Our Lack of Consumer Protection Is Criminal https://t.co/u01LY44lqU
Theme: Institution
-
Our Lack of Consumer Protection Is Criminal
–“Quote: If FAMGA dropped off the face of the Earth, “Nearly all of your electronic devices would either stop working or would disappear, the internet would become nothing short of mass chaos, nearly all e-commerce activity would halt, and your undying thirst to watch cat videos would forever go unquenched.””—Matt Hulbert
These companies are protected by a combination of 1) effectively unlimited access to speculative credit markets; 2) domestic intellectual property rights; 3) ability to grind the court process; 4) unconstitutional (irreciprocal) disintermediation of the public from juridical defense in matters of the commons; 5) unhealthy american habit of inaction on consumer protection; 6) the slow pace of american legal adaptation to novel monopolies (Oil, Telecom, now internet service providers); 7) And at least, recently concern that such interference cascade would expose the weakness of the economy and its dependence on debt (financialization) and a narrow distribution of tech companies whose assets are being duplicated in china where none of these american ‘issues’ are a problem. I’m a conservative libertarian but our lack of consumer protection is criminal – tech is just obvious. Credit is even more criminal. I’ve lived in a very poor country (Ukraine) born costs in many, and there is no reason for most of the absurd costs we pay for what have converted from luxuries to infrastructure. Google is the national resource location platform, amazon the national shopping and delivery platform, and Facebook the national communication platform.
-
Our Lack of Consumer Protection Is Criminal
–“Quote: If FAMGA dropped off the face of the Earth, “Nearly all of your electronic devices would either stop working or would disappear, the internet would become nothing short of mass chaos, nearly all e-commerce activity would halt, and your undying thirst to watch cat videos would forever go unquenched.””—Matt Hulbert
These companies are protected by a combination of 1) effectively unlimited access to speculative credit markets; 2) domestic intellectual property rights; 3) ability to grind the court process; 4) unconstitutional (irreciprocal) disintermediation of the public from juridical defense in matters of the commons; 5) unhealthy american habit of inaction on consumer protection; 6) the slow pace of american legal adaptation to novel monopolies (Oil, Telecom, now internet service providers); 7) And at least, recently concern that such interference cascade would expose the weakness of the economy and its dependence on debt (financialization) and a narrow distribution of tech companies whose assets are being duplicated in china where none of these american ‘issues’ are a problem. I’m a conservative libertarian but our lack of consumer protection is criminal – tech is just obvious. Credit is even more criminal. I’ve lived in a very poor country (Ukraine) born costs in many, and there is no reason for most of the absurd costs we pay for what have converted from luxuries to infrastructure. Google is the national resource location platform, amazon the national shopping and delivery platform, and Facebook the national communication platform.
-
Access to Long Game via Explicit Strategy
ACCESS TO LONG GAME VIA EXPLICIT STRATEGY by Patrick Smyth (via Alain Dwight)
“Leftists have been playing the long game for the past century, slowly insinuating themselves into powerful positions, and the right wing has been largely ignorant of it until roughly the past decade. In other words, leftist have been led by an explicit strategy (Marxism), while the right is only just formulating theirs (Propertarianism).”
-
Access to Long Game via Explicit Strategy
ACCESS TO LONG GAME VIA EXPLICIT STRATEGY by Patrick Smyth (via Alain Dwight)
“Leftists have been playing the long game for the past century, slowly insinuating themselves into powerful positions, and the right wing has been largely ignorant of it until roughly the past decade. In other words, leftist have been led by an explicit strategy (Marxism), while the right is only just formulating theirs (Propertarianism).”
-
Taleb, Women, and The Cathedral
TALEB, WOMEN, AND THE CATHEDRAL Taleb’s early books are an effort to feed his ego (self image) His later works are an effort to defend his ego (self image). He made a career popularizing mandelbrot. He DID successfully restore ‘whatever doesn’t kill you only serves to make you stronger” as anti-fragility to the popular will but was unsuccessful in turning it into political policy or mandate – because it is contrary to female instinct and females control both the vote, consumer spending, the academy revenues. So females control the cathedral complex: state, academy, advertising, marketing, consumption, and males control military, finance, and production which services them. Which has led to this problem. As I remind us constantly – everything is institutions and incentives, and incentives always boil down to reproductive strategy, from which the rest of life is merely an exaggerated representation. Edit
-
Taleb, Women, and The Cathedral
TALEB, WOMEN, AND THE CATHEDRAL Taleb’s early books are an effort to feed his ego (self image) His later works are an effort to defend his ego (self image). He made a career popularizing mandelbrot. He DID successfully restore ‘whatever doesn’t kill you only serves to make you stronger” as anti-fragility to the popular will but was unsuccessful in turning it into political policy or mandate – because it is contrary to female instinct and females control both the vote, consumer spending, the academy revenues. So females control the cathedral complex: state, academy, advertising, marketing, consumption, and males control military, finance, and production which services them. Which has led to this problem. As I remind us constantly – everything is institutions and incentives, and incentives always boil down to reproductive strategy, from which the rest of life is merely an exaggerated representation. Edit
-
The Postwar Narrative in Historical Context
THE POSTWAR NARRATIVE IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Prussia was the completion of the restoration of western civilization to its origins after the roman collapse, Carolingian failure, Church failure, The French Failure b/c of church influence. The British failure b/c of french influence.
French Socialism and Jewish Marxism were a reformation from supernatural religion to pseudoscientific religion to compete with Prussia, Darwin, and finally Nietzsche.
Nazi Germany was an attempt to convert monarchical Prussianism to political prussianism to resist marxism.
The German upper classes, at least in prussia, and then in broader germany, had been trying to restore western civilization, to its foundations.The postwar french, jewish, and less so english attempt to end prussianization was successful, largely through thought leadership in pseudoscience by marxists feminists and postmodernists.
I see the current conflict between those of us who are ahead of the curve (again) restoring the prussian aristocratic ethic, the english who are trying to restore the british empire, and the protestants who are trying to restore the church, and the catholics who are in sympathy with the marxists, the underclasses who are the new postmodernists as well as marxists, and the jews and muslims who are seeking to undermine all of the above.
We must restore our aristocracy, our rule of law, our military, our militia, and our family, and we can easily do so by depoliticization, definancialization, and re-familializtion.
-
Corporatism as A Vehicle for Understanding All Political History
Oct 15, 2019, 9:43 AM I want to disambiguate corporatism into a spectrum so that the criticisms are decidable by definition rather than by free-association. In other words, corporatism vs what?
- Corporatism. Bottom up: control of the state by economic common-interest groups vs Top down: the state’s organization of and control of the polity into economic common-interest groups.
Corporatism arose from indo-european economic tripartism in the cooperative division of labor between military, administrative(educated), and laboring classes. The reason why it evolved in a militial order is obvious. The current “neo-corporatist” condition consists of negotiations between state(homogenous) labour (homogenous), and business (heterogeneous) to establish policy. This is the origin of social democracy. However, social democracy with forcible redistribution violates the ancestral paternalism, by putting control of common sproduction in the hands of the majority, and thereby taking away business’ necessity of care taking of labor as extension of family, and treating labor as resource rather than family members. (See pre-unification german industry, esp. Krupp). Heterogeneity of polity increases incentive to defect from this model, thereby producing the problems of the middle east and steppe, and the low trust of the far east (china) – all of which practice clan(kinship)-corporatism instead of economic interest corporatism. So I’ll cast social corporatism as rule of law, paternalism, and kinship, vs kinship by clan interests – vertical and hostile – rather than economic interests (esp class) – horizontal and interdependent. ie: economic produces economic trust, kinship produces clan trust. And the results are rather obvious. And so once again I’ll cast communism as monopoly underclass rule, libertarianism as monopoly middle class rule, and neoconservativsm as monopoly upper class rule, and cast tripartism as a division of labor between the classes for collective good. Socialism was a french invention largely a continuation of the extermination of the protestants (middle class) and the aristocracy (upper class). With new leadership merely rotating in to those positions and forcing out the economic middle that emerged in the anglo civilization (and which increased insecurity while increasing opportunity.) Fascism in Spain, Italy, and Germany was an attempt to Resist both communism (underclass monopoly) and french socialism (constraint of the middle class by the upper class for labor’s benefit), but not russian-jewish socialism (eradication of the middle class, and the upper class). And I’ll cast the term corporatism as an obscurant that relies upon suggestion by free association conveying no information other than “something bad”. So we have at least the pair of traditional axis: (a) rule for profit by individual or oligarchy(dictatorship, kinship, oligarchy), rule by collective classes(market), rule by monopoly classes (communism, russian-socialism, chinese socialism) and (b) clan corporatism (nationalism) vs economic corporatism (state), vs military corporatism (empire). So rule of law will result in market (economic corporatism) and nationalism (clan corporatism) or statism (state corporatism), with the possibility of paternalism (voluntary caretaking between the classes requiring nationalism. That is probably a distillation of everything meaningful that can be debated in the question of the organization of polities by criteria of decidability. And everything else is some form of bias coercion or deceit. I don’t think the above can be falsified. And it prevents our interpretation of history by eliminating contrary proposition (and definitions).
-
Corporatism as A Vehicle for Understanding All Political History
Oct 15, 2019, 9:43 AM I want to disambiguate corporatism into a spectrum so that the criticisms are decidable by definition rather than by free-association. In other words, corporatism vs what?
- Corporatism. Bottom up: control of the state by economic common-interest groups vs Top down: the state’s organization of and control of the polity into economic common-interest groups.
Corporatism arose from indo-european economic tripartism in the cooperative division of labor between military, administrative(educated), and laboring classes. The reason why it evolved in a militial order is obvious. The current “neo-corporatist” condition consists of negotiations between state(homogenous) labour (homogenous), and business (heterogeneous) to establish policy. This is the origin of social democracy. However, social democracy with forcible redistribution violates the ancestral paternalism, by putting control of common sproduction in the hands of the majority, and thereby taking away business’ necessity of care taking of labor as extension of family, and treating labor as resource rather than family members. (See pre-unification german industry, esp. Krupp). Heterogeneity of polity increases incentive to defect from this model, thereby producing the problems of the middle east and steppe, and the low trust of the far east (china) – all of which practice clan(kinship)-corporatism instead of economic interest corporatism. So I’ll cast social corporatism as rule of law, paternalism, and kinship, vs kinship by clan interests – vertical and hostile – rather than economic interests (esp class) – horizontal and interdependent. ie: economic produces economic trust, kinship produces clan trust. And the results are rather obvious. And so once again I’ll cast communism as monopoly underclass rule, libertarianism as monopoly middle class rule, and neoconservativsm as monopoly upper class rule, and cast tripartism as a division of labor between the classes for collective good. Socialism was a french invention largely a continuation of the extermination of the protestants (middle class) and the aristocracy (upper class). With new leadership merely rotating in to those positions and forcing out the economic middle that emerged in the anglo civilization (and which increased insecurity while increasing opportunity.) Fascism in Spain, Italy, and Germany was an attempt to Resist both communism (underclass monopoly) and french socialism (constraint of the middle class by the upper class for labor’s benefit), but not russian-jewish socialism (eradication of the middle class, and the upper class). And I’ll cast the term corporatism as an obscurant that relies upon suggestion by free association conveying no information other than “something bad”. So we have at least the pair of traditional axis: (a) rule for profit by individual or oligarchy(dictatorship, kinship, oligarchy), rule by collective classes(market), rule by monopoly classes (communism, russian-socialism, chinese socialism) and (b) clan corporatism (nationalism) vs economic corporatism (state), vs military corporatism (empire). So rule of law will result in market (economic corporatism) and nationalism (clan corporatism) or statism (state corporatism), with the possibility of paternalism (voluntary caretaking between the classes requiring nationalism. That is probably a distillation of everything meaningful that can be debated in the question of the organization of polities by criteria of decidability. And everything else is some form of bias coercion or deceit. I don’t think the above can be falsified. And it prevents our interpretation of history by eliminating contrary proposition (and definitions).