Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • “They (Govt, Treasury, Fed) don’t want fair play”– They (economists, pols, trea

    –“They (Govt, Treasury, Fed) don’t want fair play”–

    They (economists, pols, treasury, fed) want economic (monetary) velocity (consumption) in exchange for increased risk of ever expanding corrections.

    “We are all keyensians now” is has replaced “sovereignty, reciprocity, and meritocracy” as the criteria for the ethics and morality of the state.

    FWIW: they DO have an argument. Or they did at least until 08, when we determined that the austrians were correct and the cycle accumulates rather than moderates. IOW the previous theory is that even with boom-bust cycles we still progress faster under better conditions. That’s dead now.

    Worse, what they don’t measure (and our group does) is ALL capital (full accounting) so they don’t see that all we are doing is burning down civilizational capital not actually making the gains they think they are vs slower monetary velocity and consumption.

    Cheers
    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 17:18:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635691778367008771

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635677571248533514

  • “They (Govt, Treasury, Fed) don’t want fair play”– They (economists, pols, trea

    –“They (Govt, Treasury, Fed) don’t want fair play”–

    They (economists, pols, treasury, fed) want economic (monetary) velocity (consumption) in exchange for increased risk of ever expanding corrections.

    “We are all keyensians now” is has replaced “sovereignty, reciprocity, and meritocracy” as the criteria for the ethics and morality of the state.

    FWIW: they DO have an argument. Or they did at least until 08, when we determined that the austrians were correct and the cycle accumulates rather than moderates. IOW the previous theory is that even with boom-bust cycles we still progress faster under better conditions. That’s dead now.

    Worse, what they don’t measure (and our group does) is ALL capital (full accounting) so they don’t see that all we are doing is burning down civilizational capital not actually making the gains they think they are vs slower monetary velocity and consumption.

    Cheers
    Curt

    Reply addressees: @bryanbrey

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 17:18:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635691778161487882

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635677571248533514

  • BAILOUTS FOR BANKS STUDENT LOANS AND .. TAXES? JC, (all); How would you feel if

    BAILOUTS FOR BANKS STUDENT LOANS AND .. TAXES?

    JC, (all);
    How would you feel if we said, ok, it’s unfair to bail out existing student loans back to X year, and so instead we paid student loans back to X year, and we refunded student loans way back to Y year?

    That would be… https://t.co/4iegXKIpj0

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:49:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635669447154319361

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635363009517486080

  • It’s not a question of ‘blame’. It’s a simple problem of the intersection betwee

    It’s not a question of ‘blame’.

    It’s a simple problem of the intersection between population (reproductive) demand, present levels of taxation and redistribution, and men and women’s incentives.

    The 12K years of agrarian incentives just don’t exist any longer. Why wouldn’t we return to pre-agrarian norm of a household of three generations of a woman, her sons and daughters, and roving men for sex and reproduction?

    Why wouldn’t men, or at least a large percentage of them, do as in pre-feminist-activism return to producing large numbers of men’s organizations, clubs, dorms, businesses, and men and women return to living almost entirely separate lives again?

    Why wouldn’t the historical norm of marriage as a means of securing property and inheritance among people with those assets, and serial monogamy or polyamory for the rest. The Irish only stopped serial monogamy in the 1800’s and the Ashkenazi serial monogamy and polyamory in the 1500s. There are still places in Africa where men live in one ‘village’ and women in another.

    My point is, that we aren’t anywhere near working through the experiment we’re conducting, and it’s increasingly clear that women are following a consumption curve (maximization) and men are presently seeking a new social economic model. And while your generation and mine don’t matter so much. And while it varies from region to region. We are seeing total reproductive collapse among educated urban women.

    I know you’re trying to make moral arguments, but I work in the spectrum of economics(cooperation) and law(conflict) and it’s not a moral question to me. I don’t care. But the consequences of our actions are what they are.

    You won’t like this but while men are unconscious of the burden of children upon women, women are equally unconscious of and even blind to the burden of the commons on men.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 00:42:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635441357572407301

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635438016931020801

  • It’s not a question of ‘blame’. It’s a simple problem of the intersection betwee

    It’s not a question of ‘blame’.

    It’s a simple problem of the intersection between population (reproductive) demand, present levels of taxation and redistribution, and men and women’s incentives.

    The 12K years of agrarian incentives just don’t exist any longer. Why wouldn’t we return to pre-agrarian norm of a household of three generations of a woman, her sons and daughters, and roving men for sex and reproduction?

    Why wouldn’t men, or at least a large percentage of them, do as in pre-feminist-activism return to producing large numbers of men’s organizations, clubs, dorms, businesses, and men and women return to living almost entirely separate lives again?

    Why wouldn’t the historical norm of marriage as a means of securing property and inheritance among people with those assets, and serial monogamy or polyamory for the rest. The Irish only stopped serial monogamy in the 1800’s and the Ashkenazi serial monogamy and polyamory in the 1500s. There are still places in Africa where men live in one ‘village’ and women in another.

    My point is, that we aren’t anywhere near working through the experiment we’re conducting, and it’s increasingly clear that women are following a consumption curve (maximization) and men are presently seeking a new social economic model. And while your generation and mine don’t matter so much. And while it varies from region to region. We are seeing total reproductive collapse among educated urban women.

    I know you’re trying to make moral arguments, but I work in the spectrum of economics(cooperation) and law(conflict) and it’s not a moral question to me. I don’t care. But the consequences of our actions are what they are.

    You won’t like this but while men are unconscious of the burden of children upon women, women are equally unconscious of and even blind to the burden of the commons on men.

    Reply addressees: @KiwiBreeder @ThruTheHayes @TheAutistocrat @TSSuppository

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 00:42:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635441357442490369

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635438016931020801

  • I don’t make SHOULD arguments. I just state incentives and consequences. The elv

    I don’t make SHOULD arguments. I just state incentives and consequences. The elves may have made shoes for the shoemaker to save his business, but there are no artificial wombs to produce sufficient population to maintain any degree of intergenerational redistribution that we have all come to depend upon.
    Single mothers are a disaster as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates and we know why. Single fathers are better parents but too small in number. Single men have no incentives to produce surpluses.
    You gotta make kids just as badly as you gotta make food water and shelter.
    Just is.
    I didn’t make the laws of nature.
    Evolution did.
    But it’s not like we can ignore them.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 22:24:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635406621688971265

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635405534655574017

  • I don’t make SHOULD arguments. I just state incentives and consequences. The elv

    I don’t make SHOULD arguments. I just state incentives and consequences. The elves may have made shoes for the shoemaker to save his business, but there are no artificial wombs to produce sufficient population to maintain any degree of intergenerational redistribution that we have all come to depend upon.
    Single mothers are a disaster as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates and we know why. Single fathers are better parents but too small in number. Single men have no incentives to produce surpluses.
    You gotta make kids just as badly as you gotta make food water and shelter.
    Just is.
    I didn’t make the laws of nature.
    Evolution did.
    But it’s not like we can ignore them.

    Reply addressees: @HeartOfCoral @thenoahkinsey

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 22:24:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635406621546278913

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635405534655574017

  • (Can you explain this please? Because the cost of post war strategy, bretton woo

    (Can you explain this please? Because the cost of post war strategy, bretton woods, and maintaining the rules-based order, world free trade, and constraining aggressor countries, has largely come at the expense of the american laboring, working, and middle classes, through the increase in world manufacturing competition and the export of their jobs, at their expense, while the upper middle and upper classes have captured enormous gains. So you might claim the upper classes have but… I don’t understand how the middle and lower classes have.)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 21:38:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635394926027456513

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635390965690294272

  • (Can you explain this please? Because the cost of post war strategy, bretton woo

    (Can you explain this please? Because the cost of post war strategy, bretton woods, and maintaining the rules-based order, world free trade, and constraining aggressor countries, has largely come at the expense of the american laboring, working, and middle classes, through the increase in world manufacturing competition and the export of their jobs, at their expense, while the upper middle and upper classes have captured enormous gains. So you might claim the upper classes have but… I don’t understand how the middle and lower classes have.)

    Reply addressees: @ektrit @mrjenkei

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 21:38:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635394925943484417

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635390965690294272

  • I sure would be. Shooting financial fish in a barrel. Schwab is flush with cash

    I sure would be. Shooting financial fish in a barrel.
    Schwab is flush with cash.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 20:12:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635373259272359937

    Reply addressees: @RaheelAkhtar77 @carlquintanilla

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635371620465528832