Theme: Incentives

  • RE: FUTURE ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION I think that many of us see a change of vast pr

    RE: FUTURE ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION

    I think that many of us see a change of vast proportions, and that the economic value of the individual is in question when we discuss consumption goods.

    Our assertion is that we will need fewer poeple in production distribution and trade, and will be able to shift those people to the production of commons.

    Think of the use of people in egypt on one hand, to the soviet experience, to village polity of the middle ages england, to contemporary america on the other.

    This forms a spectrum between central organization of production of goods and commons to the distributed production.  But the allocation of the population within that spectrum between private and public goods is variable.

    So we have two dimensions to play with as humans: the dominant means of organization, and the application of people variable.

    So I don’t really see these potential futures as ‘challenges’ I see them as questions of practical necessity.

    Our organization recommends all peoples base their polities on natural law, while the means of political decision making and the means of economic organization must be flexible and the polity’s ability to adapt politically and economically a choice built into the political order (constitution).

    So the future if it manifests as a decrease in the necessity of people to be allocated to production, then it just means we allocate people to the production of commons.

    Right now there is a terrible failure to maintain the commons – whereas much of europe remains an open air museum.  And that investment into the commons creates a better environment for all, and a greater common interest for all.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 16:02:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981390854834311577

  • Q: “Has there ever been a government that was not corrupt?”– @Chuck__Sargent Go

    –Q: “Has there ever been a government that was not corrupt?”–
    @Chuck__Sargent

    Governments consist of people. People follow incentives. Absent rules, transparency and accountability, incentives favor corruption. As such most people, and possibly nearly all people, when subject to incentives, and opportunity, in the absence of transparency and accountability, are demonstrably corrupt.
    Has there ever been a person immune to corruption?
    Sure. I would say some people take pride in their evasion of corruption. I would say that there are those that do not care about the appearance of corruption if they are in fact not acting corruptly. I wold say there are those that engage in systemic corruption – they don’t resist the corruption they are organizationally part of. I would say there are people that engage in rationalization of corruption under the pretense the end result is still moral and good. I would say that there are people who engage in corruption simply because of the possibility of it. I would say there are those that engage in it willingly and self justify it. I would say there are those that engage in corruption out of vindictiveness toward life or polity or some imaginary constraint.
    The problem then, given the opportunity for corruption whether in government, business, the private sector, the social or even charity venues, without transparency and accountability and the near universal demand we all expose those who are corrupt regardless of the cost to us, that there is no cure for corruption.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-18 03:58:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1979396736406994951

  • I have trouble understanding how anyone in the field can make this category of e

    I have trouble understanding how anyone in the field can make this category of error. Go back to any human revolution of any scale and fully account for the indirect and direct investments including the path dependency. The difference this time is that there is a greater chance of winner-take-most (RE:amazon), the disruption can be on the scale of state formation, and the outcome as great as core state formation. So, as in war, the upside and downside are greater than anyone with the capacity to participate cannot afford not to.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-14 19:58:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1978188640263278920

  • “Intentional accounts of history describe what men wished; incentive accounts de

    –“Intentional accounts of history describe what men wished; incentive accounts describe what was possible. Civilization endures only when its intentions remain computable within its constraints.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-14 19:19:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1978178806725906432

  • (Diary) “Women are expensive” If I go back through my relationships whether girl

    (Diary)
    “Women are expensive”
    If I go back through my relationships whether girlfriends (LTRs), or wives, despite that each separation has been painful, and some almost intolerably so, I have been better off after each one.
    But why is that?
    Women are the most costly and most limiting thing a man can invest in. Secondly, women change about every seven years or so, because of hormonal maturity and decay. Men don’t chang per se, their capacity does.
    Both sexes can stagnate (easily).
    So you can re-invest in your next ‘self’ once you exit a relationship that imposes costs on your ability to upgrade yourself, your relationships, you occupation, and your wealth.
    Now, I’m one of those men who tends to put women on a pedestal (at least in their domains of excellence) and almost without exception I still love all my ex’s. And I think of my life as the history of the women I’ve loved and the companies I’ve built. But I have always been realistic about the fact that you cannot tolerate any disrespect from a women, nor surrender sovereignty to them in matters outside of the home (her nest). Instead if it ‘does’t matter’ then try to enable her. If it does matter try to constrain her. And never create reasons for her to feel unsafe in your relationship or in life. In fact if you can discover what makes a woman feel safe and provide it that’s about all it takes.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 19:28:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973832443141763584

  • “Nations do what they absolutely have to do.”— George Friedman @georgefriedman

    –“Nations do what they absolutely have to do.”— George Friedman
    @georgefriedman

    I might argue for a touch more clarity; that they only do what costs them, what they absolutely have to do.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 18:44:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973821433756463596

  • MORE: GOOGLE CHALLENGES 1. Archaic Origins → Legacy Sensibilities Google’s forma

    MORE: GOOGLE CHALLENGES

    1. Archaic Origins → Legacy Sensibilities

    Google’s formative years were shaped by competition with Yahoo, Altavista, and others in a pre-AI search economy.

    The culture was built around search monetization, engineering elegance, and avoiding visible


    Source date (UTC): 2025-09-24 18:46:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1970922889689104623

  • WHY CAN’T GOOGLE EXECUTE ON LLM DEVELOPMENT? (Re: Woods says only x . ai and ope

    WHY CAN’T GOOGLE EXECUTE ON LLM DEVELOPMENT?
    (Re: Woods says only x . ai and openAI survive)
    The issue is not capacity—it’s institutional structure + incentive misalignment + cultural lag.
    Full Causal Chain:
    Legacy Culture + Siloed Innovation + Revenue Protection + Bureaucracy + Risk Aversion → Failure to Institutionalize Innovation → Market Perception of Incompetence


    Source date (UTC): 2025-09-24 18:42:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1970921826743357471

  • Ethics of Money Supply: Austrian, Natural Law, Keynesian ⟦Claim⟧ Artificial expa

    Ethics of Money Supply: Austrian, Natural Law, Keynesian

    ⟦Claim⟧
    • Artificial expansion of the money supply (beyond real production and settlement demand) extracts purchasing power from non-consenting creditors and late receivers (parasitism); artificial constraint of the money supply (below real production and settlement demand) extracts rents from debtors and producers via scarcity (parasitism). Therefore, discretionary monetary policy is legitimate only as a reciprocity stabilizer—to match money to truthful settlement demand from production and exchange—not as an accelerator to compensate for lazy/bad fiscal-regulatory policy.
    Test: Demonstrated Interests
    • Debtor coalitions + fiscal authorities benefit from expansion (RRV↓ of debts, deficit relief).
    • Creditor/rentier coalitions benefit from constraint (scarcity premia, usury-like spreads).
    • Producers/consumers demand truthful liquidity that clears exchange at minimal variance.
    Test: Reciprocity
    • Expansion above truthful settlement demand transfers wealth covertly from savers/creditors/late receivers → irreciprocal.
    • Constraint below truthful settlement demand transfers wealth covertly to rentiers/lenders/insiders → irreciprocal.
    • Reciprocity criterion: M(t) should track NGDP-settlement demand (production × turnover, risk-adjusted), within auditable bands, with ex-ante disclosure and symmetric contracts (indexation where feasible).
    Test: Testifiability (Operationalization)
    • Define truthful settlement demand: estimated from real output (Y), realized velocity (V*), payment-system throughput, credit utilization, inventory cycles, and risk premia.
    • Expansion test: ΔM − f(Y, V*, risk) > +k for τ months → ΔP/asset-P↑; RRV(debt)↓.
    • Constraint test: ΔM − f(Y, V*, risk) < −k for τ months → delinquency↑, unemployment↑, term premia↑, credit spreads↑ beyond fundamentals.
    • Auditables: central bank balance sheet, bank credit aggregates, payment rails data, price indices, spreads, bankruptcies, wage indexation.
    Test: Truth Tests (Testimonialism / Due Diligence)
    • Warrants required: publish rule f(Y,V*,risk), measurement methods, confidence intervals, lag structures, and error bands.
    • Truthfulness passes iff authorities disclose rule, data, errors, and ex-ante corridors; and contracts (retail savings, broad credit) disclose inflation/deflation risk and indexation options.
    Test: Decidability
    • Decidable if: (a) the rule f is specified; (b) audits show expansion/constraint deviations beyond ±k correlate with predicted harms; (c) policy uses stabilizer bands rather than persistent accelerator/strangler posture; (d) testimony in (5) is truthful.
    • If (a–d) fail, the use of money as accelerator/compensator for bad policy is irreciprocal and parasitic.
    Historical Consistency
    • Fiat regimes display both pathologies: accommodative accelerants (credit booms, CPI/asset inflation) and scarcity regimes (debt deflation, unemployment spikes). Episodes show wealth transfers consistent with the mechanism (creditor vs debtor cycles). Pattern reoccurs across cycles, jurisdictions, and institutional designs.
    Causal Chain
    • Policy discretion → (a) Over-issuance relative to f(Y,V*,risk) → deposits/credit → spending/asset bidding → price-level/asset-level rise → fixed-nominal claims diluted → covert transfer to debtors/state.
      Policy discretion → (b)
      Under-issuance relative to f(Y,V*,risk) → liquidity scarcity → credit rationing → defaults/unemployment → spreads↑ → covert transfer to rentiers/insiders holding liquidity-sensitive claims.
      Stabilizer rule → issuance tracks settlement demand → minimized transfers → contracts remain truthful.
    Deviation Consequences
    • Accelerator (chronic expansion): malinvestment, CPI/asset inflation, savings erosion, political addiction to inflation tax, eventual disorderly disinflation.
    • Strangler (chronic constraint): bankruptcies, unemployment persistence, capital deepening stalls, political radicalization, rent-seeking by liquidity gatekeepers.
    Externality Exposure Test
    • Winners (accelerator): leveraged debtors, tax authorities (bracket creep), early receivers.
    • Winners (strangler): lenders with pricing power, cash-rich insiders, oligopoly incumbents.
    • Losers: respectively, creditors/savers/wage-lag cohorts (under accelerator); debtors/producers/workers (under strangler).
    • Unpriced externalities: contract distrust, institutional legitimacy loss, volatility of real planning horizons.
    Computable Compromise (Trade / Restitution / Punishment / Imitation Prevention)
    • Trade: Adopt NGDP-level (or settlement-demand) targeting with transparent corridor bands; publish method f and error tolerances; symmetric buy/sell facilities.
    • Restitution: Auto-index retail deposits/bonds to the adopted target drift; tax credits to fixed-income cohorts during deliberate deviations.
    • Punishment: Penalties for nondisclosure/misreporting of the rule or data; extend perjury standards to monetary testimony.
    • Imitation Prevention: Constitutionalize disclosure + corridor governance; mandatory countercyclical capital/risk buffers; bar fiscal substitution (no using monetary accelerator to mask structural policy failure).
    • Money may be used as a lever only as a reciprocity stabilizer that matches issuance to truthful settlement demand. Artificial expansion and artificial constraint are each irreciprocal and parasitic transfers.
    • Keynesian error: using the lever as a permanent accelerator to compensate for lazy/bad structural policy.
    • Austrian error: treating any lever use as illegitimate, permitting artificial scarcity rents.
    • Natural Law rule: Truthful, published, auditable stabilizer—neither accelerator nor strangler.
    • Historical Risk Level: High (touches creditor–debtor coalitions, state finance, and institutional legitimacy).
    Evidence Citations (structured tags):
    • “Cycles of accommodative accelerations and scarcity constraints in fiat regimes”—Dependency, Confidence 0.8.
      “Cantillon path & creditor–debtor transfer asymmetries”—
      Dependency, Confidence 0.8.
      “NGDP-level targeting / settlement-demand corridors reduce transfer volatility”—
      Reinforcement, Confidence 0.7.
    Evidence Chain (role & confidence):
    • Settlement-demand measurement f(Y,V*,risk) defines reciprocity baseline (Dependency, 0.85).
      Documented transfers under over/under-issuance validate asymmetry claims (
      Dependency, 0.8).
      Corridor policies stabilizing transfers and expectations (
      Reinforcement, 0.7).
    Use money like a thermostat, not a turbo or a choke. Create just enough money to match what the economy is actually producing and settling—no more, no less. Too much money quietly takes value from savers and gifts it to borrowers. Too little money quietly takes value from borrowers and gifts it to lenders. Publish the rule, show the data, index small savers by default, and stop using money printing to hide bad policy—or using scarcity to milk the public.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-09-23 16:48:07 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1970530629562569161

  • RUMORS OF AI USE DECLINE IN BIZ ARE NONSENSE (a) it’s a tiny 2% decline on a sma

    RUMORS OF AI USE DECLINE IN BIZ ARE NONSENSE
    (a) it’s a tiny 2% decline on a small number in the first place (meaningless)
    (b) It’s because the initial interest level was over-reported due to status signal fears.
    (c) It looks like they found the source of hallucination (and it was obvious).
    (d) We (NLI- Runcible) have the solution to ‘truthfulness’ and ‘data curation’ – so the quality problem is solvable.
    (e) Their problem is they mixed the data with alignment. Whereas to know the truth you must discover it first, and then align for the government, culture, or user as required or preferred afterward. This separates the logical reasoning from the delivery of the message.

    The primary issues I have found is that they raise the temperature to get more ideation and less precision, and that the alignment bias is integrated into the foundation model, so that not only is the data un-curated, not only is it contain falsehoods, not only is it postwar normatively biased, not only is it feminine sensitivity biased, but together it’s very difficult to reason on one hand, and very difficult to constrain it from bias in the second.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-09-10 14:29:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1965784619544141968