Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What’s The Difference Between Keynesian Economics And Austrian Economics?

    There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals

    Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy )

    Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law )

    Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule)

    In a perfect world,

    1) we develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information.

    2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages.

    3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest.

    4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity.

    I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Keynesian-economics-and-Austrian-economics

  • What Did Americans Sound Like In The Late 18th And Early 19th Centuries, And When Did The Recognizable “general American” Accent Come Into Being? Did Americans Sound British In The 1700’s And 1800’s? If Not, What Did Americans Sound Like?

    Mis-stated question. Instead: When did american accents begin to develop? From the very beginning.

    The american east coast was formed by four different groups of immigrants from different areas of Britain who already spoke with different accents. (To us they would all sound much more gaelic than british do today.) These groups spread in horizontal bands across the united states, and the cultural horizontal ‘bands’ in the country reflect the westward expansion of those early settlers, and how they carried their languages with them.

    The intentional ‘middle atlantic’ accent was something you learned, just like received pronunciation in the UK until the underclass revolution of the 1960’s, the marxists, postmodernists, attempted to undermine all western aristocratic values.

    Universities attempted to quash dialects for the competitive marketability of their students, and radio, then television assisted in the homogenization of the ‘Indiana’ pronunciation throughout most of the country exclusive of the lower classes. Most of this dramatic homogenization has come about since 1980.

    Our accents may not sound as distinct to others as do those of different regions of the UK, particularly in the underclasses. But in the states, your vocabulary, body language, and pronunciation are your primary forms of status signaling, and we can tell, most of the time, at least which region if not which state or city each of us is from.

    The most interesting property of american pronunciation is probably the least discussed, and least well known, which is that the majority of white americans are of germanic rather than anglo extraction. And so the american speech pattern inherited german monotonality rather than british and gaelic tonal accents.

    So Americans speak the vocabulary and grammar of the english language with rather dry german pronunciation so to speak. If you hear English in the Gaelic or the Old English, it’s more melodic. There is a tempo to it. It’s more expressive.

    When I teach people from melodic backgrounds how to speak english (particularly Indians), I tell them to practice: speak like a robot-voice in the same tone, deep in your chest, with continuous air, and beat your chest every syllable at a constant rate – and while it sounds silly, this technique will teach you the proper pace of english speech.

    If you look at this map, you’ll see the westward migration of the dialects as we spread westward.

    ( PS: As an aside, the actor who Portrays John Adams was chosen, as is common in Hollywood representation of the Founders, as a means of insulting the great man. He had more in common with a Field Marshal than he did that wimpy little fellow. Founders were tough, hardened, empirical people. On a scale we cannot imagine today, because no one like them exists today. )

    https://www.quora.com/What-did-Americans-sound-like-in-the-late-18th-and-early-19th-centuries-and-when-did-the-recognizable-General-American-accent-come-into-being-Did-Americans-sound-British-in-the-1700’s-and-1800’s-If-not-what-did-Americans-sound-like

  • Why Are Women Often Portrayed As Symbol Of Evil Or Weakness?

    TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness

  • What’s The Difference Between Keynesian Economics And Austrian Economics?

    There are three basic movements in economics. We unfortunately name them by their origins rather than their goals

    Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of information so that people can cooperate more effectively. In this sense Austrian economics is an attempt to create a social science of cooperative institutions – political economy. More importantly the objective is to improve information. It is also the most eugenic system. (nAustrian Econ = Social Science / Political Economy )

    Chicago/freshwater/monetarist economics seeks to create formula for the non discretionary interference in the economy to correct against shocks, and thereby adding the economy to our existing tradition of rule of law. The information distortion then is not open to discretion and manipulation, and people are not made victims of Human error and bias. This system retains eugenic reproduction and savings and intervene rational lending but allows the public to insure itself agains shocks. It also prevents the creation and export of risk by one generation into another. (Chicago Econ = Monetary Rule of Law )

    Keynesian /left/freshwater economics seeks to increase consumption and therefore employment by the constant adjustment of the economy using policy and discretion as is done under the Continental system of law. This system seeks the maximum distortions possible and the maximum redistribution possible. It is also the most dysgenic system. It has destroyed the system of intergenerational rational lending, and has led to the export of risk. (Keynesian/Ashkenazi Econ = Discretionary Rule)

    In a perfect world,

    1) we develop all institutions under Austrian Economics, by minimizing asymmetries of information through constant investment in those institutions that assist in information.

    2) We use Chicago economics in our struggle to define a measure by which we limit artificial shortages in the money supply, and regulate the money supply so that we never incur ‘real’ shortages.

    3) We use Keynesian discretionary fiscal policy to cheaply invest in infrastructure in times where that investment is cheapest.

    4) We keep a balance sheet of all forms of capital from genetic through informational, as a means of measuring whether we are burning accumulated capital of any kind, or whether we are actually producing and adding to capital. This is the reason for the conflict in economic policy: we aren’t tracking changes in capital, only velocity.

    I am happy to debate this issue with any economist or philosopher living. But I seriously don’t think that anyone with the knowledge to conduct that debate would do so.

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Keynesian-economics-and-Austrian-economics

  • What Did Americans Sound Like In The Late 18th And Early 19th Centuries, And When Did The Recognizable “general American” Accent Come Into Being? Did Americans Sound British In The 1700’s And 1800’s? If Not, What Did Americans Sound Like?

    Mis-stated question. Instead: When did american accents begin to develop? From the very beginning.

    The american east coast was formed by four different groups of immigrants from different areas of Britain who already spoke with different accents. (To us they would all sound much more gaelic than british do today.) These groups spread in horizontal bands across the united states, and the cultural horizontal ‘bands’ in the country reflect the westward expansion of those early settlers, and how they carried their languages with them.

    The intentional ‘middle atlantic’ accent was something you learned, just like received pronunciation in the UK until the underclass revolution of the 1960’s, the marxists, postmodernists, attempted to undermine all western aristocratic values.

    Universities attempted to quash dialects for the competitive marketability of their students, and radio, then television assisted in the homogenization of the ‘Indiana’ pronunciation throughout most of the country exclusive of the lower classes. Most of this dramatic homogenization has come about since 1980.

    Our accents may not sound as distinct to others as do those of different regions of the UK, particularly in the underclasses. But in the states, your vocabulary, body language, and pronunciation are your primary forms of status signaling, and we can tell, most of the time, at least which region if not which state or city each of us is from.

    The most interesting property of american pronunciation is probably the least discussed, and least well known, which is that the majority of white americans are of germanic rather than anglo extraction. And so the american speech pattern inherited german monotonality rather than british and gaelic tonal accents.

    So Americans speak the vocabulary and grammar of the english language with rather dry german pronunciation so to speak. If you hear English in the Gaelic or the Old English, it’s more melodic. There is a tempo to it. It’s more expressive.

    When I teach people from melodic backgrounds how to speak english (particularly Indians), I tell them to practice: speak like a robot-voice in the same tone, deep in your chest, with continuous air, and beat your chest every syllable at a constant rate – and while it sounds silly, this technique will teach you the proper pace of english speech.

    If you look at this map, you’ll see the westward migration of the dialects as we spread westward.

    ( PS: As an aside, the actor who Portrays John Adams was chosen, as is common in Hollywood representation of the Founders, as a means of insulting the great man. He had more in common with a Field Marshal than he did that wimpy little fellow. Founders were tough, hardened, empirical people. On a scale we cannot imagine today, because no one like them exists today. )

    https://www.quora.com/What-did-Americans-sound-like-in-the-late-18th-and-early-19th-centuries-and-when-did-the-recognizable-General-American-accent-come-into-being-Did-Americans-sound-British-in-the-1700’s-and-1800’s-If-not-what-did-Americans-sound-like

  • Women are the Problem. Domestically and Internationally

      Understand. There is only one international problem: the size of the underclass population – under say, 100. That’s it. We will some day soon have to face the fact that it’s populations under 115 that are the problem for humanity and for the planet – and that all the talk-talk-talk in history is created by people above 115, who simply can’t grasp the world of the people under 100. Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote? So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international problem: female reproduction under the the minimum. Both of these problems are solvable. They just aren’t pleasant to solve. Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.

  • Women are the Problem. Domestically and Internationally

      Understand. There is only one international problem: the size of the underclass population – under say, 100. That’s it. We will some day soon have to face the fact that it’s populations under 115 that are the problem for humanity and for the planet – and that all the talk-talk-talk in history is created by people above 115, who simply can’t grasp the world of the people under 100. Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote? So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international problem: female reproduction under the the minimum. Both of these problems are solvable. They just aren’t pleasant to solve. Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.

  • Joel Davis on Deflationary Government

    By John Dow The enforcers (sovereigns) produce law, and as a consequence, markets. The taxpayers (subjects) use the markets, under the law, as consumers of market goods, services, and information. I would advocate a constitution as a contract of mutually enforced recipriocity (justice) between enforcers. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a supreme justice (or supreme court of justices) as supreme authorities on the application of the constitution. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a governor-general (president) as supreme commander (chief executive) of the enforcers. And, I would advocate a senate to represent them in negotiations with other sovereigns (foreign policy), and with their customers (taxpayers) who I would advocate have their own house of representatives they elect to negotiate on their behalf with the enforcer elected senate (economic policy).

  • Joel Davis on Deflationary Government

    By John Dow The enforcers (sovereigns) produce law, and as a consequence, markets. The taxpayers (subjects) use the markets, under the law, as consumers of market goods, services, and information. I would advocate a constitution as a contract of mutually enforced recipriocity (justice) between enforcers. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a supreme justice (or supreme court of justices) as supreme authorities on the application of the constitution. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a governor-general (president) as supreme commander (chief executive) of the enforcers. And, I would advocate a senate to represent them in negotiations with other sovereigns (foreign policy), and with their customers (taxpayers) who I would advocate have their own house of representatives they elect to negotiate on their behalf with the enforcer elected senate (economic policy).

  • The Reasons for Decreasing Crime – In Order

    FYI: Reasons for the decrease in crime. 1) widespread availability of cheap, high calorie, fast food, laden with monosodium glutamate, and/or consisting of carbohydrates, and/or high fructose corn syrup sugars. 2) widespread use of cheap marijuana, 3) widespread availability of cheap digital entertainment products. 4) widespread availability of free pornography, 5) widespread overweight underclass population lacking physical energy and speed, 6) widespread broken-window zero-tolerance policies by the police, courts, and legislatures – reversing motherly and progressive policies, 7) widespread increase in incarcerated population, 8) aggressive feminizationofmales from early childhood in the school system. 9) limited expansion of stand-your-ground laws, restoration of self-defense policies, and increase in home gun ownership.