Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO THE MORAL WHAT IS MERELY SELF INTEREST (slavery) Slavery exis

    NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO THE MORAL WHAT IS MERELY SELF INTEREST

    (slavery)

    Slavery existed because of labor required for farming. It ended i) because the labor required for farming first reduced by western agrarian innovation, then ii) was eliminated by western innovation, and iii) because western finance, accounting, and taxation technology made customers provide higher returns than slavery. ie: capitalism(markets) produce incentives that slavery cannot match.

    People are not moral. They are practical. They just make excuses to virtue signal wealth, and the elimination of slavery was an excuse to signal wealth. Never assume people are ‘good’. They are always selfish. In almost every case, from the jewish ban on max of six years, to the pre-modern period, to the modern, to the reason governments banned slavery so that they could tax these individuals, or prevent such accumulation of wealth under slavery that competitors to the state could emerge in colonies. Same for the American civil war. It was so that the western territories did not fall under the political leadership of the south and preserve slavery, which would have left the south in control of the continent, isolating the industrial north.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 11:35:00 UTC

  • That isn’t demonstrably true in entrepreneurship in fact, the data since the 80′

    That isn’t demonstrably true in entrepreneurship in fact, the data since the 80’s has been consistently the opposite, and that rust (moral, ethical) is deterministic in success. Yes, wome economic functions are amoral (finance) and some immoral (advertising, entertainment).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:26:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184566376775782403

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181387125159268352

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MattPirkowski

    Money is easy to acquire in proportion to the degree one is either willing to compromise—or has not developed—their ethical integrity.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181387125159268352

  • If you can’t make a moral argument in economic terms either you lack the intelle

    If you can’t make a moral argument in economic terms either you lack the intellectual ability or you are engaging in some for of fraud by deceit. This is yet another book doing the latter. And then feminists wonder why men are losing patience with the experiment of the franchise.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227518133555201

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

  • LOANS AGAINST TRUST by Luke Weinhagen Law and contract can be used to subsidize

    LOANS AGAINST TRUST

    by Luke Weinhagen

    Law and contract can be used to subsidize for the absence of specific trust, such as between strangers or untested business partners.

    Both are “loans” against the stored trust in a polity. Enforced and insured by the commons in the form of “WE as a common polity will impose a cost on any party that breaches law or contract”.

    Law and contract only provide incentives for adherence where you can expect positive reciprocity (trust producing – rule of law) or where you can rely on the enforcement mechanisms to compel adherence (trust consuming – rule by law).

    Trust consumption eventually gets us back to “Might makes Right” and brings us back to the question “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” (we descend the foundational rule stack). If trust is not there in some form, no one follow the law or sticks to contracts.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 18:05:00 UTC

  • And you are giving us incentive to stop dragging you, and instead correct our er

    And you are giving us incentive to stop dragging you, and instead correct our error.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 14:59:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183759302923898880

    Reply addressees: @Bipin_karki @CGTNOfficial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183759184048865281

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Bipin_karki @CGTNOfficial The British dragged you animals out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature – and you kicked and screamed all the way – and still do. We could have, instead of Christian ethics, emptied the world of all of you – easily.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1183759184048865281

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Bipin_karki @CGTNOfficial The British dragged you animals out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature – and you kicked and screamed all the way – and still do. We could have, instead of Christian ethics, emptied the world of all of you – easily.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1183759184048865281

  • THE ECONOMICS OF FEMALE MATE SELECTION Women voluntarily pair with men, (a) to d

    THE ECONOMICS OF FEMALE MATE SELECTION

    Women voluntarily pair with men, (a) to defend against involuntary pairing with other men; (b)to gain access to resource and defense, (c) status (market value) largely among women, (d) to capture genes, attention and resources and keep them away from other women, (e) mates will sacrifice more than all other combined except mothers for children (ie: friendship), (f) cooperation is disproportionately more productive than all other individual actions.

    This produces the emotional reaction of friendship: ready access to attention and care. Our emotions evolved to inform us that these are the optimum actions.

    Marriage is only an optimum under property. As we can see reversing in modernity. Successful people with assets stay together. Poor without them far less so. I can explain that also but it’s not very ‘nice’.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 10:12:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin As far as I know, the difference between guilds and unions is tha

    by Bill Joslin

    As far as I know, the difference between guilds and unions is that guilds worked in both directions (internal-external). they policed the reputation (value) of the guild by training and policing merit within their ranks (the internally facing focus) as well as negotiated with the employers (collective bargaining i.e. external focused activiry)

    where as fraternities looked to insure their own against misfortune (pass the hat to help members in need) as well as policed membership (shine shame those acting immorally). i.e. and two way focus – internal-external. and they didnt seek to provide this insurance beyond their membership (provide what insurance they could by what resources the could collect internally)

    unions only focus externaly. they seek resources from the.employer based on moral justifications for “workers rights” opposed to insuring quality workers. i.e. they don’t bring anything to trade with outside of the threat of state enforced boycott). and don’t ensure quality of work via the merit of their membership but rather replace merit with seniority (disenframchises the most capable of the younger members, who generally then leave to either contract as independents and eventually start their own businesses – i.e. unions incentives the flight of their best and brightest out of their ranks).

    its an imbalance of malincentives offset by moral posturing.

    in other words – guilds and fraternities responded to and use market forces, while unions insulate from market forces.

    think of it this way – a.union which ensures they have the best and brightest within an industry brings to the table something of value to negotiate with employers.

    a union that only brings to the table the option of state enforced boycott equates to extortion.

    ive had many conversations with both owners and tradesmen in the toronto construction market, about establishing a guild, where by membership requires one to maintain a quality of service and skill – if you don’t meet this requirement, or deviate from guild approved best practices, then you’re tossed out.

    by doing so the guild represents quality control of the workforce, in exchange they can then demand better treatment of workers.

    in short, unions do not offer reciprocity.

    guilds as i envision it would be based squarely on reciprocity.

    reciprocity

    reciprocity

    reciprocity.

    Curt Doolittle – might be something of interest here. i.e. how unions would be transformed by reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 20:54:00 UTC

  • MORE ON GUILDS Guilds limited access, all but eliminated competition and preserv

    MORE ON GUILDS

    Guilds limited access, all but eliminated competition and preserved quality, which prevented optimum market pricing in exchange for optimum benefit to workers – because transport costs for goods were higher than local premium prices. So it’s more of an question of eliminating labor arbitrage.

    Now, other issues were important in the era because tools cost quite a bit, and it prevented the privatization of these tools.

    And they were also like guarantees of weights and measures in that Guild members found guilty of cheating on the public would be fined or banned from the guild.

    One of the policies I want to enforce is right-to-repair which will drive out the cheap goods, drive up prices and durability of goods, ending the disposable, and closing our competitive difference with japan and germany.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 20:18:00 UTC

  • But you cannot escape paying for them in money, time, and blood. No free rides.

    But you cannot escape paying for them in money, time, and blood. No free rides. And risk isn’t substitutable.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 21:39:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181323081475919873

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181322916673269760

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon I am suggesting a return to european tradition of small states with a central “imperial’ government with no power whatsoever other than military defense of those polities and under the constitution written by strict construction in P-law language. This makes possible your ideals.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1181322916673269760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LLaddon I am suggesting a return to european tradition of small states with a central “imperial’ government with no power whatsoever other than military defense of those polities and under the constitution written by strict construction in P-law language. This makes possible your ideals.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1181322916673269760

  • You can make a switzerland as long as it’s wealthy enough producing enough tax r

    You can make a switzerland as long as it’s wealthy enough producing enough tax revenue to defend it. You can make many of them. Or you can make many switzerlands and an empirical goverment (monarchy) like England or the HRE and buy many militia and only ONE military.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 21:13:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181316744629100544

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181282420940791808

    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/1181282420940791808