WHAT IS BITCOIN? A NEW MONETARY SUBSTITUTE COMBINING THE PROPERTIES OF STOCKS AND TOKEN MONEY – AND THEIR ATTENDANT RISKS.
(Repost of repost of repost.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:26:33 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576396278460052
ON REQUEST: A SELECTION OF POSTS RELATED TO BITCOIN
Simple consistent message. Tech yes, assuming improvements. Money No.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:26:04 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576394364949507
MALE ARISTOCRACY OF LAND AGAINST FEMALE PEASANTRY OF SHEPHERDS.
The ancient war of the low trust tribal people unable to produce commons or polities and obtain the gains thereof, against the high trust national people, able to produce commons and polities and the gains thereof: Male Aristocracy of Land Against Female Peasantry of Shepherds.
(What do you think the story of Cain and Abel is about?)
Semites invented priesthoods, deceit, and communism. The Afro Asiatic Deception of The Feminine. Dysgenia.
Indo europeans invented aristocracy and markets in everything. The Indo European Testimony of the Masculine. Eugenia.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:25:45 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576393072172630
THE VEIL OF MONEY
by Michael Churchill
There is a concept called “the veil of money” which is that money is the means of exchange (and/or unit of account) but that that’s basically all it is. You change the number of zeros on the currency but it doesn’t really change anything. Somebody still has to make widgets. And each widget will have a certain value relative to a bushel of corn etc etc
MONEY IS A VEIL IN THE LONG RUN
The veil of money and, as a related issue, the quantity theory of money have special importance in economic theory throughout the 20th century. Actually, 20th century economics can be interpreted as a sequence of theoretical answers to the question whether money is only a veil or not. Different theories can be judged by their implied ideas as to the neutrality of money. In the simplest models and in the simplest form of the quantity theory of money, money is completely neutral, that is, changes in the money supply do not affect anything real. However, in the more elaborated models the neutrality theorem was applied rather to long-run considerations. For both Milton Friedman and Robert E. Lucas money was not a mere veil in the short run, so money was assumed to have real effects in the short run. The mechanisms through which money could exert these real effects were radically different and so were the sets of assumptions these authors created to establish their models. For example, Friedman postulated adaptive expectations, while Lucas assumed his economic agents to be able to form rational expectations. For both of them, money was only neutral in the long-run – that is, money was not just a veil in the short-run – but the scope of countercyclical economic policy was radically curtailed in new classical macroeconomics. In the case of rational expectations the monetary authority is not able to carry out systematic countercyclical economic policy – that is, it cannot exploit the existing short-run Phillips curve. However, it can be realized that if any of the conditions necessary to the ineffectiveness of systematic economic policy is not met, economic policy can be effective again, so, money is not only a veil.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:25:33 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576392223596795
THE MONEY ILLUSION
(from wiki)
In economics, money illusion, or price illusion, is the tendency of people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real, terms.
In other words, the face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its purchasing power (real value) at a previous point in time. Viewing purchasing power as measured by the nominal value is false, as modern fiat currencies have no intrinsic value and their real value depends purely on the price level.
Money illusion influences economic behaviour in three main ways:
Price stickiness. Money illusion has been proposed as one reason why nominal prices are slow to change even where inflation has caused real prices or costs to rise.
Contracts and laws are not indexed to inflation as frequently as one would rationally expect.
Social discourse, in formal media and more generally, reflects some confusion about real and nominal value.
Money illusion can also influence people’s perceptions of outcomes. Experiments have shown that people generally perceive an approximate 2% cut in nominal income with no change in monetary value as unfair, but see a 2% rise in nominal income where there is 4% inflation as fair, despite them being almost rational equivalents. This result is consistent with the ‘Myopic Loss Aversion theory’.[4] Furthermore, the money illusion means nominal changes in price can influence demand even if real prices have remained constant.[5]
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:25:17 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576391294062587
THE CONSISTENCY ILLUSION VS PRODUCTION CYCLES
(economics, social science, politics)
Those of us raised on production cycles and Hayekian Triangles make fewer mistakes about Ideal statements in economics, because we are conscious of whether we are making statements about:
1. The SHORT, MEDIUM, or LONG RUN;
2. Whose PRODUCTION cycle (life cycle) are we talking about (ideal, or each stage of human life and the demographic distribution of those stages in the present terms);
3. The bias toward INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION regardless of outcome (liberal) and the bias toward QUALITY OF COMMONS over time because of outcome (conservative);
4. The capital we are measuring because of our bias toward individual consumption or quality of long term commons.
That these four dimensions also reflect the male vs female and by consequence Aristocratic vs Underclass reproductive strategies;
That these four dimensions also reflect the Moral Foundations:
… M..F..-.. Caretaking (consumption, redistribution)
… M..F..L.. Fairness (proportionality vs reciprocity),
… M..-..L.. Liberty (openness to experience, novelty)
… M..-..-.. Ingroup (loyalty)
… M..-..-.. Hierarchy (Authority, Respect)
… M..-..-.. Purity (disgust response)
Where.
… M = Dominant, Established, Communal Male, Conserve.
… F = Female, Consumption
… L = Libertarian or Ascendant (Individual) Male, production.
Where these biases reflect demonstrated property (political) biases.
… Male Private Property (concentration in male genes – merit)
… Female Community Property (concentration in female genes – regardless of merit)
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:25:01 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576390233347703
( … )
The answer is ancient. As we can see in Aesop’s Fables: Fable 112 – The Chariot of Hermes and the Arabs
—“One day, Hermes drove across the entire Earth a chariot filled with lies, villainy and fraud. And he distributed a small portion of his cargo in each country he visited. But when he arrived in the country of the Arabs, the chariot suddenly broke down. The Arabs believed he was carrying a precious cargo and so they stole the contents of his chariot. Hermes was then unable to carry on into the countries of other peoples. More than all other people the Arabs are liars and cheats. Indeed, there is not even a word for ‘truth’ in their language.”—Aesop
This is why our people aren’t compatible. And Taleb has engaged in the same form of sophism that gave license to the great lies of Judaism (undermine), Christianity (pacify), and Islam (consume), which is creating elaborate sentimental stories in order to engage in and justify the ancient hatred of the landless tribal people, and the settled farming people: the battle of Cain and Able: the farmers trust, commons and their cities, against the sheep herders and their lack of capital, trust, and its multipliers in the commons.
[End]
( @nntaleb#nntaleb Nassim Nicholas Taleb )
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:24:06 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576386605002984
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576384220810882
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
THE OTHER REASON TALEB IS WRONG. THE UN-TRUSTWORTHY. By Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute We presume intelligence is the driving factor in our differences in life outcomes. It’s just the driving factor for (a) rate of learning (b) working with complexity. Conscientiousness is evenly distributed across the spectrum of complexity regardless of intelligence. So the market demand is for minimum necessary intelligence and conscientiousness. And then by intelligence sufficient for the degree of complexity. But, what isn’t in that dichotomy is our incentives. This is where Taleb makes his second mistake. Just as we pay police to avoid corruption, we pay people more to avoid corruption. We are not paid just for conscientiousness, or just for complexity, but for loyalty and consequence. So instead of just Intelligence, we have: a) Reward for Conscientiousness (quality), b) Reward for Intelligence (complexity), c) Reward for Scarcity (by income) , and d) Reward for Insurance (by status and security) The Chinese bureaucracy was successful, because of the training and incentive against corruption, in exchange for the status and predictability of income – and why the German and French have been, and why the American has not been, and why the Semitic people have never been able to develop (a) civic trust or truthful speech (b) commons, (c) governments at scale, (d) nations at scale, (e) companies at scale (f) economies at scale, (g) a durable civilization without consuming an existing great one, and (h) why the Semites produce an ibn Khaldun (low trust), instead of Locke, Smith, Hume, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson, Pareto, Darwin, Menger, Maxwell, Nietzsche or Hayek (High Trust). Taleb hates the answer: (a) intelligence matters in the suppression of parasitism, (b) rewarding it with income, status, and security matters in the suppression of parasitism (c) dysgenia results from low trust, poverty results from low trust, and inability to innovate results from low trust, leaving only consumption and distrust and small scale corrupt organizations, (d) he and his ‘Fat Tony’ profit only because in a high trust society and civilization under rule of law, with scale institutions, both private and public, the opportunities for immoral (non-productive) windfalls exist – precisely because we are so high trust we never even THINK of the kinds of scams that Taleb, Fat Tony, (George Soros), imagine. In other words, all Taleb has managed to do across his books is explain why he could come to the west to make money but his people live in ignorance, superstition, tribalism, deceit, and relative poverty. ( … continued )
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576384220810882
THE OTHER REASON TALEB IS WRONG. THE UN-TRUSTWORTHY.
By Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute
We presume intelligence is the driving factor in our differences in life outcomes. It’s just the driving factor for (a) rate of learning (b) working with complexity. Conscientiousness is evenly distributed across the spectrum of complexity regardless of intelligence. So the market demand is for minimum necessary intelligence and conscientiousness. And then by intelligence sufficient for the degree of complexity. But, what isn’t in that dichotomy is our incentives. This is where Taleb makes his second mistake. Just as we pay police to avoid corruption, we pay people more to avoid corruption. We are not paid just for conscientiousness, or just for complexity, but for loyalty and consequence.
So instead of just Intelligence, we have:
a) Reward for Conscientiousness (quality),
b) Reward for Intelligence (complexity),
c) Reward for Scarcity (by income) , and
d) Reward for Insurance (by status and security)
The Chinese bureaucracy was successful, because of the training and incentive against corruption, in exchange for the status and predictability of income – and why the German and French have been, and why the American has not been, and why the Semitic people have never been able to develop (a) civic trust or truthful speech (b) commons, (c) governments at scale, (d) nations at scale, (e) companies at scale (f) economies at scale, (g) a durable civilization without consuming an existing great one, and (h) why the Semites produce an ibn Khaldun (low trust), instead of Locke, Smith, Hume, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson, Pareto, Darwin, Menger, Maxwell, Nietzsche or Hayek (High Trust).
Taleb hates the answer: (a) intelligence matters in the suppression of parasitism, (b) rewarding it with income, status, and security matters in the suppression of parasitism (c) dysgenia results from low trust, poverty results from low trust, and inability to innovate results from low trust, leaving only consumption and distrust and small scale corrupt organizations, (d) he and his ‘Fat Tony’ profit only because in a high trust society and civilization under rule of law, with scale institutions, both private and public, the opportunities for immoral (non-productive) windfalls exist – precisely because we are so high trust we never even THINK of the kinds of scams that Taleb, Fat Tony, (George Soros), imagine. In other words, all Taleb has managed to do across his books is explain why he could come to the west to make money but his people live in ignorance, superstition, tribalism, deceit, and relative poverty.
( … continued )
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:23:31 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576384220810882
THE FUTURE ISN’T WHAT YOU THINK
If men and women won’t insure each other in maturity and old age, then men will develop alternative organizations (again) to insure one another in maturity and old age – and DEVOTE THE CAPITAL TO IT that is currently consumed entirely by women.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:22:22 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576379796444907
COOPERATION BETWEEN GENDERS IS ONLY USEFUL UNTIL IT’S NOT.
—“Look after ourselves, put our needs first, do whatever we want with our time, you know, just live like a man..”—@alison__wright
Living “like a man”, during our evolution, in prehistory, in ancient history, and right up until the european era, frequently involved treating women as another domesticated animal – property to be used in his interests. If men want to put our needs first AGAIN, it’s EASY. OK?
You mean, you MAY as long as it’s in our interests not to revert to prior techniques, and to END the experiment in female defense under rule of law, choice of her fertility, property rights, participation in economic production, freedom of speech, and political enfranchisement.
Never presume we are equal. The first resource is time, and the second is violence, and cooperation only comes into play when it is more rewarding over time, to cooperate rather than engage in predation. Women have rights and privileges, just like the weak do: it’s just cheaper.
So don’t make it too ‘expensive’ to ‘tolerate’ you.
Have we had enough dose of reality yet? Ok. Good. Now have a pat on the head and go back to playing with the garden – that men have made for you.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:22:10 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576378994210790