Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • The Most Controversial Proposition in the P constitution.

    Jan 4, 2020, 11:21 AM

    “The most controversial proposition is to extend progressive taxation such that we tax by density because density decreases opportunity costs.”

  • You Don”t Need to Be an Entrepreneur, Just on An Entrepreneurial Team

    Jan 10, 2020, 2:48 PM Competitiveness isn’t always a good thing to wish in yourself. For those of us that are hyper competitive, the warfare – so to speak – is more enjoyable than the loot that comes from winning it. I don’t like internal conflict but I love external competition. All of us that ‘achieve’ are the same. We love the battle. We’d rather fight hard and lose than not fight at all. You probably can’t make yourself do that. You can however, get on a TEAM with those that do. And use loyalty, work, and discipline to assist them – and get the loot. In other words, don’t necessarily want to be in CHARGE of warfare. Benefit from supporting those who do.

  • You Don”t Need to Be an Entrepreneur, Just on An Entrepreneurial Team

    Jan 10, 2020, 2:48 PM Competitiveness isn’t always a good thing to wish in yourself. For those of us that are hyper competitive, the warfare – so to speak – is more enjoyable than the loot that comes from winning it. I don’t like internal conflict but I love external competition. All of us that ‘achieve’ are the same. We love the battle. We’d rather fight hard and lose than not fight at all. You probably can’t make yourself do that. You can however, get on a TEAM with those that do. And use loyalty, work, and discipline to assist them – and get the loot. In other words, don’t necessarily want to be in CHARGE of warfare. Benefit from supporting those who do.

  • The Universally Preferable Behavior Is the Opposite.

    Jan 13, 2020, 4:42 PM Sorry by “Parasitism”, “Rent Seeking”, and “Free Riding” are demonstrably the universally preferable behavior (UPB). It takes a majority middle class for demand for reciprocity. Man is amoral, not moral. Morality is just advantageous because we’re superpredators – and dangerous.

  • The Universally Preferable Behavior Is the Opposite.

    Jan 13, 2020, 4:42 PM Sorry by “Parasitism”, “Rent Seeking”, and “Free Riding” are demonstrably the universally preferable behavior (UPB). It takes a majority middle class for demand for reciprocity. Man is amoral, not moral. Morality is just advantageous because we’re superpredators – and dangerous.

  • Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Know

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:04 PM

    —“Could you please explain what you mean by “the problem of hard currency”?”—Niklas Wagner

    0) Money Proper means Commodity Money (a commodity used for monetary purposes in exchange. It must be light and of limited volume, and indexed (with a measurement), and either scarce by it’s limited existence in the natural world or very difficult to replicate and therefore artificially scarce. 1) A money substitute is anything used in place of money proper. Currency is one of the many types of money substitutes. Currency began as ‘Notes’, which were literally tickets that could be redeemed for money proper. 2) Hard currency means a currency(money substitute) backed by, and redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc). 3) Soft currency means unbacked by or redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc), or only partly backed by commodity money, or interests in real property (liens). 5) Shares are a tradable commodity backed only by market demand for them – but granting (fictitious) rights in case of liquidity (bankruptcy or sale). 4) Fiat money is a share in the economy (government really), that is used as a soft currency substitute, that like shares, when printed, decreases the value (purchasing power) of other existing shares. In theory we would produce the same amount of new fiat money as we increased value in the country overall. THEREFORE Hard currency runs short whenever economic velocity increases, and so it appreciates, but it appreciates without contribution to production. Interest on lending to business and industry contributes to production. So appreciation on currency is a form of free riding (rent seeking), where interest in production is not. Fiat currency that prohibits currency appreciation but does not create purchasing power depreciation, prevents free riding on currency appreciation but preserves interest returns that contribute to production. This is, in large part, why the government targets interest rates to judge the money supply. However, they also try to target unemployment. this is the mistake. We can push money from consumers to the banking system for free instead of charging consumers and profiting the banking system. —More by William L. Benge— The Road to Commonwealth, Insurer of Last Resort.

    1. We know that gold and other forms of money were not always controlled by secular authorities as (or, in the manner in which) they presently are.

    2. Since we hold (successfully argue for) that government must (and does) satisfy utility as insurer of last resort, we are forced by the same to acknowledge the legitimacy of what is NATIONAL fiat currency and what is fair finance for domestics. This is not strained reasoning, simply more nuanced.

  • Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Know

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:04 PM

    —“Could you please explain what you mean by “the problem of hard currency”?”—Niklas Wagner

    0) Money Proper means Commodity Money (a commodity used for monetary purposes in exchange. It must be light and of limited volume, and indexed (with a measurement), and either scarce by it’s limited existence in the natural world or very difficult to replicate and therefore artificially scarce. 1) A money substitute is anything used in place of money proper. Currency is one of the many types of money substitutes. Currency began as ‘Notes’, which were literally tickets that could be redeemed for money proper. 2) Hard currency means a currency(money substitute) backed by, and redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc). 3) Soft currency means unbacked by or redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc), or only partly backed by commodity money, or interests in real property (liens). 5) Shares are a tradable commodity backed only by market demand for them – but granting (fictitious) rights in case of liquidity (bankruptcy or sale). 4) Fiat money is a share in the economy (government really), that is used as a soft currency substitute, that like shares, when printed, decreases the value (purchasing power) of other existing shares. In theory we would produce the same amount of new fiat money as we increased value in the country overall. THEREFORE Hard currency runs short whenever economic velocity increases, and so it appreciates, but it appreciates without contribution to production. Interest on lending to business and industry contributes to production. So appreciation on currency is a form of free riding (rent seeking), where interest in production is not. Fiat currency that prohibits currency appreciation but does not create purchasing power depreciation, prevents free riding on currency appreciation but preserves interest returns that contribute to production. This is, in large part, why the government targets interest rates to judge the money supply. However, they also try to target unemployment. this is the mistake. We can push money from consumers to the banking system for free instead of charging consumers and profiting the banking system. —More by William L. Benge— The Road to Commonwealth, Insurer of Last Resort.

    1. We know that gold and other forms of money were not always controlled by secular authorities as (or, in the manner in which) they presently are.

    2. Since we hold (successfully argue for) that government must (and does) satisfy utility as insurer of last resort, we are forced by the same to acknowledge the legitimacy of what is NATIONAL fiat currency and what is fair finance for domestics. This is not strained reasoning, simply more nuanced.

  • On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:25 PM

    —“Thank you! I guess I have to unlearn the libertarian notion that fiat currencies are always some kind of fraud or manipulation game. Would there be bailouts for banks under the propertarian government?”— Niklas Wagner

    Great question. 1) Fiat currencies are an exception innovation in monetary technology as is digital (electronic) transfer of interests rather than physical currency or money. However, with that graet innovation comes (and came) great opportunity for hideous corruption. The federal reserve (like the bank of England) is incompatible with fiat money, and incompatible with electronic money. In other words, all that interest should be accumulating in the hands of the INSURER (the treasury). And worse, there is no reason to use the banking system and interest to distribute money (increase the money supply). Imagine the government putting out a trillion dollars, and the banks offering you 5x on that money so that they could lend it out at 6-15x to commercial institutions? You see. I think sh-t thru. 😉 This would make a very awesome economic system. 2) As for ‘bailouts’…. We would still have the treasury take over banks. Taking over a bank and liquidating the creditors and shareholders is not ‘bailing it out’. Most banks were not bailed out – they were taken over. Only the big banks were bailed out. We only ‘bailed out’ the big banks because the treasury does not own the cash distribution network (ATM’s etc) This would have lead to world economic collapse. We did not however punish anyone and liquidate shareholders. That should have been done. Furthermore we did not do as I recommended, and Galbraith recommended and a few others timidly, which was simply to pay down everyone’s mortgage by as much as 200k, which would have f—ked the financial sector by externality and ended the crisis immediately. It also would have corrected housing prices. It was an obvious solution. But no. Politicians were involved and the financial sector was involved. Instead of saving the middle class we burned the middle class. Thankfully it’s reversible. Under P-constitution banks would be commercial not consumer entities. This would collapse much of the banking sector. And it would isolate bad bank behavior somewhat to commercial banks – which would benefit consumers when it happened.

  • On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:25 PM

    —“Thank you! I guess I have to unlearn the libertarian notion that fiat currencies are always some kind of fraud or manipulation game. Would there be bailouts for banks under the propertarian government?”— Niklas Wagner

    Great question. 1) Fiat currencies are an exception innovation in monetary technology as is digital (electronic) transfer of interests rather than physical currency or money. However, with that graet innovation comes (and came) great opportunity for hideous corruption. The federal reserve (like the bank of England) is incompatible with fiat money, and incompatible with electronic money. In other words, all that interest should be accumulating in the hands of the INSURER (the treasury). And worse, there is no reason to use the banking system and interest to distribute money (increase the money supply). Imagine the government putting out a trillion dollars, and the banks offering you 5x on that money so that they could lend it out at 6-15x to commercial institutions? You see. I think sh-t thru. 😉 This would make a very awesome economic system. 2) As for ‘bailouts’…. We would still have the treasury take over banks. Taking over a bank and liquidating the creditors and shareholders is not ‘bailing it out’. Most banks were not bailed out – they were taken over. Only the big banks were bailed out. We only ‘bailed out’ the big banks because the treasury does not own the cash distribution network (ATM’s etc) This would have lead to world economic collapse. We did not however punish anyone and liquidate shareholders. That should have been done. Furthermore we did not do as I recommended, and Galbraith recommended and a few others timidly, which was simply to pay down everyone’s mortgage by as much as 200k, which would have f—ked the financial sector by externality and ended the crisis immediately. It also would have corrected housing prices. It was an obvious solution. But no. Politicians were involved and the financial sector was involved. Instead of saving the middle class we burned the middle class. Thankfully it’s reversible. Under P-constitution banks would be commercial not consumer entities. This would collapse much of the banking sector. And it would isolate bad bank behavior somewhat to commercial banks – which would benefit consumers when it happened.

  • The Problem with Efficient Markets

    Jan 15, 2020, 3:10 PM Agricultural goods, construction, and housing are efficient. Is that a good thing? Food other than meat is almost free. Why shouldn’t we drive up the cost of agricultural goods, construction, and ‘materials production’ (steel etc) and housing as the returns we can produce? In other words, at what point are we making things cheaper but making everything more expensive as a consequence? I mean, why not repatriate all digital electronic technology, and all medical technology, and at least conversion of raw materials into production goods, and state finance the whole thing? We can. WE aren’t New Zealand. We aren’t a developing nation. WE are not making things cheaper. We’re spending down genetic, cultural, and institutional capital.