This assumes American power is good thing (empirically, we have pretty much always been wrong in every single conflict). And it assumes it’s not a good idea to withdraw from the burden of continuing the British Empire’s network of finance and trade despite having dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, poverty, and disease in the face of competition from marxism, communism, socialism, and its modern variation: islam. We are no longer asymmetrically advantaged either technologically, economically, or militarily, and we have even lost our demographic superiority through vast underclass immigration. So while the minds of children make moral and emotinoal judgements, those of us who have adult minds make empirical judgemnts. The answer is pretty simple: we can’t finance the world transformation from superstition to empiricism any longer because enough of the world has adopted our aristotelianism (empiricism, science, technology, law, markets) that it has been costing us quality of life since the 70’s. in other words, VIRTUE SIGNALING SO THAT YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF IS NO LONGER AFFORDABLE. But to answer the question: I would create power vacuums as did Obama and Carter rather than demand vacuums be filled by depriving other countries of subsidies. But this requires you understand not only economics, but capital. And strangely enough, mainstream (saltwater) economics, does not measure capital changes, only consumption.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Collapse Model of History
As far as I know the ‘Collapse’ model is correct: civilizations expand – like all human opportunities – until the underclasses, now enabled, conquer them. This is true for 3500 bc, 1200bc, 400ad, and 1900ad.
-
The Collapse Model of History
As far as I know the ‘Collapse’ model is correct: civilizations expand – like all human opportunities – until the underclasses, now enabled, conquer them. This is true for 3500 bc, 1200bc, 400ad, and 1900ad.
-
End The Immigration of Labor
The nuclear family lets itself to a village where extended family is nearby and children move between households to provide labor rather than paying the cost of slaves. (really, that’s the answer). The nuclear family requires very cheap land. This is probably the most overlooked cost. The benefit of the nuclear household and shared labor, is that (a) it’s possible for family capital to be mobile, (b) it prevents dysgenia from slavery, (c) delays childbirth, and (d) prevents dysgenia from underclass reproduction. The nuclear family is also superior under early capitalism where we move people to capital. The problem is, it’s destructive. Move capital to people rather than people to capital. END IMMIGRATION OF LABOR.
-
End The Immigration of Labor
The nuclear family lets itself to a village where extended family is nearby and children move between households to provide labor rather than paying the cost of slaves. (really, that’s the answer). The nuclear family requires very cheap land. This is probably the most overlooked cost. The benefit of the nuclear household and shared labor, is that (a) it’s possible for family capital to be mobile, (b) it prevents dysgenia from slavery, (c) delays childbirth, and (d) prevents dysgenia from underclass reproduction. The nuclear family is also superior under early capitalism where we move people to capital. The problem is, it’s destructive. Move capital to people rather than people to capital. END IMMIGRATION OF LABOR.
-
The Problem of Current Families
It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.
-
The Problem of Current Families
It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.
-
The Question of Our Age
If I could reduce the question of our age to a simple comparison, the academy is still trying to produce wisdom lit of low offense, while i produce natural law, and the hard sciences produce physical law, regardless of offense. The reason the academy could replace the church was that they produced wisdom lit in every possible fictionalism, and did not produce natural law – and did so because there was a market for falsehood (wisdom lit) an no law prohibiting its sale.
-
The Question of Our Age
If I could reduce the question of our age to a simple comparison, the academy is still trying to produce wisdom lit of low offense, while i produce natural law, and the hard sciences produce physical law, regardless of offense. The reason the academy could replace the church was that they produced wisdom lit in every possible fictionalism, and did not produce natural law – and did so because there was a market for falsehood (wisdom lit) an no law prohibiting its sale.
-
The only Possible Means of Institutionalizing Scale Is Markets in Everything
1 – “All human organizations evolve to maximize rents, until it is impossible for those organizations to adapt to change or shocks.” 2 – “Organizations that collapse due to the maximization of rents, and inability to adapt to shocks, do not recover.” 3 – “Collapse is caused by competing organizations with fewer or lower accumulated rents – seeking military economic religious and demographic expansion.” 4 -“Collapse is preventable by extermination of rents, by the preservation of markets for association, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of defense.” 5 – “Markets in everything are producible by a government that shifts from redistributive(liberal), to productive(classical), to warfare (fascism) in response to changing circumstances.” 6 – “Unfortunately, the human intuition is to pursue decreases in effort to calculate, and to maximize regularity, so that fringe opportunities are of the lowest cost to seize with the lowest need to organize to exploit them. And therefore, the human intuition is false (counter) at scale – as in all things. Those who seek regularity seek the luxury of freedom from adaptation”. 7 – “ergo the only possible means of institutionalizing scale is markets in everything, under a government unable to institutionalize policies that provide discounts in exchange for reducing the ability to adapt to shocks.” 8 – “that which does not kill you does in fact make you stronger, and the process of continually maintaining and building strength to resist the vicissitudes of man and nature, is produced via negativa : by preservation of competition in al things using markets in all things.”