Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • @RahmEmanuel , @Acyn ; Trump is a genius because he has generated the attention

    @RahmEmanuel
    ,
    @Acyn
    ;

    Trump is a genius because he has generated the attention and incentives to resolve the issue. Previous presidents have all failed. The fact that Trump uses the same brilliant strategy to capture attention and create incentives to act, and that the nitwittery doesn’t seem to understand it, is a statement about the shallowness of human cognition – humans react they don’t think.

    So where the left baits people into hazard with false promises (yes that’s the left’s strategy), Trump baits people into settlement with false threats. It’s brilliant. It’s effective.

    As for being a bad businessman, he baits greedy young bankers into high-payoff returns, then renegotiates those costs downward afterward. You may not like it but it’s brilliant and it works every single time, because greed and status seeking are endemic in the financial sector.

    He is in a business where he is dealing with bankers, finance, construction management, construction companies, maintenance, housekeeping, hospitality management, marketing and sales. And on the other hand, because he’s working internationally, he deals with governments and corruption both public and private on a daily basis.

    You may not like him because he doesn’t conform to your narrative, and he’s hostile to your means of sedition and corruption. But the data speaks for itself, He has succeeded in personal life, in business, and in politics, and he’s going to go down in history as a reformer on the scale of Regan, FDR, Lincoln, and Jackson.

    He’s right – a lot. And if this is what he has to do to prevent collapse and preserve american people, our economy, and our strategic position then he’s doing it – and his predecessors have all failed except for Reagan.

    You just don’t realize that you are not capable of separating your moral intution, and resistance to reformation from the process and results he achieves.

    It’s ok. That makes you either feminine, a leftist, or a member of the hoi polloi. You need to be goverend and led. The question is, whether you recognized good governance and leadership or you’re just trying to preserve your sense of understanding and control.

    It’s the latter, I assure you

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-18 22:00:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2013008673422123262

  • First, well done. Second, well, I would agree on the defense spending – and of c

    First, well done.
    Second, well, I would agree on the defense spending – and of course, that’s what trump’s doing. But as for the reserve currency, I don’t understand why we should give that up since it grants us nearly infinite borrowing power and all but insures that as the world falls into crisis, that wealth flies to our financial system and economy.
    I would split the difference and shrink our defense radius and our defense spending as a consequence, force distribution of it to others who depend on the freedom of the seas and relative free trade, and maintain our position as reserve currency.
    The chinese have little time left, and the russians perhaps even less. Iran is up and down but has to eventually drop. Our problem is merely export of illegals and holding the borders closed until we integrate who we have (and be alittle more aggressive about that integration vs repatriation.
    Assuming those all function we have to tolerate a decade to twenty years before there are no competitiors left.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-15 20:20:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2011896356596813916

  • See, that’s the thing, If I buy a stock for a dollar, and the price goes to 100

    See, that’s the thing, If I buy a stock for a dollar, and the price goes to 100 dollars do I really have 100 dollars?
    If I sell a stock that means the company no longer has the money to work with, or at least can no longer borrow against the value of the stock.
    Well, one of the cabinet members just lost over a billion dollars in the market (It’s ok. He has more billions.). But in order to work for the administration he had to divest. (unlike the Pelosi’s). It cost him over a billion.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-12 20:37:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2010813459529883969

  • I answered this elsewhere in this (long) thread. You’re wrong of course. Its pre

    I answered this elsewhere in this (long) thread.
    You’re wrong of course. Its precisely the concentration of capital into Pareto Optimums (people most able to make use of it) that creates the possibility for those less able to make disproportionate american incomes. That wealth isn’t ‘spendable’ it’s at work in investments. Even then, there is a vast difference between investments statedin market value vs liquidation value.

    There is a reason that the soviets called the american left ‘useful idiots’. Because y’all believe such nonsense instead of thinking it through.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-12 17:24:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2010764944636010797

  • Wealth does not equal consumption. almost all of that wealth is invested in prod

    Wealth does not equal consumption.
    almost all of that wealth is invested in productivity making possible the incomes. Pull it from investments it stops working and things get worse. The more important question is why aren’t people saving? Because they’re living beyond their means.
    As I’ve said elsewhere, the standing issues are
    (a) housing (most important, current president is trying.)
    (b) immigration (pressure on wages plus pressure on housing, plus pressure on culture and institutions) (current president is dedicated to this)
    (c) deindustrialization (current re-indudstrialization under current president is helping)
    (d) the dismantlement of the family unit (by women)
    (e) certain financial sector games and lack of consumer protections.
    (f) unnecessary taxation of more than half (the bottom half) of citizens, who constitute only 3% of federal income.
    (g) debt due to insufficient reproduction to pay for future benefits.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-12 17:06:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2010760319971573967

  • Yes, the increase in expectations of consumption – much of which was created dur

    Yes, the increase in expectations of consumption – much of which was created during the 90s – that’s created a false impression of the baseline expectations of potential home owners.
    Someone just sent me Austin figures which are informative, but not representative. National numbers are all over the place. I grew up in a small town in western NY state, and housing is ridiculous today. At present, I’m back living in the USA. I live a few miles east of the Microsoft Redmond WA campus, and we’re seeing east-asian sized apartments at NYC and San Francisco prices. Meanwhile the company (the tech sector) is exiting it’s (overpaid) middle layer on a scale we saw in postwar industrial sector in the 80s that led to the franchise boom as people were outcast from industry.
    The Northwest saw this with Boeing in the 70s. Seattle was nearly a ghost town. I lived through the movement of tech sector from Boston to the west coast in the 80s but Boston recovered because of it’s institutions. I’m seeing the same near certainty in the current tech sector (where I made my wealth since the 80s).
    So, between ‘the great sort’ and changes in urbanization, offshoring, asymmetry in the economy because of the tech sector, the tech sector obscuring the rest of the economy, questionable education expense, financialization of the economy, the pressure on the young remains prohibitive – and is more than responsible for suppression of reproduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:51:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006981636328456548

  • I frame the increase in housing costs differently. Our expected ‘minimums’ in ev

    I frame the increase in housing costs differently.
    Our expected ‘minimums’ in every walk of life have vastly increased – particularly in housing. We don’t produce three bedroom ‘1000 square feet of house as we did postwar or even 1200 square feet we did in teh 60s. By 2000 we’d doubled to 2200 square feet.
    And amenities? we’ve about quadrupled the amenities we’ve included in the houses.
    In retrospect we’re getting what we pay for at a discount.
    I focus instead on outsourcing the productive economy and financialization of the economy that has left the bottom half out of most gains since the seventies.
    I do try to remind the bottom half that the reason that they’re in this position was their embracement of the democratic socialist program during those periods and how they forced business, industry, and finance to seek global markets rather than be ‘blackmailed’ by the combination of unions and the democratic socialist movement among the democrats.
    Democratic socialism destroyed european economies. It just took until now to see that it’s irreversible. By the seventies we knew the end of socialism. By the sixties the end of communism. It’s taken us a long time to ‘get over’ the false promises of the marxist(class) -neomarxist(cultural marxism) – Postmodern(truth marxism) -feminist(sex marxism) -woke(race marxist) revolution – all lies and stupidity of silly people who were captured by false premises and magical thinking.

    It’s exasperating how much harm believable lies were to humanity. It’s almost as damaging as the spread of abrahamic religions and the false promises they promoted but caused the dark ages in europe the middle east, central asia, and are still threatening us today.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:29:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006976054196617595

  • Signaling Goods and Services (~30–40% of budget; real costs up 200–1,000% since

    Signaling Goods and Services (~30–40% of budget; real costs up 200–1,000% since 1960): These involve status competition, where “more” signals investment in a child’s future success (e.g., elite credentials). The “parenting arms race” has normalized extras, raising fertility barriers and inequality—e.g., extracurriculars now cost $3,000+/year on average, up from negligible in 1960. Much of the child care/education surge (from 2% to 16–18%) is signaling-driven.
    Advanced Child Care/Education (core driver): Private preschools, tutors, test prep, elite colleges—+1,175%; e.g., SAT coaching ($1,000+) or travel sports ($5,000/year) signal “ambitious parenting.” Public basics are sufficient; extras are positional.
    Enrichment/Extracurriculars (in Misc): Music lessons, camps, gadgets—+20% overall, but signaling subset up 300%+; e.g., competitive robotics vs. free playground time.
    Premium Housing: Homes in top school districts—part of housing’s stability, but signaling adds 20–50% premium ($50k+ over 18 years) for “good zip codes.”
    Specialty Health/Wellness: Elective therapies, orthodontics for aesthetics—subset of health’s +155%; signals health-conscious status.

    This split explains why costs feel “out of control” despite modest totals: signaling inflates via social norms, not just needs. For instance, fertility drops in high-inequality areas correlate more with relative costs (e.g., affording Ivy signals) than absolutes. To mitigate, policies like universal pre-K could compress the arms race. For personalized breakdowns, USDA’s tool at
    http://
    CNPP.usda.gov is useful.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-24 21:24:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2003939970470567952

  • 1) Women in the workforce 2) Women in universities consuming largely gut courses

    1) Women in the workforce
    2) Women in universities consuming largely gut courses. Partly to do with the prohibition on IQ and personality tests for admission to jobs, which are trivial costs and produce the same selection process.
    3) Creating debt sufficient to cover a house purchase.
    4) To provide sufficient surplus to tax to pay for elites, to discourage saving, and to create dependency upon redistribution, that is close to bankrupting us because we are not producing sufficient children to pay off the debt.
    5) The increases in mortgage duration raising housing prices and total costs.
    6) Unnecessary concentration of population in cities creating spatial costs (housing) in order to access lower opportunity costs (proximity), made possible by debt both both personal and governmental.
    7) Immigration suppressing entry level and low skill employment that effectively shift lifetime earnings for the natural population downward.
    8) All suppressing the capacity to bear children. ANd while we think the cost of children has increased, it’s not meainingful. the increase has been about 16%. It’s the cost of everything else from housing, mortgages, appliances, cars, to taxes, and now to food and electricity that has increased while real wages (purchasing power) have remained stagnant. 1979 earnings equate to ~$1,039 weekly today—barely enough for one person’s modern living costs, let alone family expenses like child-rearing. To compare affordability, a 2025 family with two median earners (~$39,000 annual each, pre-tax) faces tighter budgets than in 1960, when one earner often sufficed.

    Since 1960, the real (inflation-adjusted) total cost of raising a child to age 17 has increased by about 16% (from ~$202,000 to ~$234,000 in 2015 dollars), but this masks stark shifts across categories. Basic necessities like food and clothing have declined as shares of the total budget due to technological efficiencies, global supply chains, and economies of scale. In contrast, service-oriented categories like child care/education and health care have surged, driven by structural changes (e.g., more dual-income families needing child care, medical inflation) and rising expectations for child outcomes.

    The bit ‘hits’ have been:
    – Health care: +155%
    – Child Care and Education: 1,175%

    We have also passed the ‘solve consumption’ phase of the industrial revolution. We have entered the ‘signaling phase’ as consumption of goods and services has been exhausted even by the poor who have dishwashers and televisions and cars, despite that it makes us unhappy. We have made a future with our present benefits impossible by doing so.

    The net net is that the total economic contribution of women to the work force, on top of spending 70% of household income, and consuming 70% of government services, has resulted in debt provision for education, radical expense inflation for children, destroyed dating, marriage, and the family, while married white men over 35 are the only net contributors to taxation (consume less than they produce).

    We can’t afford women in the workforce at the cost of bearing children because it’s all consumed by taxes and child and healthcare.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-24 21:22:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2003939360241340695

  • Political will cannot overcome inescapable incentives

    Political will cannot overcome inescapable incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-12 14:13:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1999482692564582850