Theme: Incentives

  • So we should see “less cautious, less tolerant of isolation, less willing to alt

    So we should see “less cautious, less tolerant of isolation, less willing to alter habits, less obsessively clean” behavior from the underclass and the elderly. Which is what we’re seeing.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 16:46:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246116899903111170

    Reply addressees: @ForAllTheMarble @ShayeStone @kat__stafford @JesseLehrich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246116448638062592


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ForAllTheMarble @ShayeStone @kat__stafford @JesseLehrich Risky and impulsive behavior is not offset by medical insurance. We see this in underclasses regardless of race. It’s not that they’re African American, it’s that the black population is left shifted to majority underclass, and policy exacerbates reproduction persisting it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1246116448638062592

  • Risky and impulsive behavior is not offset by medical insurance. We see this in

    Risky and impulsive behavior is not offset by medical insurance. We see this in underclasses regardless of race. It’s not that they’re African American, it’s that the black population is left shifted to majority underclass, and policy exacerbates reproduction persisting it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 16:44:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246116448638062592

    Reply addressees: @ForAllTheMarble @ShayeStone @kat__stafford @JesseLehrich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245875154560806912

  • Any movement works from the fringe to the center of the movement’s maximum reach

    Any movement works from the fringe to the center of the movement’s maximum reach. People on the fringe are novelty seekers. People in the middle are solution seekers. It’s a marketing funnel. There is no difference between a movement and any other product, service, or information.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:55:00 UTC

  • BLACK ROCK’S ROLE IN THE FED TRANSACTIONS by Herbert Hackett BlackRock was the b

    BLACK ROCK’S ROLE IN THE FED TRANSACTIONS

    by Herbert Hackett

    BlackRock was the broker between the Fed and the Treasury. The Treasury owns the assets, the Fed provided the money at zero interest, BlackRock brokered the deal for free.

    —Would you if you can, explain what broker means in this context for the audience.—

    Well, the most layman term I can use is that BlackRock was the middleman. The Treasury instructed what it wanted to purchase, BlackRock went out and arranged the deal, and then using funds from the Fed (at zero interest) the Treasury gave the money to BlackRock, who then gave the money to the other party to transfer the assets over to the Treasury.

    The most important detail of course, is the fact that BlackRock did this without receiving any sort of commission or “cut” of the money that it was transferring for the purchases. In other words, they were in a way “commandeered” or “conscripted” to fulfill this role.

    Once the deal is done, BlackRock no longer has any part of the deal. They didn’t make anything from it, they don’t own any of the assets.

    —Why would a broker like Black Rock want to do this?—

    More likely than not they didn’t have much choice. The treasury and by extension the Executive branch, with the permission of the legislative branch (remember this whole thing was approved by Congress) enabled the government to compel BlackRock to do this by law.

    Not that it’s any detriment to them, of course. At worst it could be seen as a waste of time, but at best they can use this as an opportunity to say, “Look at the deal we arranged! Trillions of dollars and assets transferred without a single hitch. You too could benefit from our services!”

    Before this event, BlackRock was already the biggest in the world at what they do. If nothing else this has only solidified their name in that respect.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-31 15:45:00 UTC

  • “SO BASICALLY, THAT’S WHY WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF COOPERATION, TRADE, AND WAR” by

    “SO BASICALLY, THAT’S WHY WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF COOPERATION, TRADE, AND WAR”

    by Scott Strong

    So basically all of these schools of thought and socioeconomic systems fail because they fail to take into account the sober reality of humankind’s innate animal selfishness and super-predatory nature, AND that individual and group differences in worldview, intelligence, culture create vastly different preferences.

    So there is no universal moral imperative that will satisfy all people. Which is why we live in a world of cooperation, trade, and war.

    Things would have probably been sorted out by now but certain parasites gain way too much wealth, power, and influence by promoting and profiteering off of lies and divisions, while they reap the benefits of the innovations produced and not the people.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 17:32:00 UTC

  • You say that like it’s a bad thing rather than the correct thing to do. “Equalit

    You say that like it’s a bad thing rather than the correct thing to do. “Equality” is a means of directing resources to care rather than consumption. But this isn’t a matter of consumption but of survival of human capital. If you say otherwise you’re unfit for public speech.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 15:19:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244282992148783107

    Reply addressees: @HeerJeet

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243734982419337216

  • IE: QUESTIONS: 1-So agreed. Shock is huge. But does that mean that recovery is f

    IE: QUESTIONS: 1-So agreed. Shock is huge. But does that mean that recovery is front loaded? In other words, why isn’t it possible to restore demand? Sure, we’re going to lose zombie companies. But given the health curve why not a faster recovery? 2-Repatriation of Industry?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 15:02:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244278689619161088

    Reply addressees: @IronEconomist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243870334178263040

  • “Boomers hate crypto for some reason even though crypto still seems more real th

    —“Boomers hate crypto for some reason even though crypto still seems more real than printing infinity money.”—Avin Welleci

    Fiat Currency or “Infinity” money (share-in-economy money) is a competitive necessity. We can’t survive in a world economy without it. And we certainly can’t insure one another against disasters without it.

    Special Fiat Currency such as Food Stamp Money is extremely useful. There is no reason we don’t add ‘utility money, housing money’ as well.

    Conversely, Crypto money (token money) is a means of saving.

    And commodity money an even more fault tolerant means of saving – albeit a costly one.

    They all have their roles.

    I suspect it’s not occurring to you that the central issue is having one currency rather than multiple.

    Fiat Housing < Fiat Utility < Fiat Food < Fiat General < Digital Savings < Gold(commodity money). There is too little gold to serve as commodity money. Oil is too variable for commodity money. It’s possible to crate a basket of commodity money, from all the precious metals.

    My argument was that (a) crypto cannot serve as money substitute given current tech and costs of computing, (b) that self hosted crypto means the network is institutionally fragile (c) that a monolithic transaction system is faster, less fragile, and unassailable by the state. (d) the state will not tolerate the us of it for the reasons it was invented: drug money.

    Don’t assume boomer means bias (I’m a jones generation by the way – between boomers and x’s – like bill gates, steve jobs) It might mean (as it does in this case) i know more than you do. ’cause I do. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 12:34:00 UTC

  • Ok. So using civilizational development, demographic, generational, technologica

    Ok. So using civilizational development, demographic, generational, technological, and business cycles I’ve been within a month or two of every major correction (opportunity exhaustion) since I started working (except china). Market timing is impossible. But Antifragility is NOT.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 11:32:00 UTC

  • Liberalism and the modern left represent consumption and dysgenic interests. Con

    Liberalism and the modern left represent consumption and dysgenic interests. Conservatives and the modern right represent capitalization and eugenic interests. The optimum social orders are at all times small ethnically homogenous nation states. Period. Science.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 22:24:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244027516496601088

    Reply addressees: @KeithWoodsYT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244027202036957186


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KeithWoodsYT Why on earth do you think you understand?
    Who are conservatives talking to and why?
    Why do you think you are the audience?
    What responsibilities for others do you have? (none).
    What responsibilities do their audience have?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1244027202036957186