Theme: Governance

  • Do Governments Create Wealth And Jobs For Its Citizens?

    THE COMPLETE AND CORRECT ANSWER.

    —-”Do governments create wealth and jobs for citizens?”—-


    First, let’s understand some terms to make sure we know what we’re talking about.

    SERIES: Defense > Rule > Government > Bureaucracy (monopoly) > Institutions (anonymous cooperation at scale) > Markets (speculation, investment, production, distribution, trade) > Norms (friction reduction) > Truth Telling (friction reduction) > Trust (risk taking) > Economic Velocity > Social Order.

    DEFINITIONS:

    – Defense (producing a territorial monopoly on the organization of decidability over uses of assets (property)),
    – Rule (dispute resolution, or resolution of differences),
    – Government (the production and management of commons), and;
    – Bureaucracy (a monopoly that manages daily operations) are four different things.

    Defense secures territory from appropriation by other large organizations capable of physical appropriation. Defense produces possibility of choice of SOCIAL ORDER (portfolio of property, norms, traditions, laws, legislation, regulation, institutions)

    Rule resolves disputes between people given the property allocations (in china, none, in russia, some, in europe some more, in america most.) In most cases norms are produced by the consequences of rulings by kings, judges, priests, and ‘authorities’. This is why laws vary: they must reflect the needs of the current stage of development of the people in the polity. Adjudications of differences produce LAW.

    Government produces commons through charging and maximizing fees (taxes) of members, and directing those fees to the production of commons, that they assume will produce multipliers (greater returns than private sector will) for the simple reason that some commons are extremely expensive. Legislation(contract) or Command(Dictate) produces LAW SUBSTITUTES we call Law but are not. This ‘conflation’ is endemic in discourse.

    Bureaucracy does labor that a market cannot yet perform through competition. In theory, a bureaucracy functions as portfolio (financial) manager of a function that the market cannot yet produce, or produce in sufficient quantity, or produce at a sufficient price. But like all monopolies they pursue self interest and always become corrupt. In a perfect world, states would start multiple competing bureaucracies like startups, and the best one or two would survive.

    WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO

    Governments create the possibility to organize increasingly complex markets with increasingly complex divisions of labor, with increasingly complex concentrations of capital, with increasingly complex abilities to adapt to shifts, changes, and shocks.

    Governments do this by prohibiting rent seeking, corruption, parasitism, theft, murder at the local level, and capturing the gains as taxation, which they then use to pay for the production of commons, that in turn produce multipliers (returns), that in turn increase standards of living – or governments fail to do so, by not suppressing corruption and not producing commons, and not producing multipliers.

    So governments create the possibilty of increasingly productive and rewarding polities. But it is the entire network of people from the monarchy (Rulers) to the peasantry (laborers) that create jobs through constant increases in the velocity of prodcutiion.

    Why? Because our only wealth is time. We are not wealthier than cave men. We simply make everything cheaper by taking less time with more hands in greater coordination to produce everything we desire for less and less of our time.

    Rules make a game. Governments make rules so that we can play economic games – and moreover that we cannot play anti-economic gains.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Do-governments-create-wealth-and-jobs-for-its-citizens

  • Is Warren Buffett Considered Republican Or Democrat? Why?

    THE COMPLETE ANSWER

    From the period between the civil war and the 1970’s, the south held animosity toward the republican party over Lincoln’s civil war. This led to the Democratic and Republican parties having both conservative and classical liberal members.

    Beginning between 76 and 80 this began to change because the democratic party had been captured more aggressively by the radical left and the feminists. Plus the left had used immigration starting in 1964 as a means of achieving the socialist revolution (tearing down the american experiment) through demographic warfare where they had failed by propaganda and pseudoscience (marxism, boazianism, freudianism, cantorian mathematics, and keynesian post marxist economics.)

    By and large the democratic effort has been effective for large business and finance. So many large business owners that serve the unproductive, laboring, working, and lower middle classes (what he invests in), are better off with policy that increases consumption.

    Whereas the republican (Aristocratic) is far more concerned with accumulating capital in Human (eugenic), behavioral (normative), institutional (rule of law by tort reciprocity – not rule BY legislation), and territorial than current consumption which consumes human capital (dysgenic, dysnormative, discretionary rather than reciprocal.)

    So between his AGE, his REGION, and his INTERESTS he votes for conservative democratic policies.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Warren-Buffett-considered-republican-or-democrat-Why

  • We lost our ability to enforce norms common in the rest of the world during the

    We lost our ability to enforce norms common in the rest of the world during the 1960’s – by Postmodern intent. Imagine we had the regulatory and normative ‘fascism’ of France – and still tried to build Silicon Valley or Boston.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-26 03:04:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945490494242611202

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942640383451901952


    IN REPLY TO:

    @conradhackett

    Spending more, dying younger: Healthcare in America
    https://t.co/9yDF7qJ7HO https://t.co/CcrA6liwJu

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942640383451901952

  • Mr President, please hold more events at churches! It’s great for base. Great fo

    Mr President, please hold more events at churches! It’s great for base. Great for the Trump Brand. Great for our civilization. Great for America. (All our love to you on Christmas!)
    @realDonaldTrump #Trump


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-25 18:30:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945361069916262400

  • Love you Mr. President. Keep fighting the good fight against the ‘The Century Of

    Love you Mr. President. Keep fighting the good fight against the ‘The Century Of Pseudoscience we call “progressivism”. NO MORE FICTIONS


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-24 17:10:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944978650910339072

    Reply addressees: @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944927689638662145


    IN REPLY TO:

    @realDonaldTrump

    The Fake News refuses to talk about how Big and how Strong our BASE is. They show Fake Polls just like they report Fake News. Despite only negative reporting, we are doing well – nobody is going to beat us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944927689638662145

  • The Limited Utility Of Democracy Vs Markets

    —“Direct democracy is a useful means of choosing the allocation scarce resources to preferential commons, among small groups of people with near-identical material interests. Representative democracy among diverse peoples with uncommon interests, is nothing but a limited civil war in which the armies show up, get counted, but don’t actually fight. Representative democracy between vastly divergent interests which cannot find compromise, at some point it is merely conquest, and fighting is preferable to that conquest.”— w/ Alexander Byron
  • The Limited Utility Of Democracy Vs Markets

    —“Direct democracy is a useful means of choosing the allocation scarce resources to preferential commons, among small groups of people with near-identical material interests. Representative democracy among diverse peoples with uncommon interests, is nothing but a limited civil war in which the armies show up, get counted, but don’t actually fight. Representative democracy between vastly divergent interests which cannot find compromise, at some point it is merely conquest, and fighting is preferable to that conquest.”— w/ Alexander Byron
  • THE LIMITED UTILITY OF DEMOCRACY VS MARKETS —“Direct democracy is a useful mea

    THE LIMITED UTILITY OF DEMOCRACY VS MARKETS

    —“Direct democracy is a useful means of choosing the allocation scarce resources to preferential commons, among small groups of people with near-identical material interests. Representative democracy among diverse peoples with uncommon interests, is nothing but a limited civil war in which the armies show up, get counted, but don’t actually fight. Representative democracy between vastly divergent interests which cannot find compromise, at some point it is merely conquest, and fighting is preferable to that conquest.”— w/ Alexander Byron


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-22 12:42:00 UTC

  • Restructuring The West For The End Of 500 Years Of Asymmetric Advantage

    Trump is doing what any rational man watching the numbers would do: The 500 years of western asymmetric economic advantage has been dissipated through the (forcible) expansion of consumer capitalism (property, incentive, contract, credit), rule of law (reciprocity free of discretionary judgement), and aristotelianism (science). The only advantage westerners retain is demography (our IQ distribution is still hovering around 100, we have lower testosterone, greater neoteny, and slower development than anyone other than the Han/Korean/Japanese, and we are still unique in our ability to produce a high trust/low corruption economy, and low context, high precision language). We retain some cultural advantages, but those have been under assault in the postwar period to present – particularly since the widespread adoption of postmodernism (fictionalism). We retain some capital advantage in the conquered territories (USA, Canada, Australia) can still be sold off. Because of these losses of asymmetry, we can no longer afford to manage, police, and adjudicate the world systems of law, finance, and trade. So we can radically withdraw and lose 40% of our standard of living (Yes really), or we can force dependent nations (Europe) to carry the burden that they’ve been free of postwar, and particularly since the adoption of the euro in order to circumvent our tax on them via the petrodollar. We have been in a race since the adoption of fiat currency, socialism under FDR and Johnson, and postmodernism, over whether the colonial states (Anglosphere) would hold on long enough that the continental malinvestments would cause a demographic crash, resulting in a cultural, economic, and civilizational crash. We knew this in the late 70’s. I was there. I participated in the discourse. By 1992 we knew democratic experiment was over. The 2008 crash was the end of the 20th century experiment in keynesian extension. Somewhere between now and 2025 the asymmetry of economic, demographic, and military power will rebalance. So we can move today to ensure this happens somewhat gracefully by accepting our declining influence in the world, or we can do what every other empire in history has done, and that is to burn itself through neo-con and marxist overexpansion. And that is all he is doing. Rebalancing the costs with the wealth, and protecting the remaining capital asset in preparation for the forthcoming adjustments not seen since the abrahamic dark age caused by the twin catastrophes of supernatural christianity and militant islam as together they brought about the 1000 year abrahamic dark age. The world is more full of overconfident but abysmally ignorant americans than it can tolerate.
  • Restructuring The West For The End Of 500 Years Of Asymmetric Advantage

    Trump is doing what any rational man watching the numbers would do: The 500 years of western asymmetric economic advantage has been dissipated through the (forcible) expansion of consumer capitalism (property, incentive, contract, credit), rule of law (reciprocity free of discretionary judgement), and aristotelianism (science). The only advantage westerners retain is demography (our IQ distribution is still hovering around 100, we have lower testosterone, greater neoteny, and slower development than anyone other than the Han/Korean/Japanese, and we are still unique in our ability to produce a high trust/low corruption economy, and low context, high precision language). We retain some cultural advantages, but those have been under assault in the postwar period to present – particularly since the widespread adoption of postmodernism (fictionalism). We retain some capital advantage in the conquered territories (USA, Canada, Australia) can still be sold off. Because of these losses of asymmetry, we can no longer afford to manage, police, and adjudicate the world systems of law, finance, and trade. So we can radically withdraw and lose 40% of our standard of living (Yes really), or we can force dependent nations (Europe) to carry the burden that they’ve been free of postwar, and particularly since the adoption of the euro in order to circumvent our tax on them via the petrodollar. We have been in a race since the adoption of fiat currency, socialism under FDR and Johnson, and postmodernism, over whether the colonial states (Anglosphere) would hold on long enough that the continental malinvestments would cause a demographic crash, resulting in a cultural, economic, and civilizational crash. We knew this in the late 70’s. I was there. I participated in the discourse. By 1992 we knew democratic experiment was over. The 2008 crash was the end of the 20th century experiment in keynesian extension. Somewhere between now and 2025 the asymmetry of economic, demographic, and military power will rebalance. So we can move today to ensure this happens somewhat gracefully by accepting our declining influence in the world, or we can do what every other empire in history has done, and that is to burn itself through neo-con and marxist overexpansion. And that is all he is doing. Rebalancing the costs with the wealth, and protecting the remaining capital asset in preparation for the forthcoming adjustments not seen since the abrahamic dark age caused by the twin catastrophes of supernatural christianity and militant islam as together they brought about the 1000 year abrahamic dark age. The world is more full of overconfident but abysmally ignorant americans than it can tolerate.