FAKE NEWS CORRECTION: It’s better to have more people get loans than save people $20. http://usat.ly/2jKwUX2 via @usatoday
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 17:05:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823939754421055488
Theme: Incentives
-
NEWS CORRECTION: It’s better to have more people get loans than save people $20.
https://t.co/lwmNuQw6QaFAKE NEWS CORRECTION: It’s better to have more people get loans than save people $20. https://t.co/lwmNuQw6Qa via @usatoday
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 12:05:00 UTC
-
Josh: I think maybe this is the difference between our perceptions: I favor the
Josh: I think maybe this is the difference between our perceptions: I favor the cost of institutional solutions that produce incentives by self interest that make the cost of providing the high cost of violence unnecessary. Because while violence alters immediacy, the cost of diligence and the distraction of shocks means the incentive to retaliate against you remains. Yet if institutions exist at all times and cause people to monitor each other, vastly more dramatic shocks are necessary to cause a change in state, and when you are otherwise occupied you do not leave an opening for retaliation and change in state.
I express this sometimes as the difference between strategy and tactics. But perhaps I needed to say this in terms of costs and opportunities.
If men(or women) are incapable of sovereignty, then maturing them into freemen by the use of institutions is merely cheaper, more competitive, more rewarding, and safer than the alternatives.
This is nothing except a statement of the cost of domesticating animals.
The Spartans were never as safe as the Romans. The Romans over extended. But the Spartans couldn’t even extend.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 13:46:00 UTC
-
Markets require information and exchange. Those who will trade are cheaper to pr
Markets require information and exchange.
Those who will trade are cheaper to profit from than those you must manage. animal -> slave -> serf -> freemen -> citizen -> sovereign.
We want a lot of sovereigns of course, but citizens are cheaper than freemen, are cheaper than serfs, are cheaper than slaves, are cheaper than animals.
Under natural law dissent, rather than majoritarian assent, they’re powerless unless we want something from them. So it’s simply cheaper.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 11:59:00 UTC
-
Isn’t paying for a grad position a bit like giving head for access to porn gigs?
Isn’t paying for a grad position a bit like giving head for access to porn gigs?
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 11:31:00 UTC
-
“No one thinks for a single moment how consumer demand drives efficiency which d
—“No one thinks for a single moment how consumer demand drives efficiency which drives automation and scaled consolidation which collapses manual industry. Together with a regressive tax scheme and fealty to the faith of trickle-down economics, and that’s what you get: all over.”—
Yes. But just as heroin makes available incentives with profound consequences, fiat credit makes available incentives with profound consequences.
And there is a huge difference between REMOVING a resource that produces profound consequences, and trying to convince people to BELIEVE in a general good and not to follow incentives.
People don’t do that. They self report the moral high ground but they demonstrate a preference for pursuing the material incentives.
This is why I say that adults talk about institutions and incentives, well intentioned people talk about punishments, and fools talk about ‘beliefs’.
Remove the incentive.
The incentive is credit.
The solution is very firm borders, very firm citizenship, and high investment in the kinship commons.
People follow incentives. we cannot cast moral judgement on other for their beliefs. We can only make illegal those actions which are criminal.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 11:16:00 UTC
-
(from elsewhere) While students from elite schools will always be in demand, tha
(from elsewhere)
While students from elite schools will always be in demand, that does not tell us much about the value of a college degree.
Just as the American and British Economies experienced purges of middle management built up between the period 1920–1980 because of the influence of ‘managerialism’ (socialism), the entire world is about to go through a set of severe employment contractions between now and at least 2025.
1 – political management – on a vast scale.
2 – much more of lower middle management – on a vast scale.
3 – a little more labor due to automation – perhaps on a perceptible scale.
and (possibly)
4 – much, much, much, of the financial sector on a frightening scale.
In my (rather informed I think) opinion, if you do not possess a STEM degree for employment purposes, and perhaps a philosophy/law minor (so you think clearly), you have very little chances of employability other than “gee I have a degree”.
Like most things, it’s more (a) who you know, and (b) what industry you can get into early, and (c) how much you can save of your income and invest before you are 30.
Why? Because the west has held a 500 year military, technical, legal, financial, cultural, literacy, and knowledge advantage over the world, and Because Americans inherited the British empire’s institutions of world finance, trade, and oil. It is quite possible that Americans will descend to european standards of living (which are much lower unfortunately), and even more possible that europeans will descend as well.
We no longer hold those advantages, and what we have seen since about 1992, a brief boom as we collected the post-cold-war (world communism) dividend, but by 2006 it was fairly evident that ‘the great leveling’ in the world economy would occur at the same time as ‘the great sort’ was occurring in the US population.
ie: minimum bar for a college degree with any employability is a STEM degree. College degree only tells employers you can follow direction. It is the same bar as a high school diploma used to be before they discounted the high school diploma by lowering the standards. The same has occurred in colleges and universities. This is because while only about 15% of the work force has the IQ necessary to obtain a ‘legit’ college degree, about 50% of our people go to college. Ergo, 2/3 of the people who hold college degrees are meaningless. And of the remaining 1/3, only those with a STEM degree are employable.
Worse, a PhD is a liability not an asset when seeking employment outside of research or STEM classes.
Employers need to know you have a degree worth having from a school worth issuing it. The degree itself is now just a permission slip to seek work. Not a criteria for creating demand.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 14:39:00 UTC
-
STATUS PRODUCTION IN THE DEFLATIONARY SOCIETY (important piece)(new insight by S
STATUS PRODUCTION IN THE DEFLATIONARY SOCIETY
(important piece)(new insight by Saini)
Ricky Saini: —“Deconflation allows more status seekers to acquire status productively – as opposed to a monopoly of status acquired by a specific elite group of individuals that hoards it over everyone else.”—
In a conflationary society one group attempts to hold all the status.
In a deflationary society, we find elites in all methods of coercion (Martial/Paternal:Force/Threat, Economic/Brotherly: Remuneration/Payment, and Priestly/Maternal:Gossip/Advocacy-Shame), plus one method of decidability: the Judiciary, and one ‘Craftsmanly’ Art, Science, Engineering, Craftsmanship. and one familial: Paternal, Maternal, Number of Children, Manners/Culture.
A deflationary society provides many more opportunities for high status by many other means, and therefore more incentive for personal achievement by social ‘competition’. There is more room for winners by moral means.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 22:11:00 UTC
-
One of the criticisms of fiat currency and manipulation of the money supply, is
One of the criticisms of fiat currency and manipulation of the money supply, is that it damages the ability to form aristocratic families by means of saving, and drives all great families out of saving and production into financialization.
——- via Nick Zito ———
Dan Kanivas, admirer of the millionaire next door
Written Nov 10, 2015
A recent article written by advisors to wealthy families discusses some of the common ways that family wealth is destroyed over multiple generations, as well as techniques to help prevent the destruction of family wealth over time:
Wealth management usually comes in two parts: financial planning to increase and manage your wealth, and estate planning to protect and pass the wealth along to heirs with as few taxes as possible. Unfortunately, 70% of family wealth is destroyed by the second generation, and family unity is destroyed right along with the wealth. After three generations, the loss of wealth exceeds 90%.
Some families, however, thwart lost fortunes and family dysfunction by adding a third component to their wealth management strategy: They prepare their heirs to receive an intellectual inheritance as well as a financial inheritance. When heirs are brought into a family’s stories, traditions, and values, they can better relate to their past and become better stewards of the family’s capital.
The “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” saying is so true that nearly every culture on the planet has some version of it, including a 2,000-year-old Chinese proverb. It says the first generation works hard to create a fortune; the second generation enjoys the spoils of that fortune, substituting entertainment for hard work; and the third generation, with no role model to follow, squanders what remains of the fortune. Their children have to start all over again.
What is to blame for the destruction of wealth, and why do so many families experience it? The culprit is not poor investment strategy, nor should people be quick to blame economic downturns or bad markets.
Roy Williams and Vic Preisser, authors of Preparing Heirs: Five Steps to a Successful Transition of Family Wealth and Values, collected data from 3,250 families who had lost their wealth. Less than 3% said poor planning and investments caused their reversal of fortune. Instead, 25% said heirs were unprepared, and 60% fingered lack of communication and trust in the family.
The consequences of neglecting intellectual legacy can be seen in the families who ignored it, such as William Henry Vanderbilt’s heirs. Their fortunes could be worth over $300 billion in today’s dollars. However, by 1973, in just two generations, not a single heir was even a millionaire.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:08:00 UTC
-
ARE WE GOOD OR BAD? People are rational. Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people
ARE WE GOOD OR BAD?
People are rational.
Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people’s interest – at least in the long term.
But choosing to ‘be bad’ is in many other people’s interest – at least in the short term.
The principle problem in expanding the size of the good, is that each individual who chooses to be bad has greater influence upon others’ ability to choose to be good, than each individual who chooses to be good has influence upon those who choose to be bad.
In other words, roughly speaking, every person at the bottom is six times as costly as the benefits created by every person at the top. For the simple reason that discouragement, gossip, threat and failure spread fear of risk faster and farther than encouragement, compliment, opportunity and success.
There is nothing to be done about human nature.
All we can do is make it very difficult to be bad.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 10:40:00 UTC