don’t waste my time.
we are not equals.
loyalty to one another is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 14:08:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633832060224929794
Reply addressees: @PaulMaccio @Bucklander1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633827567454289926
Q: CURT: “WHY DO FEDERATIONS BENEFIT FROM FORMING A TRADE BLOCK?”
1) Nash Equilibrium: Small countries have no negotiating power in trade. However, an alliance of such countries can negotiate as a block and obtain preferential treatment in negotiation. It’s beneficial to all parties because negotiating itself is costly. The same is true for defense and insurance, or anything where all parties have an interest. It’s the same for business. Would you rather sell easily and a lot to Walmart or to 10,000 independent stores? If you can lock Walmart into a contract then you can plan on an increasingly long time horizon, which reduces risk. Conversely, as in China, where you are ‘concentrated’ in a single market (USA) you are somewhat bound in external actions because of your dependence on that market.
2) Ending internal frictions of negotiation between parties. It is very painful and expensive to have transport of goods especially, and services somewhat across multiple borders. Open markets within a federation radically discount the friction of trade, just as the distribution of property rights from the village(tribe), to the family, to the individuals in the family eliminated the opportunity for corruption, and increased the velocity of cooperation and trade.
MEANING:
Alliance on a) defense, b) external and internal trade, and c) internal insurance against such things as disasters, and in rare cases d) a central bank of currency issuance and exchange, distributes the cost of something that benefits from scale while federation of states allows custom production of commons that do not benefit from scale, and instead, generate FRICTION AND CONFLICT because they do NOT scale.
-Curt Doolittle
Reply addressees: @anderstegn
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:02:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633513471278030854
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633505618249097225
Q: CURT: “WHY DO FEDERATIONS BENEFIT FROM FORMING A TRADE BLOCK?”
1) Nash Equilibrium: Small countries have no negotiating power in trade. However, an alliance of such countries can negotiate as a block and obtain preferential treatment in negotiation. It’s beneficial to all parties because negotiating itself is costly. The same is true for defense and insurance, or anything where all parties have an interest. It’s the same for business. Would you rather sell easily and a lot to Walmart or to 10,000 independent stores? If you can lock Walmart into a contract then you can plan on an increasingly long time horizon, which reduces risk. Conversely, as in China, where you are ‘concentrated’ in a single market (USA) you are somewhat bound in external actions because of your dependence on that market.
2) Ending internal frictions of negotiation between parties. It is very painful and expensive to have transport of goods especially, and services somewhat across multiple borders. Open markets within a federation radically discount the friction of trade, just as the distribution of property rights from the village(tribe), to the family, to the individuals in the family eliminated the opportunity for corruption, and increased the velocity of cooperation and trade.
MEANING:
Alliance on a) defense, b) external and internal trade, and c) internal insurance against such things as disasters, and in rare cases d) a central bank of currency issuance and exchange, distributes the cost of something that benefits from scale while federation of states allows custom production of commons that do not benefit from scale, and instead, generate FRICTION AND CONFLICT because they do NOT scale.
-Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:02:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633513471491940373
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633505618249097225
Reality only sucks if you want men and women to be different from how they are, instead of making the best of each other as they are. I dunno. I don’t think it’s all that hard. Both man and woman avoid being selfish and you can do almost anything. And yes I really believe it and…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 04:13:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632957509639061504
Reply addressees: @ladyinabag1 @ScottAdamsSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632950957544812546
WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, and human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above. That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation to states and federations under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”
Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?
Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?
You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.
The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within. That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.
There is no possible moral argument against this policy.
The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.
Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.
-Curt
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:11:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632126637125824514
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632122738595844096
WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, and human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above. That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation to states and federations under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”
Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?
Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?
You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.
The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within. That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.
There is no possible moral argument against this policy.
The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.
Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.
-Curt
Reply addressees: @IAmAsaJ
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:11:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632126636798750720
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632122738595844096
RT @Dek01907133: @curtdoolittle @whatifalthist Europeans “neotononized” for cooperation and agency and asians for cooperation and conformit…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 08:54:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631941176646303745
THE REAL PROBLEM IS DESOCIALIZATION: OR WHAT NOW IS ANTISOCIALIZTION.
(the consequences of individualism over familism)
From Whatifalthist @whatifalthist
-“I was reading what Google said the causes of mental health were among Gen Z and they said stuff like climate change, school shootings and I was thinking damn, I see why society is so broken where people can’t even see clearly what the problems are.
I mean the answers are:
1) nihilism
2) loneliness
3) lack of role models
4) family breakdown
5) social media
6) bad economy
etc..”-
Correct.
The interesting question is why the media forwards the political narrative instead of the truth. The answer, as always, is that you can blame others for the narrative, but you have to blame yourself, change your behavior, change your political bias, and actually DO something to fix the real problem.
The media hooks your attention with moral outrage, and then sedates your moral outrage by justifying it, by blaming others, and letting you continue to decline without changing your behavior, understanding, or values.
If you know anything about baiting individuals into the spiral of addictive decline – that’s how.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-03 14:18:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631660244689362946
I state why we don’t get along on the one hand, and the utility and necessity of ethnocentrism in producing a high trust low power distance minimum conflict redistributive polity on the other hand, and the impossibility of overcoming that difference.
I mean I suppose I could add a tagline to each post that states my ambitions. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 23:31:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631437032865120257
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631435118936981504
hmmm…. uncertainty+amorality. WHy are people amoral but choose to act morally? costs of acting immorality. Why do we cooperate vs conflict? costs of conflict vs gains of opportunity. Who do conflict and amorality survive: evolution doesn’t know anything. It only discovers what do to by cooperating, and what not to do by conflicting, and we result in various equilibria in constant change.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 21:48:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631411128784789506
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631410256432754689