No. Think simply. What are the most trivial rational incentives for everyone with boots on the ground.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312879087157248
Reply addressees: @Massholism
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634311406664163352
It’s easy to blame guys who make public bets.
It’s armchair generalship.
It’s another thing when you stand up every day and make public bets, and try to do better.
All these talking heads can do is provide opinions.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:18:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302614102843396
Reply addressees: @SlopeOfHope @jimcramer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302075944443904
(lame critics)
FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM
FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING
RE: Silicon Valley Bank
Now, look at the parade of me-too’s blaming the president, administration, treasury, and fed for another massive failure. I think this is the second or third worst administration in our history. But lay blame where it’s due, not where it isn’t.
Let me clue you in.
Banks are in a market.
The government creates rules of that market – the rules of the ‘game’.
The rules of the game force competitors to the limits of the rules.
The government can’t act in opposition to the rules it creates – unless the do it equally to all.
They can’t do it equally to all. Why?
The compound debt system does not work.
Fixing the compound debt system is disruptive.
The transparency necessary by fixing that system would handcuff politicians and terrify the public.
So no one is going to fix this until it’s so bad that there are no alternatives. (that’s gonna happen)
But (a) we absolutely positively know how to fix it. And (b) it’ll be disruptive. So we can only fix it during a crisis where we’re curing that disruption by fixing it with another.
Economics and finance is not complicated if you’re measuring instead of gambling.
Our system of world credit is based on gambling not measuring.
FIxing it’s possible.
And it’s eventually necessary.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:16:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302164058120193
(lame critics)
FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM
FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING
RE: Silicon Valley Bank
Now, look at the parade of me-too’s blaming the president, administration, treasury, and fed for another massive failure. I think this is the second or third worst administration in our history. But lay blame where it’s due, not where it isn’t.
Let me clue you in.
Banks are in a market.
The government creates rules of that market – the rules of the ‘game’.
The rules of the game force competitors to the limits of the rules.
The government can’t act in opposition to the rules it creates – unless the do it equally to all.
They can’t do it equally to all. Why?
The compound debt system does not work.
Fixing the compound debt system is disruptive.
The transparency necessary by fixing that system would handcuff politicians and terrify the public.
So no one is going to fix this until it’s so bad that there are no alternatives. (that’s gonna happen)
But (a) we absolutely positively know how to fix it. And (b) it’ll be disruptive. So we can only fix it during a crisis where we’re curing that disruption by fixing it with another.
Economics and finance is not complicated if you’re measuring instead of gambling.
Our system of world credit is based on gambling not measuring.
FIxing it’s possible.
And it’s eventually necessary.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:16:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302164230127620
The depth of changes that would be required to regulate banks would take years to ripple through the economy, and force the treasury to operate on Chinese levels of debt – but with pragmatic transparency.
Why? The fundamental problem is not so much fractional reserve (which we can handle) but that debt is leverage for more debt and more debt. So imagine banking every cent was allocated to a specific debt, AND, debt issuers couldn’t resell a debt, only shares of the income from that debt.
That is the only what we call ‘mechanical’ or empirical means of running a banking system. In other words PROBABILITY is improbable (impossible) under the current tolerance for compound debt.
What would happen if we did that, the treasury would rapidly expand debt, making credit money expansion VISIBLE. And as a consequence providing the information we can’t produce in the current economic structure.
Furthermore, it would drastically increase friction in the lending system, because it would end the illusion of risklessness.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @hambonesmyname @amuse
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:06:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634284552062488598
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634281113735647243
The depth of changes that would be required to regulate banks would take years to ripple through the economy, and force the treasury to operate on Chinese levels of debt – but with pragmatic transparency.
Why? The fundamental problem is not so much fractional reserve (which we can handle) but that debt is leverage for more debt and more debt. So imagine banking every cent was allocated to a specific debt, AND, debt issuers couldn’t resell a debt, only shares of the income from that debt.
That is the only what we call ‘mechanical’ or empirical means of running a banking system. In other words PROBABILITY is improbable (impossible) under the current tolerance for compound debt.
What would happen if we did that, the treasury would rapidly expand debt, making credit money expansion VISIBLE. And as a consequence providing the information we can’t produce in the current economic structure.
Furthermore, it would drastically increase friction in the lending system, because it would end the illusion of risklessness.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:06:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634284552276398088
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634281113735647243
Great question. The buyer bought it willingly because we were so much larger. But we were in mostly the same business. I think we were just younger and more technically saavy and had a more pessimistic understanding of the market. I mean, the profitability of printing and photo printing equipment was absurd. We used to laugh that we could shut all 200+ locations down and sell just Agfa supplies out of a garage and make ten times the money.
I left I think, five or six years before the sale occurred. (they were too greedy).
Koenig (80s) > Charette(90s) > Pittman (2006-2009)
– Koenig went Bankrupt in ’92 (I helped franchisees sue them for racketeering. And yes that’s why I left many years earlier.)
– Charette bought (I think) the commercial biz leaving the retail? I don’t remember the date but it’s early 90s.
– Charette went bankrupt and was bought by Pittman around 06, then died in about 09.
– I dunno where Pitman of NJ is today. I assume they’re gone.
– Some of the original company still exists across the east coast locations today – many I opened myself – though I don’t know how much of a shell or operation it is. Because it looks like a shell, boguth by the original mother and son. And assigned to some minor relative in Indiana 😉
So to answer your question. Between our theory of the future and their theory of the future, given it wasn’t an asymmetric bit of knowledge, then I take it as ethical.
Even then, they bought a company that went bankrupt to prevent criminal charges so, they got a deal.
Reply addressees: @miner49er236
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 19:27:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634274698044354560
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634266102556504064
Great question. The buyer bought it willingly because we were so much larger. But we were in mostly the same business. I think we were just younger and more technically saavy and had a more pessimistic understanding of the market. I mean, the profitability of printing and photo printing equipment was absurd. We used to laugh that we could shut all 200+ locations down and sell just Agfa supplies out of a garage and make ten times the money.
I left I think, five or six years before the sale occurred. (they were too greedy).
Koenig (80s) > Charette(90s) > Pittman (2006-2009)
– Koenig went Bankrupt in ’92 (I helped franchisees sue them for racketeering. And yes that’s why I left many years earlier.)
– Charette bought (I think) the commercial biz leaving the retail? I don’t remember the date but it’s early 90s.
– Charette went bankrupt and was bought by Pittman around 06, then died in about 09.
– I dunno where Pitman of NJ is today. I assume they’re gone.
– Some of the original company still exists across the east coast locations today – many I opened myself – though I don’t know how much of a shell or operation it is. Because it looks like a shell, boguth by the original mother and son. And assigned to some minor relative in Indiana 😉
So to answer your question. Between our theory of the future and their theory of the future, given it wasn’t an asymmetric bit of knowledge, then I take it as ethical.
Even then, they bought a company that went bankrupt to prevent criminal charges so, they got a deal.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 19:27:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634274698191155201
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634266102556504064
No. He’s preserving and expanding his market.
Stop thinking everyone is a conspiratorial political like you (and you collectively). The right thinks conspiratorially because the dissident right is outcast, leaderless, powerless and victimized and is creating its own nonsense male version of the female oppression narrative that it applies like a hammer that thinks everything is a nail.
Some people are just using the truth to satisfy customers and make money at it.
And Peter ‘sells’ by signaling non-aggression even if the implication is aggression is warranted.
This lets him sell his message (truth) without being counter-signaled or canceled.
In other words, he’s doing the right thing.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 16:24:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634228838958768128
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634227611227537408
No. He’s preserving and expanding his market.
Stop thinking everyone is a conspiratorial political like you (and you collectively). The right thinks conspiratorially because the dissident right is outcast, leaderless, powerless and victimized and is creating its own nonsense male version of the female oppression narrative that it applies like a hammer that thinks everything is a nail.
Some people are just using the truth to satisfy customers and make money at it.
And Peter ‘sells’ by signaling non-aggression even if the implication is aggression is warranted.
This lets him sell his message (truth) without being counter-signaled or canceled.
In other words, he’s doing the right thing.
Reply addressees: @aldafa_ir @PeterZeihan
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 16:24:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634228838858211329
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634227611227537408