It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.
Theme: Incentives
-
The Problem of Current Families
It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.
-
The only Possible Means of Institutionalizing Scale Is Markets in Everything
1 – “All human organizations evolve to maximize rents, until it is impossible for those organizations to adapt to change or shocks.” 2 – “Organizations that collapse due to the maximization of rents, and inability to adapt to shocks, do not recover.” 3 – “Collapse is caused by competing organizations with fewer or lower accumulated rents – seeking military economic religious and demographic expansion.” 4 -“Collapse is preventable by extermination of rents, by the preservation of markets for association, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of defense.” 5 – “Markets in everything are producible by a government that shifts from redistributive(liberal), to productive(classical), to warfare (fascism) in response to changing circumstances.” 6 – “Unfortunately, the human intuition is to pursue decreases in effort to calculate, and to maximize regularity, so that fringe opportunities are of the lowest cost to seize with the lowest need to organize to exploit them. And therefore, the human intuition is false (counter) at scale – as in all things. Those who seek regularity seek the luxury of freedom from adaptation”. 7 – “ergo the only possible means of institutionalizing scale is markets in everything, under a government unable to institutionalize policies that provide discounts in exchange for reducing the ability to adapt to shocks.” 8 – “that which does not kill you does in fact make you stronger, and the process of continually maintaining and building strength to resist the vicissitudes of man and nature, is produced via negativa : by preservation of competition in al things using markets in all things.”
-
The only Possible Means of Institutionalizing Scale Is Markets in Everything
1 – “All human organizations evolve to maximize rents, until it is impossible for those organizations to adapt to change or shocks.” 2 – “Organizations that collapse due to the maximization of rents, and inability to adapt to shocks, do not recover.” 3 – “Collapse is caused by competing organizations with fewer or lower accumulated rents – seeking military economic religious and demographic expansion.” 4 -“Collapse is preventable by extermination of rents, by the preservation of markets for association, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of defense.” 5 – “Markets in everything are producible by a government that shifts from redistributive(liberal), to productive(classical), to warfare (fascism) in response to changing circumstances.” 6 – “Unfortunately, the human intuition is to pursue decreases in effort to calculate, and to maximize regularity, so that fringe opportunities are of the lowest cost to seize with the lowest need to organize to exploit them. And therefore, the human intuition is false (counter) at scale – as in all things. Those who seek regularity seek the luxury of freedom from adaptation”. 7 – “ergo the only possible means of institutionalizing scale is markets in everything, under a government unable to institutionalize policies that provide discounts in exchange for reducing the ability to adapt to shocks.” 8 – “that which does not kill you does in fact make you stronger, and the process of continually maintaining and building strength to resist the vicissitudes of man and nature, is produced via negativa : by preservation of competition in al things using markets in all things.”
-
By the means Trump is forcing: Renegotiation of trade and monetary policy
By the means Trump is forcing: Renegotiation of trade and monetary policy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 17:33:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981585679581933568
Reply addressees: @Superhero_sky
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981584587808587776
IN REPLY TO:
@Superhero_sky
@curtdoolittle So how do you think the cultural dispute between the United States and China will be resolved in the end?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981584587808587776
-
Because we have simply shifted warfare by violence, to warfare by trade, to warf
Because we have simply shifted warfare by violence, to warfare by trade, to warfare by credit and currency, and now warfare by information and technology. Markets proxy violence: the great cycle of man: pursuing and exhausting all opportunities until only defection is profitable.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 14:59:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981546721158234112
Reply addressees: @jeffreyatucker
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981528844082515968
IN REPLY TO:
@jeffreytucker
It’s remarkable to think that no one seems able to stop the trade insanity caused by one dude. How is this even possible?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981528844082515968
-
What is the cause of Scandinavian (including British) virtue signaling and virtu
What is the cause of Scandinavian (including British) virtue signaling and virtue spirals? I mean, seriously. It is just a wealth effect and the absence of competitors on borders?
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 11:05:00 UTC
-
1 – “All human organizations evolve to maximize rents, until it is impossible fo
1 – “All human organizations evolve to maximize rents, until it is impossible for those organizations to adapt to change or shocks.”
2 – “Organizations that collapse due to the maximization of rents, and inability to adapt to shocks, do not recover.”
3 – “Collapse is caused by competing organizations with fewer or lower accumulated rents – seeking military economic religious and demographic expansion.”
4 -“Collapse is preventable by extermination of rents, by the preservation of markets for association, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of defense.”
5 – “Markets in everything are producible by a government that shifts from redistributive(liberal), to productive(classical), to warfare (fascism) in response to changing circumstances.”
6 – “Unfortunately, the human intuition is to pursue decreases in effort to calculate, and to maximize regularity, so that fringe opportunities are of the lowest cost to seize with the lowest need to organize to exploit them. And therefore, the human intuition is false (counter) at scale – as in all things. Those who seek regularity seek the luxury of freedom from adaptation”.
7 – “ergo the only possible means of institutionalizing scale is markets in everything, under a government unable to institutionalize policies that provide discounts in exchange for reducing the ability to adapt to shocks.”
8 – “that which does not kill you does in fact make you stronger, and the process of continually maintaining and building strength to resist the vicissitudes of man and nature, is produced via negativa : by preservation of competition in al things using markets in all things.”
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 09:06:00 UTC
-
The Case for Compensatory Eugenics
Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.Apr 03, 2018 10:32am -
The Case for Compensatory Eugenics
Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.Apr 03, 2018 10:32am