All 20th century pseudoscience depends on leftism’s technique. So debate is pointless. It’s an exercise in self service.

    Reply addressees: @blackseraphim2 @TopHatRod @JadeBai85455803

  • All Rulers in times of war are murders. Your argument is that the fascists were

    All Rulers in times of war are murders. Your argument is that the fascists were somehow worse than the communists, or that fascism was somehow worse than communism and socialism. Both of those arguments are false. Sorry. Fascism(Nationalism) is the norm in history and is again.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-04 16:50:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301925524160286721

    Reply addressees: @Jyrkiboy_ @wax5800 @MD11dr @jimkelly522 @RealJamesWoods

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301901458892259331

  • All Rulers in times of war are murders. Your argument is that the fascists were

    All Rulers in times of war are murders. Your argument is that the fascists were somehow worse than the communists, or that fascism was somehow worse than communism and socialism. Both of those arguments are false. Sorry. Fascism(Nationalism) is the norm in history and is again.

    Reply addressees: @Jyrkiboy_ @wax5800 @MD11dr @jimkelly522 @RealJamesWoods

  • That would require your statement(assertion) is therefore meaningless (random, a

    That would require your statement(assertion) is therefore meaningless (random, ambiguous). In other words, you can’t make that assertion without depending upon it.

    Truth = Satisfaction of demand for infallibility in the context of the question we wish to decide.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-04 05:41:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301757349401690112

    Reply addressees: @quken

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301756250066214912

  • That would require your statement(assertion) is therefore meaningless (random, a

    That would require your statement(assertion) is therefore meaningless (random, ambiguous). In other words, you can’t make that assertion without depending upon it.

    Truth = Satisfaction of demand for infallibility in the context of the question we wish to decide.

    Reply addressees: @quken