Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • Nick: Summary: BTC = fractional shares of host network functioning as token mone

    Nick: Summary: BTC = fractional shares of host network functioning as token money substitute = off-book R&D for govts. = Future Fiat Money.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-10 20:17:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/917846526554144771

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness @Flem_Blenem

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/917830326008864768

    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/917830326008864768

  • Propertarianism Will Absolutely Help You Discover Incentives, Just As Testimonials Will Help You Discover Falsehoods. &#13

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”— I dunno. I can almost always identify them. At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions. I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience ) I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity) And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity). Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy) So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy. We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures. We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference. – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption, – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution, – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite. If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible. Americans are improperly socialized.

  • Propertarianism Will Absolutely Help You Discover Incentives, Just As Testimonials Will Help You Discover Falsehoods. &#13

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”— I dunno. I can almost always identify them. At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions. I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience ) I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity) And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity). Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy) So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy. We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures. We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference. – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption, – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution, – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite. If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible. Americans are improperly socialized.

  • PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIA

    PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIALS WILL HELP YOU DISCOVER FALSEHOODS.

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”—

    I dunno. I can almost always identify them.

    At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions.

    I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience )

    I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity)

    And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity).

    Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy)

    So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy.

    We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures.

    We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference.

    – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption,

    – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution,

    – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings

    Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite.

    If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible.

    Americans are improperly socialized.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-16 11:06:00 UTC

  • Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua

    Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically. Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands. When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation. This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake. Never has an empire been so fragile. Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change? I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible. Trivial even. Deterministic.

  • Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua

    Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically. Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands. When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation. This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake. Never has an empire been so fragile. Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change? I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible. Trivial even. Deterministic.

  • Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua

    Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically.

    Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands.

    When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation.

    This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake.

    Never has an empire been so fragile.

    Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect.

    The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change?

    I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible.

    Trivial even.

    Deterministic.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 11:38:00 UTC

  • The Alternative To Increased Taxes And Fixed Redistributoin

    Assuming: Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400), Your first car costs 30,000(550), and Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and Your home 350,000(1,400/M), That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees. that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest. If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes. That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year. Yeah. that’s not cheap. So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options: 1) An increase of 1030 in taxes. 2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%) 3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years. Ok, so, of these optoins, 1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates. 2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small. 3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.) So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living? Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008? Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity. We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject. Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant. This is trivially easy to accomplish – really. And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.

  • The Alternative To Increased Taxes And Fixed Redistributoin

    Assuming: Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400), Your first car costs 30,000(550), and Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and Your home 350,000(1,400/M), That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees. that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest. If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes. That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year. Yeah. that’s not cheap. So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options: 1) An increase of 1030 in taxes. 2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%) 3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years. Ok, so, of these optoins, 1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates. 2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small. 3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.) So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living? Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008? Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity. We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject. Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant. This is trivially easy to accomplish – really. And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.

  • THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN Assuming: Your credi

    THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN

    Assuming:

    Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400),

    Your first car costs 30,000(550), and

    Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and

    Your home 350,000(1,400/M),

    That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees.

    that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest.

    If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes.

    That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year.

    Yeah. that’s not cheap.

    So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options:

    1) An increase of 1030 in taxes.

    2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%)

    3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years.

    Ok, so, of these optoins,

    1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates.

    2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small.

    3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.)

    So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living?

    Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008?

    Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity.

    We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject.

    Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant.

    This is trivially easy to accomplish – really.

    And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 10:50:00 UTC