Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • DON’T MISUNDERSTAND MY OBJECTIVE I suppose that since I work on incentives which

    DON’T MISUNDERSTAND MY OBJECTIVE
    I suppose that since I work on incentives which means the use of indirection (bouncing the cue ball off the rail for every shot), and that since my purpose is indirect also, it’s easy to fail to grasp my meaning and intention: we are in a period of integrating the lower classes, then women, the jews, then third world immigrants, and even muslims, all of whom have lower desire and much lower capacity to bear the responsibility of whiteness, unless men AND women form families that depend on ‘whiteness’ (responsibility for self, private, and common) to maintain a low cost high trust polity where we require less income for higher quality of life, and can support single parent families.
    So, I work to outlaw hostility to, competition with, undermining of, sedition against, and treason against ‘whiteness’ meaning the group strategy and tradition of western civilization: the maximization of individual responsibility for mind, self, family, private, and common.
    Very few others groups can do so. And even our own women, unless heavily insulated from social, economic, and political conflict, fall victim to the seduction into the false promise of the evasion of that massive burden of responsibility necessary to bring about and maintain a hight trust polity, and all the benefits to ourselves our people, and mankind that have resulted from it.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 21:20:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785056637591470081

  • Brilliant from both Points of view and I try to accommodate both when possible.

    Brilliant from both Points of view and I try to accommodate both when possible. 😉
    I suppose that since I work on incentives which means the use of indirection (bouncing the cue ball off the rail for every shot), and that since my purpose is indirect also, it’s easy to fail to grasp my meaning and intention: we are in a period of integrating the lower classes, then women, the jews, then third world immigrants, and even muslims, all of whom have lower desire and much lower capacity to bear the responsibility of whiteness, unless men AND women form families that depend on ‘whiteness’ (responsibility for self, private, and common) to maintain a low cost high trust polity where we require less income for higher quality of life, and can support single parent families.
    So, I work to outlaw hostility to, competition with, undermining of, sedition against, and treason against ‘whiteness’ meaning the group strategy and tradition of western civilization: the maximization of individual responsibility for mind, self, family, private, and common.
    Very few others groups can do so. And even our own women, unless heavily insulated from social, economic, and political conflict, fall victim to the seduction into the false promise of the evasion of that massive burden of responsibility necessary to bring about and maintain a hight trust polity, and all the benefits to ourselves our people, and mankind that have resulted from it.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 21:20:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785056530171101184

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785045506797732108

  • US GOVT DEBT AND HOW IT AFFECTS INTEREST RATES (Meir Velenski (@VelenskiMeir) is

    US GOVT DEBT AND HOW IT AFFECTS INTEREST RATES
    (Meir Velenski (@VelenskiMeir) is one of the only plain spoken serious financial educators, absent all the drama and woo woo on YT.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDoeS5y6tY

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 20:30:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785044057854525794

  • This is demonstrably not true. It takes about 1% of men to overthrow the rest. V

    This is demonstrably not true. It takes about 1% of men to overthrow the rest. Violence always and everywhere rules. It’s just a matter of incentives to use it or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 14:47:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784957579690381406

    Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784952764138680766

  • “Q: Curt: Do you think consumer credit should be tied to income?”– Yes. And for

    –“Q: Curt: Do you think consumer credit should be tied to income?”–

    Yes. And for all intents and purposes, the actuarials have vast data to work with and credit issuance is effectively a science. But just like Keynesian “saltwater economics”, it’s evolved into a science of abuse of the population.
    So:
    (a) there is no value in the consumer financial system whether credit, insurance, or retirement savings since under fiat money we are all borrowing from our future selves. As such all consumer credit should be at zero interest – at least for durable goods and no more than the usable primary lifespan of the object.
    (b) All credit capacity is currently and previously easily calculated, and high interest rates and easy credit are just a means of redistribution from responsible people to irresponsible people, hurting the irresponsible people both in future economic, psychological, and social terms.
    (c) If all credit is issued by purely statistical means (and yes we have the data) then
    … i) people cannot be baited into hazard by credit seduction
    … ii) companies will have to compete on products and services not credit capacity
    … iii) there is no need for the repossession of consumer goods
    … iv) people will live more within their means, prices for homes in particular will decrease (and more so with legislating a max of 15 year mortgages)
    … v) If we are successful in enacting ‘right to repair’ that will prevent spending on non-durable products, planned obsolescence and “Shoddyism” (yes that’s a thing) meaning the practice of making or selling goods that are cheaply made and likely to break or wear out quickly, often despite appearances or claims of durability, then that will modify debt, quality of life, behavior, and ameliorate social stress.

    That’s the short answer but I ope it helps.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @Plizsammler @artus9010

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-28 19:39:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784668777742729218

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784649799309967398

  • You notice that Keynes missed the third property of the mission: i) time, ii) ig

    You notice that Keynes missed the third property of the mission: i) time, ii) ignorance, iii) the tyrannical (leftists) 😉

    FYI: —“The social object of skilled investment should be to defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance which envelope our future.” — John Maynard Keynes https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1784665069885751789

  • You notice that Keynes missed the third property of the mission: i) time, ii) ig

    You notice that Keynes missed the third property of the mission: i) time, ii) ignorance, iii) the tyrannical (leftists) 😉

    FYI: —“The social object of skilled investment should be to defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance which envelope our future.” — John Maynard Keynes

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-28 19:27:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784665791482179585

  • Q: CURT: “WHY CAN’T WE CENTRALIZE PRODUCTION?” There are some things the state c

    Q: CURT: “WHY CAN’T WE CENTRALIZE PRODUCTION?”

    There are some things the state can direct, which is largely defense, transportation and communication infrastructure, primary research and development in any competitive or comparative advantage, strategic trade policy, strategic industry, treasury, and law (courts). Of those, only ‘strategic industry’ is open to variations because the constitution of strategic industry varies constantly in time and over time.

    What is government good at:
    Capital formation and the organization of production and maintenance of those goods, services, and information that the private sector cannot achieve because of risk, time frame, and capacity to profit from it, while maintaining the production of a public good.

    Why is government bad at almost everything
    1. You’re apparently unaware of the “knowledge problem”: how government control creates poverty, corruption, and decline:
    (The knowledge problem, as articulated by economists, highlights the inherent limitations of governmental entities in acquiring the vast, dispersed information and the incentives necessary to produce goods, services, and information that the market can otherwise generate. This combination of ignorance and incentives leads to corruption within government as officials exploit their authority for personal gain in the absence of market disciplines and accountability.
    At the same time their failure and corruption degrade public trust and incentivize individuals to circumvent official channels, leading to the formation of black markets. These underground economies emerge not just as a symptom of regulatory and economic failure, but also as a pragmatic response by citizens seeking goods and services that are otherwise unattainable or exorbitantly priced due to government intervention. Thus, the knowledge problem underscores a fundamental challenge: without the nuanced understanding and incentives provided by market mechanisms, governmental interventions often result in widespread inefficiencies and societal corruption.)
    So 1. Failure of the pricing system to provide necessary complexity reduced to useful information 2. Necessary incompetence that results. 3. Lying and Corruption that results as a consequence. 4. The collapse of public trust, collapse of public incentives, public expansion of free riding, and the formation of black markets. 5. The resulting poverty as all these overhead costs more than exceed the costs and uncertainty of markets wherever markets CAN supply good services and information.

    What is the optimum role of government in the economy?
    1. Non Market Long Term Capital Production: Military, Infrastructure, Treasury, Insurance of Last Resort, – Possibly including medical infrastructure (buildings and equipment)
    2. Basic Research: not academic research but basic scientific and technological research that provides a competitive advantage.
    3. Venture Capitalist: Venture capitalist in strategic industry, formation of new industry, resulting public participation in profits of the industries governments have used public funds to invest in.
    If this means starting the production within the government, and when viable, turning it over to private sector management, or whether it means investing in private sector industries to maintain or expand comparative advantage, the utility of the government as an investor ‘and capitalist’ seeking returns for the public in lieu of taxes, is irrelevant. The government can accumulate capital in ventures that are necessary for the public good, useful for the public good, and that may take a long time to produce returns, while the private sector is better at making use of capital and producing returns on capital once a market exists.
    4. Subsidy of Primary Production: This is where our food supply requires vast regulation and reconstruction. And it is the only primary production that appears to be necessary,
    5. Insurer of Last Resort
    – Resolution of Conflicts (courts)
    – Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction
    – Defense
    And I’m reluctant to add these because they’re going to need vast reforms:
    – Catastrophic medical care
    – Catastrophic elder care
    – Catastrophic unemployment
    – Catastrophic genetic burden and resulting incompetence at survival.

    Everything else is better done by the private sector.

    Cheers.

    Reply addressees: @Gyeff0

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-27 20:09:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784313853313941504

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784287713564238087

  • Q: CURT: WILL THE PUBLIC STOCK MARKET STILL EXIST IN THE COMING DECADES? Yes for

    Q: CURT: WILL THE PUBLIC STOCK MARKET STILL EXIST IN THE COMING DECADES?
    Yes for reasons too many to list. However it will change as it has continued to change throughout our history:
    1) We are exiting the period of boomer capital oversupply and entering a post-boomer period of capital undersupply.
    2) At the same time we are losing comparative advantage in IQ, Technology, Institutions, Economic Scale, Geostrategic influence, and political legitimacy.
    3) There is every reason to believe capital will continue to concentrate in a few sectors and the majority of sectors will continue to lag – in fact, I don’t know why the measurements don’t separate those markets already (for the purpose of the news).
    4) There is every reason to believe capital flight to the USA will continue and accelerate.
    5) There is every reason to believe however that technology will further reduce the population of speculators to those who can afford the compute.
    6) There is every reason to believe that – and get ready for this – the treasury will take over vast portions of the consumer credit, insurance, and investment markets even more so than does singapore, and put that investment into longer time frames and greater yields. The consequence is that institutional dollars derived from consumers will shrink in favor of foreign dollars. The scale of this is likely to be profound. This means that the market will be deprived easy capital, and vast portions of the banking, insurance, and consumer investment sector will be wiped out almost entirely. I cold write more on this but I am one of the authors of all of these policy changes and If I’m thinking of it then so are others.
    6) So basically imagine that capital is scarce, it comes with more strings attached, and from a broader capital base, and that there is MUCH more volatility and much lower growth. And the growth that’s available will be in markets that are riskier than today.

    I don’t really think this is pessimistic. If I were to take a pessimistic stance it would be that there is a non zero chance of a world war, a long running USA ‘troubles’ (civil war) or a catastrophic civil war, and it’s possible both the world war and the civil war occur at the same time, or that the civil war will encourage the world war.

    My job is to look at these fields of possibility. At. present I do not see possibility of continued growth by consumption. So I’ve worked on ‘what to do next’ under that assumption. And it means the equivalent of a restructuring and downsizing for a major industry, until prices and debts equilibrate back to levels possible to alter marriage, reproduction, and consumption rates. And to do so without further lowering national IQ through immigration. We are approaching 97 at present and if it dips below that we are probably headed toward a second world economy. Even today we are suffering from white population decline, such that Asian and Indian populations are supplying workers, and we are still importing talent from europe because europe is unsuited for entrepreneurial growth.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @OKFootball2 @bryanbrey @hendry_hugh

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 23:41:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784005031210913793

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783995822721368199

  • CURT WHY DO YOU ATTRIBUTE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE TO KEYNES AND RAWLS? Great Question

    CURT WHY DO YOU ATTRIBUTE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE TO KEYNES AND RAWLS?
    Great Question:

    TLDR; The Conversion of economics from the science of cooperation over the long term (capitalization) to the science of manipulation of the public in the short term (consumption) – under the presumption that the industrial revolution and it’s consequences had produced a horn of plenty that would lead to eternal growth.

    Context: I was educated in science, engineering, computer science, economics, and law. So I have an engineers perspective on problems in social science.

    As such I have maintained a foundation in the Austrian school of economics as the study of economic science, compatible with the empiricism of western common law, and concurrent legislation, with a cautious acceptance for the Chicago “freshwater” school which seeks to insure economies and facilitate the production of such commons as education, and a disdain for the Keynesian, New York, “saltwater” school of economics, that seeks to maximize consumption and debt at the consequence of cumulative risks: kicking the can down the road. These three fields all claim the title of economics but they are instead economics, it’s insurance against shocks, and it’s manipulation.

    Now, that said, in economics I consider Keynes (as did my mentor Hayek) a disaster for economics and policy, and

    I consider John Rawls a disaster for both law legislation and economic policy – because it is their collective efforts that have brought about the present economic crisis in the west: their pretense of endless growth and endless risk, has come to roost.

    So, my critiques of Keynes and Rawls emphasizes their roles in baiting ignorant legislators and willing financiers into economic and legal policies that have led to unsustainable growth, increased debt, and extraordinary economic risks.

    CRITIQUE OF JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES:

    Short-term focus: Keynes advocated for government intervention and increased spending to stimulate economic growth during recessions. However, critics argue that this short-term focus on boosting consumption and aggregate demand neglects the long-term consequences of accumulating debt and the potential for creating economic bubbles.

    Disregard for savings and investment: The Keynesian approach often involves lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing and discourage saving. This can lead to a misallocation of resources, as the artificially low cost of capital may encourage investments in projects that are not economically viable in the long run.

    Inflation and currency devaluation: Keynesian policies, such as expansionary monetary policy and deficit spending, can lead to inflation and currency devaluation over time. This erodes the purchasing power of money, disproportionately affecting savers and those on fixed incomes.

    Crowding out of private investment: When governments borrow heavily to finance spending, they compete with the private sector for available funds. This can lead to higher interest rates and reduced private investment, hindering long-term economic growth.

    Ignoring the role of prices: Keynesian economics often focuses on aggregate demand and overlooks the crucial role of prices in allocating resources efficiently. This can result in market distortions and a misallocation of resources.

    CRITIQUE OF JOHN RAWLS:

    Disregard for individual rights and property: Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” and “difference principle” prioritize redistributive policies over individual rights and property ownership. This can undermine incentives for innovation, risk-taking, and wealth creation.

    Encouragement of rent-seeking behavior: Rawls’ focus on redistribution can encourage rent-seeking behavior, where individuals and groups lobby for special privileges and transfers rather than engaging in productive economic activities.

    Centralized decision-making: The implementation of Rawlsian principles often involves centralized decision-making and government intervention, which can lead to inefficiencies, unintended consequences, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

    Disregard for the knowledge problem: Rawls’ theory assumes that a central authority can gather and process all the necessary information to make optimal redistributive decisions. However, this ignores the inherent complexity of economic systems and the dispersed nature of knowledge, as highlighted by the Austrian school.

    Conflict with the rule of law: Rawls’ emphasis on redistributive justice can come into conflict with the principles of the rule of law, such as generality, predictability, and equal treatment. This can lead to arbitrary and discriminatory policies.

    In summary, my criticism of Keynes and Rawls emphasizes their role in promoting short-term thinking, unsustainable policies, and the erosion of individual rights and market efficiency.

    They are the innovators and justificationists of policies whose short term goals produced unintended consequences and long-term risks associated with their ideas, which are seen as contributing factors to the current economic crisis in the West.

    Reply addressees: @cowcow8237465

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 22:19:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783984320111079424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783975871272927609