Source: Facebook

  • “Some great men are wiser than all those that came before them. Cato was wiser t

    —“Some great men are wiser than all those that came before them. Cato was wiser than all those that came after him.”— Ricky Saini


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-03 22:54:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING ‘MONEY’ AS TIME (REALLY) (first cause of economics)(very important

    UNDERSTANDING ‘MONEY’ AS TIME (REALLY)

    (first cause of economics)(very important)

    Shares are issued as a loan against future productivity.

    In the case of fiat money (shares in the economy), shares are issued to consumers, who businesses fight for, in order to produce profits some portion of which are captured by taxes that repay the debt. Although tis is still a mistake. We are just borrowing from our future selves. So there is really no reason to pay it back since we will either collect dividends in present consumption and accelerated productivity, or we will collect dividends in taxes produced by returns. Or we will do neither and lose our investment by externalizing that loss in a million ways.

    The trap most people cognitively fall into is starting with the first cause being a commodity (asset of questionable demand) or commodity money (quantifiable asset of unquestionable demand), rather than starting with TIME that we capture in commodities, commodity money, credit money, and share money.

    We are just talking about time PAST to time FUTURE. WHICH ONE ARE WE USING?

    Once you reduce all to time – the first cause of everything – the model is quite simple. Are we losing time we have previously created, or losing time we have hoped to create, and what are the consequences of each? Well the consequences of losing past money is that we can sense the change in capital state and know when we are increasing risk, while losing future money – as we do not calculate expected returns now – we currently cannot. And therefore we consume and risk that capital we have collected over centuries.

    But it is quite possible to calculate those bets and returns just as businesses and financial organizations calculate those bets and returns. However, how do we make certain that the people who take those bets are not violating the requirement for warranty (skin in the game)? Well by making them take the losses personally. Even if fractionally spread across the population, so that we know what our investments have gained and lost.

    The reason that the left has opposed such things (even the simplistic version of the Singapore model) is because such warranty, accountability, and transparency, produce evidence of the reason of resulting inequality, and would give moral license to aristocracy and meritocracy.

    You see, the left needs to lie in every way possible. But we can create means by which lying is very difficult if we choose.

    Anyway. The central idea I would like you to walk away with is that when you think ‘back’ to the starting point of money, or back to the starting point of commodity, you are not thinking back to the first cause: time.

    Because this is why man defeated the dark forces of time and ignorance: by coordinating our actions we are disproportionately more productive than we can be on our own.

    WE DEFEAT TIME. THE MORE TRUTH WE TELL THE MORE TIME WE DEFEAT.

    I hope this teaches some people this lesson since it is the first lesson that all subsequent economic lessons are based.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-03 22:52:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CENTRAL BANKING? —“Hey Curt, I wanted to know if you believe in Central b

    Q&A: CENTRAL BANKING?

    —“Hey Curt, I wanted to know if you believe in Central banking, or should we end the fed?”—

    Fiat money=shares in the economy. Just as big business requires shares to compete, so do countries. competition is not possible w/o them, because access to credit is such a competitive advantage.

    However, it’s not necessary to distribute ‘shares’ (liquidity) through the financial system, which lacks sufficient incentives to get money into consumer hands where it can be disposed of to reduce debt and increase spending. Instead, Liquidity should be given to consumers(taxpayers), not the fin sector.

    The technical issue is ‘multiplier’ caused by layers of credit money created by each dollar of fiat money. Therefore it will take some experimentation before we know how to manage liquidity via consumers as we have via interest rates.

    I have been saying that ‘this will occur’ because governments will have no choice soon but to seek another model now that we are fairly certain (a) that monetary policy is a very limited lever, and (b) that fiscal policy is a very limited lever, and (c) the only actoinable lever is direct redistribution to consumers, (d) who will often decrease debt,just as often as they increase spending, and (e) this will cause the gradual elimination of the financial sector, and an increase in dependency upon redistribution of shares for the citizenry.

    And this is why everyone is afraid of doing much about it. The current system is bad. But incrementally adopting the only technical method we have of exiting the bad system is risky.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-03 22:09:00 UTC

  • ( Vitamin D, Magnesium, Melatonin, L-Theanine. and a Banana. All I can tell you

    ( Vitamin D, Magnesium, Melatonin, L-Theanine. and a Banana. All I can tell you is that it seems to be working.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 22:29:00 UTC

  • ( recommendations: I tend to collect bibliographies from authors I learn from –

    ( recommendations: I tend to collect bibliographies from authors I learn from – particularly Haidt / Pinker / Fukuyama. The other thing I do that most of you won’t or can’t, is that I read anything I find economics or social science or hbd that produces any kind of statistics on anything I can make use of. I do less of it now than in the past. because I have too much work these days. but if you find a chapter in a book that’s good, it’s almost as good to find the referencees used for that chapter. Usually the ‘meat’ is in there. TIP: Papers are good for data and shit for ideas. Books are good for ideas.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 22:25:00 UTC

  • “I’ve decided I want to “conquer” my South American people, and make them great”

    —“I’ve decided I want to “conquer” my South American people, and make them great”—- a friend.

    It’s the second phrase that gives moral meaning to the first.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 21:46:00 UTC

  • EXACTLY THE OPTIMUM SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. WorkingClass says: —“From my worm’s ey

    EXACTLY THE OPTIMUM SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.

    WorkingClass says:

    —“From my worm’s eye view it appears that Trump is relying on AIPAC to protect him from the congress and the army to protect him from the spooks. I doubt he can be impeached. I fear he will be martyred. I was born a white working class deplorable in 1944. I know my people. I know the nature of the Empire having served in the U.S. Army under Johnson and Nixon. If Trump is murdered there will not be revolution. There will be secession movements that will balkanize the lower 48.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 10:36:00 UTC

  • immigration has, as the left intended, destroyed aristocratic civilization by ac

    immigration has, as the left intended, destroyed aristocratic civilization by achieving through immigration (dilution) what could not be achieved by ideas.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 10:29:00 UTC

  • We don’t vote for our identities. we vote for our parties. we have two parties.

    We don’t vote for our identities. we vote for our parties. we have two parties. we have two parties by design. the multi-party system seems to have been a better choice. the prime-minister/monarch seems to have been a better choice. however, in practice (universally) a majority and an opposition party seem to form that roughly reflect the feminine (dysgenic female) and masculine (eugenic male) reproductive strategies.

    This is the empirical revision of the Iron Law of Oligarchy: (a) oligarchies will form, (b) they will form into a major and an opposition party (c) they will pursue either feminine/dysgenic vs masculine/eugenic, and whether they use Authoritarian or Majoritarian ‘excuses’ will depend upon the homogeneity of the population.

    the left = feminine, consumptive, dysgenic equalitarian. the right = masculine, accumulative, eugenic meritocracy.

    The rest is just excuses and verbal nonsense to claim status signals by promoting differences without distinctions.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 10:25:00 UTC

  • I actually look at it as ‘people in the market’ and ‘people not in the market’.

    I actually look at it as ‘people in the market’ and ‘people not in the market’. People who are not in the market are like people who don’t participate in the military.

    I am not sure why, if you are not ‘in the market’ you have any say in anything.

    a market for norms (civil society), a market for reproduction (familiy), market for production (trade, business and industry), a market for enfranchisement (fighting and emergency).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 09:34:00 UTC