RT @truthb4face: On the proper measurement and regulation of reciprocity and externalities, link:
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1838685767524323645
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-25 19:48:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839029282632511596
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1838685767524323645
RT @LukeWeinhagen: Economic Zones Growing On The Corpses Of Communities
One of the consequences of worldwide trade at scale (consumerism/g…
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-14 01:28:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834766028699476395
–“Q: Curt: Does Recycling then cause more damage than it prevents?”–
I don’t think I would make that case, I think instead we should grasp that:
1. Recycling metal is a good thing. Same for hazardous liquids. Glass maybe. Paper is a wash because recycling it is more harmful than the savings gained. The worst part is all the false promise, the hypocrisy of it, the wasted time and effort by the population. So transfer stations where we take our trash, separate some metals, maybe glass make sense but otherwise the rest of it doesn’t. (If we manage to solve the energy production problem, it might become economically viable for an industry to evolve that will reclaim the material in ‘dumps’ if there is any value there. However, the planet is pretty good at recycling, and dumps are a tiny portion of the territory, and if leaching is prevented they’re safe.
2. The government, the activists (a secular religion really), and those invested in the system will refuse to correct course because of the vested interests whether psychological, social, political, or material
3. Every single progressive movement such as saving household electricity (meaningless, since almost all energy consumption is by industry and office buildings), or no fault divorce (made it worse), or even the great society movement and the civil rights era imitating the soviets ( ended integration and slowed minority achievement ), or bussing and forced integration (didn’t work, caused separation by income instead, dumbed down our education system) or urban planning, design, and investment (always failed), or even ending slavery in the south (it’s utility was ended by industrialization in thirty years and we killed 1/2 a million people, and empowered this (evil) federal government because of it.
4. In general you seek to punish the bad, and the good will emerge, but you cannot outwit the bad so to speak with attempts to directly produce the good. This is one of the lessons I try to teach and It’s futile because of the ‘busybodies’ that our ancestors warned us about: people who cannot achieve on their own so seek to use the money and force of government to do so, which in turn attracts bureaucracy and parasites on the goverment trough through contractors and such.
Reply addressees: @CricketSurfing @BretWeinstein
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-13 13:36:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834586930391949312
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834579395811393887
RT @joe__touring: @BretWeinstein When you look under the hood and see how little is actually able to be recycled, it becomes clear that tru…
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 15:26:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833527359552852420
RT @elonmusk: @levie Do you know that America pays almost all the drug R&D costs of Earth?
That’s why drugs are bizarrely cheap in other c…
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-19 13:32:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825526372091187239
@ItIsHoeMath
Suggestion to add to your portfolio of wisdom:
Doing what imposes costs on others hurts everyone by either depriving the producers or disabling, creating dependency, and exaggerating the reproduction of the non-producers.
Instead, we all benefit from NOT doing things that impose costs upon others.
If enough of us live in proximity that we all benefit from not imposing costs on others we develop trustworthiness and trust.
If we develop homogenous trustworthiness and trust when living in proximity, we lower opportunity costs, and lower the risk and in doing so lower transaction costs.
If we create the informal commons of trustworthiness and trust, lowering opportunity and transaction costs, then can then use some percentage of proceeds from not doing things to one another, that we can create commons of both formal institutions, and physical infrastructure to further lower our opportunity, transaction, information, goods, and services costs.
If we further lower our costs of opportunity, transaction, information, goods and services in an environment of homogenous trust in proximity to one another, we create an advantage that attracts others who will conform to those norms and institutions which again lowers opportunity and transaction costs further and increases the division of labor decreasing the costs of more complex and diverse goods, services and information.
The lesson is that we all benefit from the prohibition on imposition of costs upon others, including the prohibition on others free riding on the production of commons that lower opportunity, transaction, and material costs.
Conversely, we all experience harm from the tolerance for imposition of costs upon others, especially those directly, or indirectly by free riding on the production of commons – including the commons of trustworthiness and trust that made all our benefits possible.
This is why we are converting from a high trust northern european population to a lower and lower and lower one – and discovering the informal, formal, and material costs that follow that decline.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @ItIsHoeMath
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:36:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821631643129434112
IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH MATH?
1) A great deal is wrong with math in the sense that the externalities produced by the framework of of its evolution are vast and negatively consequential.
2) Yes. You are correct that matter is discrete (operational, computational) and physics is continuous (statistical, calculative), and the failure of this comprehension has led to founding mathematics on sets instead of operations.
3) In economics we are painfully aware of the limits of mathematics and we account for those limits even if most economists use the wrong calculus in their calculations. In physics they are more likely to use the correct calculus but not understand the limits of mathematics. In mathematics all to often they use platonic forms and create and export nonsense ideas to justify what would be perfectly rational if explained operationally (for example the square of negative one).
So the claim from mathematicians that ‘it works and we don’t want to reform’ is the same reason philosophy died by the 1970s.
CD
Reply addressees: @matterasmachine @Plinz
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 13:37:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818279818372222976
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817993361699098667
RT @LukeWeinhagen: One example of separating the insurers (cost payers) from the deciders (cost creators).
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-07 21:55:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810070222436520337
RT @LukeWeinhagen: Any ideology that makes moral the passing of the costs of decisions (feminism, communism, etc…) onto anyone other than t…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-07 21:55:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810070172608139492
Well you say that but straight capitalism allows for a whole spectrum of crimes against a people by everything from fraud by omission to baiting into hazard to private consumption of the commons and private socialization of losses into the commons.
So if you implement rule of law you will get moral capitalism but capitalism without rule of law by. natural law and constantly updating it, will create immoral capitalism.
Reply addressees: @PaulManhardt @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-08 19:42:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799527414885736448
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799471630634357106