Theme: Incentives

  • Mating criticism

    Jan 31, 2020, 1:42 PM Mating criticism from both sides is caused by the same problems. It overstates the sex maybe, underestimates the entertainment, friendship, and economic qualities – and how temporary entertainment, and social goods are compared to economic and friendship. Then, because of the overweight average, the lack of exercise, the safe-i-fication of sports, the suppression of male dominance play, and agitation of female victimhood, the percent of moderately desirable men and women has decreased. Yes, high performance women are of no value to men and they have to settle. Yes, low value men are not valuable to women (or men). And women ride the c–ck carousel as the article suggests only to discover it lowers their chances of successful relationships, and their value to quality men. Frankly? too many men and too many women are undesirable for very obvious reasons. This leaves high performance men holding all the cards.

  • Governments Do Have Currency if Not Money

    Feb 1, 2020, 5:40 PM

    —“Governments don’t have money, citizens do. Will the state fund [whatever] through mandatory force derived taxes or will state funding be purely voluntary on the part of interested citizens (non mandatory tithing).”—

    Hmmm… that’s not entirely true. Just as a thought experiment, assume a government over a territory that is fully autarkic and has no need of foreign currency or trade. This government can issue a currency (each unit a tradable share in the economy), demand it as legal tender for all debts private and public, and it can equidistribute X amount of this currency to every citizen every day, week, month, quarter, year or whatever directly to a bank account. It can then collect some percentage of that in taxes and repeat the process. This is what governments already do. They just put the banks in the middle requiring us to borrow it and giving the banks interest, thereby having the banks inflate 9x times the amount. We are not fully autarkic so the process limits the state’s powers of monetary distribution. Modern monetary theory won’t work, but this will, it will just require collecting and measuring better information than we do now

  • Feb 2, 2020, 11:16 AM Another of my favorite CEO tactics: —“Curt, we should do

    Feb 2, 2020, 11:16 AM Another of my favorite CEO tactics:

    —“Curt, we should do this…”—

    OK. How would we do that? What would we not do in order to do that instead? Who will do it and be responsible for doing it? I’m willing to do it if you can make it happen. Teaching moment. I save up those ideas and sort of auction them off during the next strategy session. 😉 People make sh-t happen if they commit to it in public.

  • Feb 2, 2020, 11:16 AM Another of my favorite CEO tactics: —“Curt, we should do

    Feb 2, 2020, 11:16 AM Another of my favorite CEO tactics:

    —“Curt, we should do this…”—

    OK. How would we do that? What would we not do in order to do that instead? Who will do it and be responsible for doing it? I’m willing to do it if you can make it happen. Teaching moment. I save up those ideas and sort of auction them off during the next strategy session. 😉 People make sh-t happen if they commit to it in public.

  • (placeholder) ( … undone … )

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:05 AM (discuss incentives that produce conspiracies of common interest – and managed decline/equilibrium)(real conspiracy is ‘all’ rather than each nation competing an the market driving all upward) TRILATERAL COMMISSION WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – DAVOS BILDERBERG GROUP CONFERNECE MOUNT PELERIN SOCIETY WORLD BANK G7, WTO – World Trade Organization, IMF – International Monetary Fund, THE UNITED NATIONS “Davos Man” “Davos Man” is a neologism referring to the global elite of wealthy (predominantly) men, whose members view themselves as completely “international”. According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase “Davos Man”,[88] they are people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite’s global operations”. In his 2004 article “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite”, Huntington argues that this international perspective is a minority elitist position not shared by the nationalist majority of the people.[89] Davos men supposedly see their identity as a matter of personal choice, not an accident of birth. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has suggested that the transnational ideology of Davos Man represents a major challenge to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion that liberal democracy represents the fulfillment of The End of History and the Last Man. Hernando de Soto Polar said that although internationally connected, each country’s elite lives in a bell jar in the sense of being out of touch with its own populace. Their isolation fosters a tendency to be oblivious to the fate of their fellow citizens. Lawrence Summers refers to this concept as the “stateless elites”, tied more to the success of the global economy than to any nation, and views it as eroding support for continuing globalization

  • (placeholder) ( … undone … )

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:05 AM (discuss incentives that produce conspiracies of common interest – and managed decline/equilibrium)(real conspiracy is ‘all’ rather than each nation competing an the market driving all upward) TRILATERAL COMMISSION WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – DAVOS BILDERBERG GROUP CONFERNECE MOUNT PELERIN SOCIETY WORLD BANK G7, WTO – World Trade Organization, IMF – International Monetary Fund, THE UNITED NATIONS “Davos Man” “Davos Man” is a neologism referring to the global elite of wealthy (predominantly) men, whose members view themselves as completely “international”. According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase “Davos Man”,[88] they are people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite’s global operations”. In his 2004 article “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite”, Huntington argues that this international perspective is a minority elitist position not shared by the nationalist majority of the people.[89] Davos men supposedly see their identity as a matter of personal choice, not an accident of birth. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has suggested that the transnational ideology of Davos Man represents a major challenge to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion that liberal democracy represents the fulfillment of The End of History and the Last Man. Hernando de Soto Polar said that although internationally connected, each country’s elite lives in a bell jar in the sense of being out of touch with its own populace. Their isolation fosters a tendency to be oblivious to the fate of their fellow citizens. Lawrence Summers refers to this concept as the “stateless elites”, tied more to the success of the global economy than to any nation, and views it as eroding support for continuing globalization

  • Ideological Motivations, Options and Outcomes

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.

  • Ideological Motivations, Options and Outcomes

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.

  • Production of What?

    Feb 6, 2020, 7:34 AM Commons, Goods, Services, Information, and Incentives. The problem demarcation between scientists that supply information and ‘intellectuals’ that provide incentives unbound by science: truth and reciprocity. |PRODUCTION| Commons > Consumption: Goods > Services > Information > Incentives Are there any good intellectuals? Or are they all priests selling false promise baiting the people into hazard?

  • Production of What?

    Feb 6, 2020, 7:34 AM Commons, Goods, Services, Information, and Incentives. The problem demarcation between scientists that supply information and ‘intellectuals’ that provide incentives unbound by science: truth and reciprocity. |PRODUCTION| Commons > Consumption: Goods > Services > Information > Incentives Are there any good intellectuals? Or are they all priests selling false promise baiting the people into hazard?