Theme: Incentives

  • post. I’ll add a little context by way of political economy, and say that the wo

    https://medium.com/@gutanaka/there-is-something-extraordinary-happening-10492495c715#.rlfvpy4sqHeartwarming post.

    I’ll add a little context by way of political economy, and say that the world (a)first organized by household and slaves in the agrarian era by kinship relations, then (b) organized militarily and monarchally for the unskilled for the seasonal production cycle with extended relations, (c) then industrially and socialistically for the semi-skilled medium term production cycle of heavy capital and long term medium term relationships between firms, and is (d) currently organizing entrepreneurially and social democratically for the educated ‘discretionary worker’ for short term production cycles, highly distributed capital, and temporary networks of firms wherever it can do so.

    But meanwhile (a) labor was never of much value in contrast to organizing production, and is of still declining value (b) marginal difference in firms was created by capital, and is now created by talent and creativity, (c) the duration of organizations (firms) has continued to decline along with the duration of networks of production. (d) Those countries playing catch-up will not sustain their growth because (e) institutions (trust and corruption) prevent them from doing so. So good institutions are less valuable than not having bad institutions. Worse, it appears that (f) good genetic capital is not as important as not having bad genetic capital. As France is illustrating, you can reverse the Flynn effect (benefit from transitioning from many individual rules to few simple general scientific principles of universal applicability).

    We are engaged in the third world war at present, and it has no sign of improvement. And neither temporary networks of production nor the governments that facilitate may be able to survive the combination of a third world war, a slowing of growth, and a continued expansion of population of the underclasses for whom gainful labor is decreasingly available.

    Not trying to rain on your parade, but the reverse side of the coin is just as frightening as the obverse is inspiring.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 12:23:00 UTC

  • Ending Financial Sector Predation

    (still working on this but it’s getting there) [W]e can stop it. The problem is, that the way we stop it is non-trivial: (a) require all issues released at market price with no favoritism (equal starting gate provision). (b) prevent insurance (hedges), require proportional holding of debt, force proportional losses (‘skin in the game’) (c) eliminate protection from liability for all individuals involved in any transaction, and reward (commission) for reporting offenders – (make it profitable to report your boss or peers.) (d) professionalize banking just like law and certified public accounting increasing the quality of people in the industry. (e) require total transparency of all OPM investor transactions. (what I recommend). (f) move all companies to block chain ledgers. (g) tax arbitrage and volatility entirely, while eliminating taxation on dividends, and appreciation. (eliminate trading and force investing) (h) Buy (federally) ‘bottom-feeder’ Mastercard, and redistribute liquidity directly to citizens rather than through the financial sector and interest rates – in exchange for elimination of sales tax and minimum wage. (what I recommend). These cards cannot be attached or indebted for any purpose whatsoever, private or public. The money is split between disposable and retirement security. The retirement funds are investable. (i) Stocks provide no voting or ownership provisions (positive), only legal defense(negative). One may contract for ownership provisions as condition of investment, but one cannot simply buy up control of companies without consent. (j) Eliminate boards of directors – I have not seen any empirical evidence that a board has any value whatsoever that could not be provided by an advisory board that assists in the development of relationships and expertise. But boards appear to have a negative influence on business. Transparency and rule of law are the only material defense. We no longer need political representatives in this age, and we no longer need the private sector equivalent. My experience is that boards that do not consist of material owners are universally damaging to a business. (The Buffett Principle: substantive owners with deep knowledge of the business, only). Both boards of directors and stock voting are hangovers from the paper and pencil era. (k) Elimination of all non-safety employment regulation – voluntary association, merit based. This social engineering is harmful to social cooperation, and a constant source of cost and conflict that encourages the internal equivalent of a black market in information. (l) Eliminate taxation on unrealized profits (this nonsense we go through for options for employees). We go through tons of falsehoods to circumvent the fact that while large transfers may occur almost no profits do. So eliminate the burden of preventing false taxation by simply requiring tax only on realized profits. (j) Move all accounting, banking, and credit, nationally if not world-wide to thirteen four week periods, and off the lunar cycle invented in the age of sail. STRENGTHEN 1) rule of law, individual accountability, civic morality, truth content, 2) encourage more Andresson Horowitz investment organization (innovation producing risk taking) and less Goldman Sachs (systemic parasitism). PRESERVE 1) I want to preserve the lottery effect that the stock market provides to entrepreneur, business, and industry, but to limit the finance sector’s ability to disproportionately privatize issues – which is how it’s done today. With little or no value to the economy, business, and citizenry. ELIMINATE 1) Eliminates the ability of the financial sector to direct the economy, only profit from funding the fulfillment consumer demand, thereby forcing the consumer and the investor to have the same interests. 2) Eliminates financial predation on business and industry. (which if you have been involved in it – and I have – is unimaginable ) 3) Eliminates costly burdens on organizations that must preserve multiple fallacies: a) that tax, credit, and operational accounting differ because credit cycles demand stability that does not exist, taxes demand returns that do not exist. b) social engineering compliance is costly and we merely work hard to circumvent it. c) fallacy that the financial sector works in our interest. d) if we distribute liquidity directly outside of the financial system then minimum wage is unnecessary, and the incentive to limit immigration will exist. ( more… but I’m out of time for this today. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Ending Financial Sector Predation

    (still working on this but it’s getting there) [W]e can stop it. The problem is, that the way we stop it is non-trivial: (a) require all issues released at market price with no favoritism (equal starting gate provision). (b) prevent insurance (hedges), require proportional holding of debt, force proportional losses (‘skin in the game’) (c) eliminate protection from liability for all individuals involved in any transaction, and reward (commission) for reporting offenders – (make it profitable to report your boss or peers.) (d) professionalize banking just like law and certified public accounting increasing the quality of people in the industry. (e) require total transparency of all OPM investor transactions. (what I recommend). (f) move all companies to block chain ledgers. (g) tax arbitrage and volatility entirely, while eliminating taxation on dividends, and appreciation. (eliminate trading and force investing) (h) Buy (federally) ‘bottom-feeder’ Mastercard, and redistribute liquidity directly to citizens rather than through the financial sector and interest rates – in exchange for elimination of sales tax and minimum wage. (what I recommend). These cards cannot be attached or indebted for any purpose whatsoever, private or public. The money is split between disposable and retirement security. The retirement funds are investable. (i) Stocks provide no voting or ownership provisions (positive), only legal defense(negative). One may contract for ownership provisions as condition of investment, but one cannot simply buy up control of companies without consent. (j) Eliminate boards of directors – I have not seen any empirical evidence that a board has any value whatsoever that could not be provided by an advisory board that assists in the development of relationships and expertise. But boards appear to have a negative influence on business. Transparency and rule of law are the only material defense. We no longer need political representatives in this age, and we no longer need the private sector equivalent. My experience is that boards that do not consist of material owners are universally damaging to a business. (The Buffett Principle: substantive owners with deep knowledge of the business, only). Both boards of directors and stock voting are hangovers from the paper and pencil era. (k) Elimination of all non-safety employment regulation – voluntary association, merit based. This social engineering is harmful to social cooperation, and a constant source of cost and conflict that encourages the internal equivalent of a black market in information. (l) Eliminate taxation on unrealized profits (this nonsense we go through for options for employees). We go through tons of falsehoods to circumvent the fact that while large transfers may occur almost no profits do. So eliminate the burden of preventing false taxation by simply requiring tax only on realized profits. (j) Move all accounting, banking, and credit, nationally if not world-wide to thirteen four week periods, and off the lunar cycle invented in the age of sail. STRENGTHEN 1) rule of law, individual accountability, civic morality, truth content, 2) encourage more Andresson Horowitz investment organization (innovation producing risk taking) and less Goldman Sachs (systemic parasitism). PRESERVE 1) I want to preserve the lottery effect that the stock market provides to entrepreneur, business, and industry, but to limit the finance sector’s ability to disproportionately privatize issues – which is how it’s done today. With little or no value to the economy, business, and citizenry. ELIMINATE 1) Eliminates the ability of the financial sector to direct the economy, only profit from funding the fulfillment consumer demand, thereby forcing the consumer and the investor to have the same interests. 2) Eliminates financial predation on business and industry. (which if you have been involved in it – and I have – is unimaginable ) 3) Eliminates costly burdens on organizations that must preserve multiple fallacies: a) that tax, credit, and operational accounting differ because credit cycles demand stability that does not exist, taxes demand returns that do not exist. b) social engineering compliance is costly and we merely work hard to circumvent it. c) fallacy that the financial sector works in our interest. d) if we distribute liquidity directly outside of the financial system then minimum wage is unnecessary, and the incentive to limit immigration will exist. ( more… but I’m out of time for this today. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • How many EU programmers work 80-90 hour weeks on a regular basis in return for s

    How many EU programmers work 80-90 hour weeks on a regular basis in return for stock options? How many in USA? USA invents. EU Copies.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:42:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675626776341663745

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760


    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • So the reason for higher USA tech risk is economy is designed to encourage risk

    So the reason for higher USA tech risk is economy is designed to encourage risk and reward and only ‘interfere’ if someone ‘cheated’.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:40:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675626377543065600

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760


    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • USA Stock Market provides best return on risk. USA:Stocks, UK:Bonds, Germany:Hea

    USA Stock Market provides best return on risk. USA:Stocks, UK:Bonds, Germany:Heavy Capital, Russia: Military. Culture Risk = Biz. Risk


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:39:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675626021895426049

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760


    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • To start a business in the USA, get a ID and file with the state. Takes 15 minut

    To start a business in the USA, get a ID and file with the state. Takes 15 minutes. “Failure is ok. You only owe tax if you profit.”


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:35:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675625086678908928

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760


    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • Only USA’s laws support the S.A.F.E (Simple Agreement for Future Equity.) Tax bu

    Only USA’s laws support the S.A.F.E (Simple Agreement for Future Equity.) Tax burden, employee law and banking are painful impediments.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:31:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675623907970441217

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760


    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency

    LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING. [L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better. At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family. —REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”— I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls. If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party. The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it. Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

    —“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could. The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close. A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman

    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency

    LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING. [L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better. At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family. —REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”— I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls. If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party. The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it. Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

    —“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could. The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close. A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman

    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.