Theme: Incentives

  • You are a useful idiot because you were intentionally NOT taught economics, fina

    You are a useful idiot because you were intentionally NOT taught economics, finance, basic law, or even basic engineering. So you can spew ignorant envious drivel without having any conception of the extreme privilege you live under because of our bias to entrepreneurial efforts.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-07 13:25:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192432851242901504

    Reply addressees: @studentactivism

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192432328599056385


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @studentactivism The better question is, why don’t we give ALL our research and development money to the Billionaires to manage, and all our public institutions to these same people, because they are demonstrably, in every single case, in every single era beyond what government people (fail) do.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1192432328599056385


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @studentactivism The better question is, why don’t we give ALL our research and development money to the Billionaires to manage, and all our public institutions to these same people, because they are demonstrably, in every single case, in every single era beyond what government people (fail) do.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1192432328599056385

  • Well Done. Will read ASAP. Presume I agree entirely. Necessary direction. Also,

    Well Done. Will read ASAP. Presume I agree entirely. Necessary direction. Also, no need for interest on consumer credit for capital purchase (homes, autos, durable goods) and no need for use as collateral. Thanks for fighting the good fight.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-07 11:03:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192397195179384833

    Reply addressees: @Frances_Coppola

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148968598867795969


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Frances_Coppola

    Coppola Comment: The Case for People’s Quantitative Easing https://t.co/fcGErK3KFO https://t.co/bhU8KkmVBE

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148968598867795969

  • 1) He’s gay and British. 2) He’s marxist (it’s in his notes) 3) He’s restating m

    1) He’s gay and British. 2) He’s marxist (it’s in his notes) 3) He’s restating marx in quantitative redistributive innumeracy; 4) He did not understand the consequences to capital; 5) Nor how people would run with it; 6) Hayek did but he lacked the language (or didn’t use it).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-06 17:03:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192125302480277505

    Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192118660032278530


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192118660032278530

  • As in all things, all psychology, ethics, sociology and politics can easily be d

    As in all things, all psychology, ethics, sociology and politics can easily be described in economic terms:
    Masculine: Conservative: Accumulate Quality – Eugenics.
    Neutral: Productive: Facilitate Accumulations – Compromise
    Feminine: Consumptive: Accumulate Quantity – Dysgenics.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-05 19:49:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1191804704910696449

    Reply addressees: @MeisterDutch @JohnMarkSays @StefanMolyneux @RAZ0RFIST @NickJFuentes @Nature_and_Race

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1191799297190383618


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1191799297190383618

  • INCENTIVES AT THE BOTTOM (Michael Churchill ) There is no incentive for the peop

    INCENTIVES AT THE BOTTOM

    (Michael Churchill )
    There is no incentive for the people on the sub-optimal side of the curve to voluntarily go along with the extinction of their own DNA line…. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=498867977376764&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-03 14:39:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1191001950210469888

  • INCENTIVES AT THE BOTTOM (Michael Churchill ) There is no incentive for the peop

    INCENTIVES AT THE BOTTOM

    (Michael Churchill )

    There is no incentive for the people on the sub-optimal side of the curve to voluntarily go along with the extinction of their own DNA line.

    There is declining incentive for the people at the top to enforce laws to prevent reproduction of those who are on the sub-optimal side of the curve.

    And there are strong IN-centives for both capital and fifth-columnists to encourage reproduction on the sub-optimal side of the curve.

    Overall human DNA is weakening in western societies, and the effect is cumulative over generations.

    (Curt Doolittle)

    The Incentive for people on the sub-optimal side of the curve is compensation NOT to reproduce, as well as prosecution IF they reproduce.

    (Martin Štěpán)

    I do see that. We’ve let it go too far. But if we isolate from the left though, I’m pretty sure there won’t be that many on the sub-optimal side of the spectrum. And ones that are, what can you really do with them besides paying them to obey the law and not reproduce, at least not more than one kid? If that’s not okay and they still commit crime, they need to be disposed of. And if we keep doing that, we’ll slowly keep improving.

    I advocated for the same thing in healthcare as welfare, actually. You either pay your own or you use the tax-subsidized healthcare but in the latter case, you submit to one-child policy too, at least unless you manage to pay the money back.

    (Curt Doolittle)

    Yes. That’s the correct Incentive and policy.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-03 09:39:00 UTC

  • RT @StefanMolyneux: Historically: Women divide resources among their own childre

    RT @StefanMolyneux: Historically:

    Women divide resources among their own children, so equal sharing is key to keeping peace.

    Men compete…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-02 22:36:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1190759725882920960

  • Eugenics in P-Law

    (Curt Doolittle) The only eugenic process Natural Law relies upon is markets. in other words, if you (your family) is self supporting, and not engaging in irreciprocity, we have no other means of testing your fitness other than demonstrated fitness. If you (your family) is not self supporting, an engages in irreciprocity, no matter your excuse, then you are in fact, demonstrating unfitness. (Bill Joslin) Fitness being akin to “good” – anything not unfit, is fit. Fitness remains undecidable (only demonstrable) because of the causal density and unpredictability of future outcomes. But unfitness remains a provisional known (a known subject to being updated with new information). This the demarcation between HARD eugenics (attempting direct control over natural eugenics) and SOFT P-Eugenics would be “anything not unfit remains fit (a fitness candidate) – or rather, we P-eugenics are achieved by NOT practicing dysgenics. (Curt Doolittle) P-law is via negativa, meaning do not reproduce dysgenically, it is not via-positiva, meaning culling of people. It does leave open the possibility of termination for catastrophic birth defects. We don’t answer the question of abortion because it is undecidable under law. It is only decidable within a polity. P-law does not prohibit genetic innovation (Transhuanism) as long as it reversible in the next generation and warranteed. TESTOSTERONE (Curt Doolittle) The generational sink in testosterone levels as far as I know, is almost entirely due to failure to exercise and engage in dominance play, and can be restored by physical activity – we know this because we see people do it every day. THere is some negativity to BPA and other chemicals but tis is as easily rectified as requiring all foods to be shipped (more expensively, and less environmentally costly ) in glass containers. (Bill Joslin) Drop in testosterone relates to prolonged.low level stress, or rather a higher baseline stress level – for example the constant stimulus of living in urban centers, or prolonged financial stress…i.e. anomie Also – occupations that have intermittent physical stress coupled with enough recovery time, tend to elevate testosterone. for example: jobs which include physical exertion but don’t include “taking work home with you” (no worrying about after hours.)

  • Eugenics in P-Law

    (Curt Doolittle) The only eugenic process Natural Law relies upon is markets. in other words, if you (your family) is self supporting, and not engaging in irreciprocity, we have no other means of testing your fitness other than demonstrated fitness. If you (your family) is not self supporting, an engages in irreciprocity, no matter your excuse, then you are in fact, demonstrating unfitness. (Bill Joslin) Fitness being akin to “good” – anything not unfit, is fit. Fitness remains undecidable (only demonstrable) because of the causal density and unpredictability of future outcomes. But unfitness remains a provisional known (a known subject to being updated with new information). This the demarcation between HARD eugenics (attempting direct control over natural eugenics) and SOFT P-Eugenics would be “anything not unfit remains fit (a fitness candidate) – or rather, we P-eugenics are achieved by NOT practicing dysgenics. (Curt Doolittle) P-law is via negativa, meaning do not reproduce dysgenically, it is not via-positiva, meaning culling of people. It does leave open the possibility of termination for catastrophic birth defects. We don’t answer the question of abortion because it is undecidable under law. It is only decidable within a polity. P-law does not prohibit genetic innovation (Transhuanism) as long as it reversible in the next generation and warranteed. TESTOSTERONE (Curt Doolittle) The generational sink in testosterone levels as far as I know, is almost entirely due to failure to exercise and engage in dominance play, and can be restored by physical activity – we know this because we see people do it every day. THere is some negativity to BPA and other chemicals but tis is as easily rectified as requiring all foods to be shipped (more expensively, and less environmentally costly ) in glass containers. (Bill Joslin) Drop in testosterone relates to prolonged.low level stress, or rather a higher baseline stress level – for example the constant stimulus of living in urban centers, or prolonged financial stress…i.e. anomie Also – occupations that have intermittent physical stress coupled with enough recovery time, tend to elevate testosterone. for example: jobs which include physical exertion but don’t include “taking work home with you” (no worrying about after hours.)

  • If you meet a lot of hollywood writers you’ll understand the problem with hollyw

    If you meet a lot of hollywood writers you’ll understand the problem with hollywood scripts. Directors aren’t really the problem. Writers and studios are. Directing is an art, editing is a craft, and writing is a cult of postmodern dysfunction.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-01 19:59:00 UTC