Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Yes a Good Religion Is Possible – We Had Them

    Dec 29, 2019, 1:33 PM I’m definitely anti theology, but not anti ‘religion’ in the ancient sense of myth(heroism, tragedy), ritual(sacrifice, debt payment), Oath, feast, sport, and festival, but in addition we require mindfulness as anonymity increases so the stoic-epicurean(science) vs buddhist (nonsense) methods are both superior to the semitic (self destructive). A ‘good’ religion is possible and the romans had just about developed it with Aryanism of homer (upper), Stoicism (upper middle, middle), epicureanism (lower middle), and sol invictus (lower) before the jews began their undermining. Today we know that aryanism of homer (aristocracy) is only available to those with agency, that stoicism was the proactive version of cognitive behavioral therapy and epicureanism the only means of true happiness for ordinary people, and that the underclasses desire escapism by false promise. We see buddhism tried to do all at once, and so did christianity judaism and islam – and all of them through falsehood. In usual european tradition, the market supplied class-religions of aryanism(homer,tragedy), stoicism, epicureanism, and sol invictus (brotherhoood) with christianity attractive mostly to women, slaves, immigrants and the underclasses. Just as Aristotelianism is attractive to our upper classes today, secular christianity our middle, and christianity our working, and islam our underclasses. The european solution to everything is markets that serve the interests of the classes but limited to preservation of cooperation between the classes by truth, duty, promise contract, rule of law of tort-property, and jury. In other words we mandate monopoly only on the material, legal, and political, and let people follow the ‘narrative’ that fits their agency. The problem is, that judaism and islam are both evolved to destroy that market of cooperation and restore authoritarianism and monopoly.

  • The Christian Denominations and Their Variations

    Dec 29, 2019, 1:40 PM Again, orthodoxy survived because the church ‘minded its own business’ and did not as in the west, start with an attack on the aristocracy and seek to destroy it, but was imposed by the state as a means of governing (administering) the (ignorant) peasantry. The truth is that our pagan religions whether mediterranean, Atlantic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Slavic, or Finnic are far superior in mirroring reality than the semitic. But that the Jesus figure is certainly an ideal if we want to cooperate in large numbers across families, clans, tribes and nations. Not how Orthodoxy emphasizes god (the community), Catholicism Church Dogma (political), and Protestantism the life of Jesus(Personal). It’s fascinating that the religion managed to specialize for what was needed for each. However, only orthodoxy (god, community, organized religion), and evangelical protestantism (Jesus personal, folk religion) will survive, and that catholicism (political) has devolved into money-seeking traitor to european civilization and now selling indulgences to the superstitious underclasses.

  • The Christian Denominations and Their Variations

    Dec 29, 2019, 1:40 PM Again, orthodoxy survived because the church ‘minded its own business’ and did not as in the west, start with an attack on the aristocracy and seek to destroy it, but was imposed by the state as a means of governing (administering) the (ignorant) peasantry. The truth is that our pagan religions whether mediterranean, Atlantic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Slavic, or Finnic are far superior in mirroring reality than the semitic. But that the Jesus figure is certainly an ideal if we want to cooperate in large numbers across families, clans, tribes and nations. Not how Orthodoxy emphasizes god (the community), Catholicism Church Dogma (political), and Protestantism the life of Jesus(Personal). It’s fascinating that the religion managed to specialize for what was needed for each. However, only orthodoxy (god, community, organized religion), and evangelical protestantism (Jesus personal, folk religion) will survive, and that catholicism (political) has devolved into money-seeking traitor to european civilization and now selling indulgences to the superstitious underclasses.

  • the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.

    Dec 30, 2019, 11:35 AM It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science. Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant. Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG. Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics). Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.

  • the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.

    Dec 30, 2019, 11:35 AM It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science. Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant. Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG. Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics). Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.

  • What Do You Think Is the Most Capitalist Society

    Dec 31, 2019, 4:52 PM —“Between the US, the EU, Russia, and China, what do you think is the most capitalist society?”— The Capitalism vs Communism dichotomy is a fabrication of the Marxists to distract from the reality that: (a) all states must practice mixed economies, with state centralization solving market limitations at the cost of poor capital efficiency and high corruption, until private capital can decentralize production and increase capital efficiency and decrease corruption; Advanced economies must innovate and require markets (private sector) majority production, and backward economies must catch up and create markets by state (public sector) majority production. (b) all states capable of collecting revenues either by investment and returns, taxation, interest collection, profiting from direct management, or all of the above, can choose whether to spend the income on consumption (redistribution) or production( further investment). Those states that are unable to collect revenues can militarize the population (as did the soviets) and minimize wages so that the maximum resources can be directed to production of commons. (c) the question is whether one operates by rule of law that naturally produces markets, rule by legislation negotiated between classes, or rule by regulation by monopoly bureaucracy, or rule by command (discretion) by dictator. ANGLOSPHERE countries are by far – without even a close competitor – dependent upon rule of law, rule by legislation, and state funding basic research, but almost no state involvement in production – why? Because judges were always independent professionals and less subject to corruption. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, and Rule of Law. CONTINENTAL – countries practice the napoleonic law of rule by legislation and rule by regulation. Why? Because french judges were appointed or purchased their positions and napoleon could not trust them to refrain from discretionary rulings (making up law). Mixed Economy, Favoring mixed public private sectors, and Rule of Legislation. POST SOVIET – Countries are cripple by soviet legal codes, but while russia and ukraine have reformed their laws (ukrainian law is quite good really), the problem in both countries has been reducing corruption that was endemic under the soviets in all walks of life. Although we must compliment Putin on tripling the number of cases in in the courts, even if he has not succeeded in preventing coercive thefts of businesses by state members (I could not find a single company to buy in Moscow because they must keep ‘fake’ books in order to prevent people in the government from conspiring to take over the business by confiscatory corruption.) Mixed economy, Both Heavy public and Private sectors, and rule by legislation and rule by Regulation INDIA. Indian law is fine. Like everything else in india, the engine of indian order is not the government but culture, tradition, and the family. Russia crosses eleven time zones but it’s still a country. America is an empire and each state or region a different country. Europe is trying and failing to repeat the american experiment and failing at the same time america is failing. India likewise is a continent and an empire not a country. India is unable to devote sufficient resources (for reasons we do not understand) to either providing speedy (timely) justice, or to producing sufficient infrastructure, given her people’s rates of reproduction. India lacks china’s authoritarianism and remains familialism which is both beautiful on the one hand but slows her rate of adaptation. Long term india will do wonderfully. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, Rule by Legislation CHINA has never practiced any semblance of law in the western sense, and instead has practiced arbitrary rule: Rule by Command, and Rule by Regulation and this seems to be the preference of the chinese people. China was a very poor (still is) backward country having made the mistake to reject modernity, then to embrace communism in order to prevent the south from seceding, leaving beijing in the north to rule poverty, and the commercial south to separate and join modernity. Mao would not tolerate this. After the failure of communism China saw the failure of the Soviets, and then the american defeat of the Iraqis, and this combination created today’s Chinese strategy of restoring her traditional position as the central power in east asia – despite all her neighbors fearing that china will also return to violence. Unlike india, china has a long history of monopoly authoritarian rule, and even more so, has the power of the Red Army (which really governs china’s factions). The chinese have a long history of pragmatism and reason – and almost no sense of the value of human life, and nothing approaching indian or european ethics. Secondly the chinese people are rather industrious and hard-working. So between authoritarian hierarchy, a means of enforcing political will with the army, a literate and intelligent hard working workforce, an endless supply of cheap labor, and endless debt capacity, and willingness to have an economic crash, china has been able to maximize state investment, migration of people into the workforce, and expansion of the military, and then to clamp down in response to an end to the boom. There is no question that for china, this is the optimum method of ‘catching up from behind’. Mixed Economy, Heavily Favoring State Sector, Rule by Command The most capitalist countries are those with the most rule of law and the most private sector. (anglosphere) The Most** mixed economies** are those with rule of legislation, a mix of private and state sector, (continental) The most **command economies **are those with the least rule of law and the most state sector (china) China has more successfully used debt capacity than any country in the world. This does not mean it is capitalist, since capitalism means bias to the private sector and minimizing the state sector.

  • What Do You Think Is the Most Capitalist Society

    Dec 31, 2019, 4:52 PM —“Between the US, the EU, Russia, and China, what do you think is the most capitalist society?”— The Capitalism vs Communism dichotomy is a fabrication of the Marxists to distract from the reality that: (a) all states must practice mixed economies, with state centralization solving market limitations at the cost of poor capital efficiency and high corruption, until private capital can decentralize production and increase capital efficiency and decrease corruption; Advanced economies must innovate and require markets (private sector) majority production, and backward economies must catch up and create markets by state (public sector) majority production. (b) all states capable of collecting revenues either by investment and returns, taxation, interest collection, profiting from direct management, or all of the above, can choose whether to spend the income on consumption (redistribution) or production( further investment). Those states that are unable to collect revenues can militarize the population (as did the soviets) and minimize wages so that the maximum resources can be directed to production of commons. (c) the question is whether one operates by rule of law that naturally produces markets, rule by legislation negotiated between classes, or rule by regulation by monopoly bureaucracy, or rule by command (discretion) by dictator. ANGLOSPHERE countries are by far – without even a close competitor – dependent upon rule of law, rule by legislation, and state funding basic research, but almost no state involvement in production – why? Because judges were always independent professionals and less subject to corruption. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, and Rule of Law. CONTINENTAL – countries practice the napoleonic law of rule by legislation and rule by regulation. Why? Because french judges were appointed or purchased their positions and napoleon could not trust them to refrain from discretionary rulings (making up law). Mixed Economy, Favoring mixed public private sectors, and Rule of Legislation. POST SOVIET – Countries are cripple by soviet legal codes, but while russia and ukraine have reformed their laws (ukrainian law is quite good really), the problem in both countries has been reducing corruption that was endemic under the soviets in all walks of life. Although we must compliment Putin on tripling the number of cases in in the courts, even if he has not succeeded in preventing coercive thefts of businesses by state members (I could not find a single company to buy in Moscow because they must keep ‘fake’ books in order to prevent people in the government from conspiring to take over the business by confiscatory corruption.) Mixed economy, Both Heavy public and Private sectors, and rule by legislation and rule by Regulation INDIA. Indian law is fine. Like everything else in india, the engine of indian order is not the government but culture, tradition, and the family. Russia crosses eleven time zones but it’s still a country. America is an empire and each state or region a different country. Europe is trying and failing to repeat the american experiment and failing at the same time america is failing. India likewise is a continent and an empire not a country. India is unable to devote sufficient resources (for reasons we do not understand) to either providing speedy (timely) justice, or to producing sufficient infrastructure, given her people’s rates of reproduction. India lacks china’s authoritarianism and remains familialism which is both beautiful on the one hand but slows her rate of adaptation. Long term india will do wonderfully. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, Rule by Legislation CHINA has never practiced any semblance of law in the western sense, and instead has practiced arbitrary rule: Rule by Command, and Rule by Regulation and this seems to be the preference of the chinese people. China was a very poor (still is) backward country having made the mistake to reject modernity, then to embrace communism in order to prevent the south from seceding, leaving beijing in the north to rule poverty, and the commercial south to separate and join modernity. Mao would not tolerate this. After the failure of communism China saw the failure of the Soviets, and then the american defeat of the Iraqis, and this combination created today’s Chinese strategy of restoring her traditional position as the central power in east asia – despite all her neighbors fearing that china will also return to violence. Unlike india, china has a long history of monopoly authoritarian rule, and even more so, has the power of the Red Army (which really governs china’s factions). The chinese have a long history of pragmatism and reason – and almost no sense of the value of human life, and nothing approaching indian or european ethics. Secondly the chinese people are rather industrious and hard-working. So between authoritarian hierarchy, a means of enforcing political will with the army, a literate and intelligent hard working workforce, an endless supply of cheap labor, and endless debt capacity, and willingness to have an economic crash, china has been able to maximize state investment, migration of people into the workforce, and expansion of the military, and then to clamp down in response to an end to the boom. There is no question that for china, this is the optimum method of ‘catching up from behind’. Mixed Economy, Heavily Favoring State Sector, Rule by Command The most capitalist countries are those with the most rule of law and the most private sector. (anglosphere) The Most** mixed economies** are those with rule of legislation, a mix of private and state sector, (continental) The most **command economies **are those with the least rule of law and the most state sector (china) China has more successfully used debt capacity than any country in the world. This does not mean it is capitalist, since capitalism means bias to the private sector and minimizing the state sector.

  • Notes on Corp Ownership Reform

    Jan 1, 2020, 8:47 PM Legal PerspectiveTrue: “The purpose of the corporation is to do anything lawful.” And “Corporations are real, shareholders are a fiction.” In other words, shareholders are not owners. Companies do not work to maximize shareholder value. That is a fiction to sell investors. A management team balances brand awareness, market share, customers, employees, bankers, investors, and vendors, each of which is competing to maximize their take of the profits if their are any. Thoughts:

    (a) Owners ‘invest’ to obtain income and appreciation but lack liquidity.

    (b) Shareholders function as lenders who purchase liquidity and opportunity for dividends and appreciation – they are not owners, that is the myth.

    (c) From the company’s perspective, dividends and appreciation are the cost of maintaining borrowing capacity in capital markets so that opportunities can be seized by rapid appeal to capital markets.

    (d) Boards of other than owners are a wast of time money and energy – a kabuki theater – and instead, companies should be, and are, insured to act in the interest of their contract with the shareholders. The very best you can say about boards is (i) you can pay people for relationships, assistance, and information. (ii) when you are unsure and want to bounce ideas off peers rather than employees but be sure it won’t leak, they’re useful. (iii) preparing for board meetings makes sure that you and your team are on the same page and understand your own business. (iv) I use my boards exclusively to test my ideas and rarely do anything if I can’t convince them unanimously. This tempers my too-high risk tolerance. It gives me political cover with the staff and others if I make a mistake.

    (e) It’s not even clear that financial reports other than to auditors and insurers are of any value other than in selling to lenders (shareholders). Randomly select financial reports from your favorite companies. You will learn far more from analyst calls.

    (f) Trying to maintain or improve shareholder value, is a terrible practice because investment cycles (capital requirements necessary for returns) have been increasing, and the division of production distribution and trade fragmenting, but lifespan of companies are decreasing – for this very reason. Innovators dilemmas everywhere. No one tries to maximize shareholder value. That’s nonsense. You try to preserve it. the objective of nearly every business is to preserve it’s existence as a going concern for all those involved: customers, employees, owners, vendors, investors. It is very hard to build a business that produces a durable income stream because the customer vendor employee network is the most difficult organization to produce.

    (g) There is no reason whatsoever that companies should direct resources to ‘charities’ or ‘movements’, instead of requiring such donations come from individuals. Social responsibly is a code word for rent-seeking because the government is incapable of providing results. The current condition is that companies are frequently blackmailed if they don’t contribute to certain causes. That’s an injustice. That one shall do no harm is the best an organization can do and is the best therefore we can ask them to do. Lastly unless you’ve run a company of at least say, 50M, and preferably over 100M you have no idea just how difficult it is to produce a profit. (i) My primary complaint is that companies do not themselves maintain accounting for operations (cash: profit and loss from operations), management (ops plus overhead), owners (ops, overhead, assets, and yes, market share ), lenders (EBITDA), and the state (taxes, amortization, and depreciation). Most executives I’ve consulted, companies I’ve acquired, or accounting departments I’ve fought with, have too poor a grasp of operations and obscure it by conflating accounting data so to obscure normal volatility and variation in risk from investors and lenders, and to minimize taxes. Drive employee quality, operations, marketshare, and leave everything else to finance and accounting. Money is just another resource provided by vendors.

  • Notes on Corp Ownership Reform

    Jan 1, 2020, 8:47 PM Legal PerspectiveTrue: “The purpose of the corporation is to do anything lawful.” And “Corporations are real, shareholders are a fiction.” In other words, shareholders are not owners. Companies do not work to maximize shareholder value. That is a fiction to sell investors. A management team balances brand awareness, market share, customers, employees, bankers, investors, and vendors, each of which is competing to maximize their take of the profits if their are any. Thoughts:

    (a) Owners ‘invest’ to obtain income and appreciation but lack liquidity.

    (b) Shareholders function as lenders who purchase liquidity and opportunity for dividends and appreciation – they are not owners, that is the myth.

    (c) From the company’s perspective, dividends and appreciation are the cost of maintaining borrowing capacity in capital markets so that opportunities can be seized by rapid appeal to capital markets.

    (d) Boards of other than owners are a wast of time money and energy – a kabuki theater – and instead, companies should be, and are, insured to act in the interest of their contract with the shareholders. The very best you can say about boards is (i) you can pay people for relationships, assistance, and information. (ii) when you are unsure and want to bounce ideas off peers rather than employees but be sure it won’t leak, they’re useful. (iii) preparing for board meetings makes sure that you and your team are on the same page and understand your own business. (iv) I use my boards exclusively to test my ideas and rarely do anything if I can’t convince them unanimously. This tempers my too-high risk tolerance. It gives me political cover with the staff and others if I make a mistake.

    (e) It’s not even clear that financial reports other than to auditors and insurers are of any value other than in selling to lenders (shareholders). Randomly select financial reports from your favorite companies. You will learn far more from analyst calls.

    (f) Trying to maintain or improve shareholder value, is a terrible practice because investment cycles (capital requirements necessary for returns) have been increasing, and the division of production distribution and trade fragmenting, but lifespan of companies are decreasing – for this very reason. Innovators dilemmas everywhere. No one tries to maximize shareholder value. That’s nonsense. You try to preserve it. the objective of nearly every business is to preserve it’s existence as a going concern for all those involved: customers, employees, owners, vendors, investors. It is very hard to build a business that produces a durable income stream because the customer vendor employee network is the most difficult organization to produce.

    (g) There is no reason whatsoever that companies should direct resources to ‘charities’ or ‘movements’, instead of requiring such donations come from individuals. Social responsibly is a code word for rent-seeking because the government is incapable of providing results. The current condition is that companies are frequently blackmailed if they don’t contribute to certain causes. That’s an injustice. That one shall do no harm is the best an organization can do and is the best therefore we can ask them to do. Lastly unless you’ve run a company of at least say, 50M, and preferably over 100M you have no idea just how difficult it is to produce a profit. (i) My primary complaint is that companies do not themselves maintain accounting for operations (cash: profit and loss from operations), management (ops plus overhead), owners (ops, overhead, assets, and yes, market share ), lenders (EBITDA), and the state (taxes, amortization, and depreciation). Most executives I’ve consulted, companies I’ve acquired, or accounting departments I’ve fought with, have too poor a grasp of operations and obscure it by conflating accounting data so to obscure normal volatility and variation in risk from investors and lenders, and to minimize taxes. Drive employee quality, operations, marketshare, and leave everything else to finance and accounting. Money is just another resource provided by vendors.

  • The “Will of The Gods” Was a Convenient Escape of The Responsibility of Liability.

    Jan 2, 2020, 1:18 PM by JWarren Prescott The concept of the supernatural, ie. beyond nature, outside our reality, magical, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics, is from the infancy of human civilization where we had no idea what the natural world was. It was our attempt to fill the gaps of understanding. The unintended consequences of the lack of understanding was the rise of the huckster class – the priests, those apex parasitical manipulators of mankind’s fears of the unknown. They leveraged their verbal skills to political power as rulers were the only ones capable of protecting them from scrutiny of their failed predictions and the liability of malpractice. The hucksters always knew that the warlords, kings and rulers were generally far more gullible to the supernatural as it was a legitimation of, and a securing of their right to rule and a comfort to their insecurities of bad decisions. The “will of the gods” was a convenient escape of the responsibility of liability.