Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • I could go into extraordinary detail as to precisely why this is so, but it boil

    I could go into extraordinary detail as to precisely why this is so, but it boils down to the cost of learning, cost of xmission, ability to negotiate increasingly complex networks of returns, with lower fear of error/failure, AND MUCH LOWER fear of defection from the agreements.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 16:24:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956201068878270465

    Reply addressees: @GarettJones

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955427398853459968

    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/955427398853459968

  • Of the people that will engage in discourse, *and* whose arguments demonstrate a

    Of the people that will engage in discourse, *and* whose arguments demonstrate an understanding economics, incentives, reciprocity, and mathematics – you will find almost no one other than @EricRWeinstein, @nntaleb and I. The reason is we are more empirical and less optimistic.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 16:20:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956200087335645184

    Reply addressees: @DiasporaDiabhal @IllimitableMan @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956165437955497986

    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/956165437955497986

  • well this is twitter…. 😉 conquer or not is just a question of returns

    well this is twitter…. 😉 conquer or not is just a question of returns.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 03:41:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956009045369946115

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956007396073025536

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle …there’s a huge asymmetry in competitive ability.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956007396073025536

  • natural law of cooperation. outside it does not apply. i am only interested in m

    natural law of cooperation. outside it does not apply. i am only interested in maximizing returns as long as the increase martial dominion. my talk of markets is not pacifist but as means of dominion

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 03:40:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956008820051972098

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956007130632355840

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle I feared you may have taken my reference of Indios as moralizing on their behalf. I wasn’t. I was merely trying to see how you’d apply your argument in a historical context, where, I hoped, you’d be able to demonstrate the difference between “discretion” & Natural law when….

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956007130632355840

  • there is no reason other than cost benefit. evolution is unkind

    there is no reason other than cost benefit. evolution is unkind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 03:08:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956000656111931392

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955990572036104193

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle Or phrased in a different, more familiar way, why should a superior group not kill, conquer or enslave inferior peoples given that latter cannot organize/produce a sufficient incentive (in the form of defense or trade) not to do so?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955990572036104193

  • Sorry but I can’t untangle that… But I think you might mean that without warra

    Sorry but I can’t untangle that… But I think you might mean that without warranty of reciprocal insurance the incentive to refrain from imposition of costs doesn’t exist – and without sufficient scale is unenforceable. One needs enough insurers in order to ward off competitors.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 01:19:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955973324844224512

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955967690375512064

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle Under the “default aggression principle”, no person or group is entitled to a state of non-aggression without providing the necessary incentives to *not* “conquer, kill or enslave” them (reciprocity). So might gives a positional advantage that would make distinguishing between…

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955967690375512064

  • That myth of the unsustainability of debt is totally false. The limit to debt is

    That myth of the unsustainability of debt is totally false.
    The limit to debt is sale of it
    We have a 14T economy.
    Most of it owed to americans.
    Borrowing does not scale linearly.
    We could continue to inflate it away.
    We can write it off.
    The primary use of debt is pensions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-23 16:35:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955841549400772608

    Reply addressees: @berthyman @JohnStossel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955468541242888192

    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/955468541242888192

  • SEEN AND UNSEEN. Why do we have licensing?

    SEEN AND UNSEEN.
    Why do we have licensing?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 13:27:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955431842722725889

    Reply addressees: @campusevangel @IJ @EconTalker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955231913161121792

    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/955231913161121792

  • Who Is Your Favorite Economist, And Why? My Top 5 Are Thomas Piketty, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, And Richard Thaller.

    —-”Who is your favorite economist and why?”—-

    You know, I have spent the better part of 25 years trying to understand what is wrong with Economics, and I think I have done so.

    And from that understanding, I would say certainly the most IMPORTANT economist was Hayek, principally because he understood the central problem of economics is providing information necessary for indirect cooperation, AND because he understood that all economics is a byproduct of the natural law of torts (property). Which is why later in life, he (as I have), devoted himself to improving understanding of the law (natural law of tort) as the institution by which we solve cooperation(contract) and information(truth) problems, since what we call economics is just the consequence of the law and a very simple technology we call money, that like numbers is so elegant precisely because they are so simple.

    Other than Hayek, I respect Friedman for his efforts at attempting to produce collective commons through market means (vouchers etc). The economists I respect today are very few and far between, because there are NONE that I know of that measure changes in ALL capital rather than cherry picking, and in particular cherry picking consumption.

    I’m probably a fairly good scholar of Mises, in understanding his terrible failure. But that he failed just as bridgman and brouwer did and to some degree hayek, because he didn’t understand that he had discovered operationalism in economics, not a ‘science’ – thereby making a fool of himself as an idealogue. I tend to find everything of value in Simmel, although I use most of Mises’ definitions in my work because as an operationalist his are most accurate.

    I read pretty much everything that comes out in economics. I follow Tyler Cowen because I have similar interests in social science, and I follow Scott Sumner because he sees things I don’t.

    I am curious how long it will take the mainstream to understand that you get what you measure and they’re measuring the wrong thing, and if they measured the right thing it would end the left forever.

    It’s not science if you’re cherry picking. And the entire discipline is built on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-is-your-favorite-economist-and-why-My-top-5-are-Thomas-Piketty-Ludwig-von-Mises-Friedrich-Hayek-John-Maynard-Keynes-and-Richard-Thaller

  • Who Is Your Favorite Economist, And Why? My Top 5 Are Thomas Piketty, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, And Richard Thaller.

    —-”Who is your favorite economist and why?”—-

    You know, I have spent the better part of 25 years trying to understand what is wrong with Economics, and I think I have done so.

    And from that understanding, I would say certainly the most IMPORTANT economist was Hayek, principally because he understood the central problem of economics is providing information necessary for indirect cooperation, AND because he understood that all economics is a byproduct of the natural law of torts (property). Which is why later in life, he (as I have), devoted himself to improving understanding of the law (natural law of tort) as the institution by which we solve cooperation(contract) and information(truth) problems, since what we call economics is just the consequence of the law and a very simple technology we call money, that like numbers is so elegant precisely because they are so simple.

    Other than Hayek, I respect Friedman for his efforts at attempting to produce collective commons through market means (vouchers etc). The economists I respect today are very few and far between, because there are NONE that I know of that measure changes in ALL capital rather than cherry picking, and in particular cherry picking consumption.

    I’m probably a fairly good scholar of Mises, in understanding his terrible failure. But that he failed just as bridgman and brouwer did and to some degree hayek, because he didn’t understand that he had discovered operationalism in economics, not a ‘science’ – thereby making a fool of himself as an idealogue. I tend to find everything of value in Simmel, although I use most of Mises’ definitions in my work because as an operationalist his are most accurate.

    I read pretty much everything that comes out in economics. I follow Tyler Cowen because I have similar interests in social science, and I follow Scott Sumner because he sees things I don’t.

    I am curious how long it will take the mainstream to understand that you get what you measure and they’re measuring the wrong thing, and if they measured the right thing it would end the left forever.

    It’s not science if you’re cherry picking. And the entire discipline is built on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-is-your-favorite-economist-and-why-My-top-5-are-Thomas-Piketty-Ludwig-von-Mises-Friedrich-Hayek-John-Maynard-Keynes-and-Richard-Thaller