The purpose of economics is to justify theft, and produce disincentives for moral policy and action. The cult of immorality for 100 years.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 12:05:00 UTC
The purpose of economics is to justify theft, and produce disincentives for moral policy and action. The cult of immorality for 100 years.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 12:05:00 UTC
So why do we pay a lot of interest on consumer goods, yet seek small discounts on consumer goods, if that means social disruption?
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 12:02:00 UTC
Why must we pay so much interest on consumer goods? Answer: None. We’re just borrowing from our future production.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 12:02:00 UTC
Why are lower prices of consumer goods more desirable than the employment of our less able, young, and older kin? Answer: They Aren’t.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 12:01:00 UTC
We restore them to exchanges of performance rather than grants in exchange for rents?
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-10 17:01:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796759599584083972
Reply addressees: @paulkrugman
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796729885276381184
IN REPLY TO:
@paulkrugman
One really big question which I don’t see being discussed much is what happens to civil liberties in the next few years. 1/
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796729885276381184
FREE TRADE FRAUD
Ok, so if the retail price of a car is $300 cheaper for the consumer if its assembled in mexico, and the tradeoff is that our black unemployment is increased, is that really a net gain? You see? Consumption is not a net good. ONLY FULL ACCOUNTING tells you.
(finally some black men are waking up to the fact that the democrats fucked their whole race over. destroyed their families. and that at least trump will try to get their jobs back.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-10 11:46:00 UTC
THE MARKET FOR LIES ARGUMENT HAS EXPLANATORY POWER
—“The ‘market for lies’ argument is novel inasmuch as it postulates a meritocratic, incentive-based theory for the organization of the production of lies (misinformation-industrial-complex). I think the model can survive criticism because it isn’t dependent on the assumption of conspiracy or historical context, though those criteria can be considered in seeking its limits and particularities.”— James Augustus Berens.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-10 09:52:00 UTC
(a) single young women express caretaker instinct externally if childless. (b) minorities seek rents and privs
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 19:23:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796432960014663680
Reply addressees: @ciberjosefina @CShockTroops
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796429809287106560
IN REPLY TO:
@ciberjosefina
@CShockTroops @curtdoolittle source?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796429809287106560
—“Austrian economics is true insofar as it is descriptive about the nature of the business cycle, the incentives surrounding central banking etc. Propertarianism is descriptive in ALL social sciences not just economics. Thus we allow the calculation problem to be solved without moral loading, pseudo science, deceit or wish full thinking across disciplines. Which is why the Austrians are hated by fellow economists, and why we will be hated by everybody.”—Con Eli Khan
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 20:16:00 UTC
THE INCREASE IN MALE SUICIDE IS EVIDENCE OF WOMEN’S ABANDONMENT OF THE EXCHANGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY. SO WHY NOT ABANDON THE EXCHANGE OF LIMITING OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR MARRIAGE?
There is no reason to remove women from domesticated slavery if the consequence is their abandonment of the compromise of marriage, early calorie transfer, and late return. If we are to live late and uncared for seeking suicide in ever greater numbers so that women can expand their insatiable nesting urge, including the consumption of our millennia of accumulated genetic, cultural, institutional, normative, informational, and material capital, then there is no value in our release of them from slavery into the market for production.
In other words, it is either marriage and family before individual, so that we equally benefit from the intertemporal demands of our biology, or we might as well just return women to domestic slavery.
It’s not complicated. Marriage and reproductive constraint is a compromise. Break the exchange and we do not retain the redistributive benefits of female participation in the market men have made, but instead, we return to that prior era where the market is the domain of men, and women are once again herded for our purposes like all other animals.
None of us gets what we want. We get only the best that is possible.
Everyone in every civilization thinks their norms are a force of gravity. But the only force of gravity in human existence is ability to organize to use violence to obtain what we desire over that which others desire – in where there is no right, there is only what is possible. There is no property there is only possession.
So we can either return to a world of voluntary exchanges from the extraction of resources from our most productive males, or we can return to the world in which our least productive males use violence to enslave and make use of that which they choose to.
Civilizations are very fragile things.
Men are not very smart – certainly not smarter than traditions they do not understand. And women seek to avoid that understanding in order to fulfill their urges, regardless of the cost to men.
Civilization consists of forcing trades.
if you abandon those trades, we return to uncivilized behavior: force.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Sovereignty
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of the West
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 15:34:00 UTC