Theme: Institution

  • Scale incrementally destroys calculability(causality, auditability and accountab

    Scale incrementally destroys calculability(causality, auditability and accountability), ergo the only possible method of solving the problem of scale is a hierarchical division of political knowledge and labor, and a purely empirical and transparent method of accounting.

    While the technology for such accounting has only recently been possible, the left has opposed it because they cannot survive tests of causality and accountability. The math is pretty simple. Even with fiat money and fiat credit exaggerating employment, the number of people who cannot produce enough market returns to (a) own a home or apartment, (b) form and persist a marriage or family, and therefore accumulate capital, plus the decline in real income independent of price declines from shipping production overseas, provides us with empirical evidence of who is a viable and who is an unviable member of any polity. So the left fears it.

    That said, neighborhood, town/city, county/region/district, state/provinces, super-regional federations, and imperial federations, can all cooperate and resolve by trade negotiation what federal governments solve by forcible redistribution. That the superior organization is an intertemporal one (private polities run by persistent families) rather than a temporal one (elected officials) is probably obvious now that we have more than a century of experience with electoral governments of full enfranchisement.

    I might suggest we return to mixing the two models as in the parliamentary system, with a monarchy, regional nobility, and ‘digital’ markets for commons, where we divide up the classes. But my opinion is that the highest possible level where democracy has any merit is the regional. Beyond that commons are no longer ‘common’.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 09:46:00 UTC

  • “Aristocracy wasn’t able to legally manage the information surrounding the Indus

    —“Aristocracy wasn’t able to legally manage the information surrounding the Industrial Revolution. Everything else was simply a consequence from there.”— Josh Jeppson


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 13:08:00 UTC

  • “BANKS” Banks allow large numbers of people to cooperate *anonymously* by aggreg

    “BANKS”

    Banks allow large numbers of people to cooperate *anonymously* by aggregating small amounts of money from those with small amounts of income to leverage the borrowing capacity of fiat money. The first question is only whether *bankers* are providing any coordination value that cannot be provided purely statistically (doubtful. very.) The second question is whether continuous interest or transactional fees are either beneficial(destructive) or preferable(necessary).

    From what I can defend, I see a need for:

    1) Mutual Funds (distributed investment risk for consumers)

    2) Credit Services (and counseling)

    3) Clearing Services (an account or accounts)

    And I do not see any value in an other services.

    The collateral system as I understand it does not achieve the desired purpose. It is a means of regulating BANKS not consumer or business behavior: the deprivation of credit alone is the only motivator for consumers. And as far as I an tell the collateral system is just a means for creating moral hazard and entrapment. The only criteria is whether individuals have an ability to pay from income streams, not whether we can ‘retaliate’ against their assets. Secondly, there is no reason why we require people to pay on a regular schedule rather than as a percentage of their income streams. Much of what we believe is true is not. Money is not money any longer.

    BANKING HIERARCHY: (class based services)

    check cashing services: underclass

    (hole in the market): working poor

    credit unions: labor class (renters)

    savings and loans: homeowners

    banks: small business banks

    commercial banks: medium and large business banks.

    semi-political banks: ‘financial institutions’

    the central bank: the private sector.

    the treasury: the public sector.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 07:31:00 UTC

  • the people produce the church(academy) teaches the government administers the tr

    the people produce

    the church(academy) teaches

    the government administers

    the treasury insures (needs to divided)

    the state rules (adjudicates)

    the militia defends


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 07:18:00 UTC

  • SO GENETICS AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS MATTER? The difference between regional groups

    SO GENETICS AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS MATTER?

    The difference between regional groups, even territories in europe, is produced by the duration under (a) agrarianism, and (b) manorialism in particular, and (c) the form of crops. These three factors determine the current i) iq/personality distributions of various ethnic subgroups, ii) the size of the underclass because of that difference in distributions, iii) the family type used by that group, iv) the moral bias of that group v) the voting patterns of that group.

    In other words, the greatest improvement in the standard of living that you can provide for your people, is a reduction in the rate of reproduction of those in the lower and underclasses. Period. Nothing else comes close. It determines everything from norms to trust, to institutions that are possible, to the size of companies that you can form, and the ability to form sustainable patterns of specialization and trade.

    In other words, the reason the east and west were so successful is that (a) homogenous kin – the least diverse people on earth, (b) the use of manorialism to starve out the underclasses or reduce their numbers, and (c) aggressive culling of the underclass in the west by hanging up to 1% of the population per year after 1000ad, and by very aggressive use of the axe (head chopping) in east asia for thousands of years (the symbol of authority in china was the axe).

    The chinese are the oldest civilization and have succeeded in neotonic selection more so than any people on earth – to the point where it has become problematic. Europeans slightly less so, and from a later branch of homo sapiens sapiens. The rest of the world has NOT done this. And has neither the cold winters or agrarianism long enough to reduce the underclasses, and give opportunity for neotonic selection.

    We can easily demonstrate this by the testosterone levels and endocrine differences between the populations. at present we can demonstrate it in the ten subtypes of personality traits below the big five personality traits, but the universal test of neoteny is IQ, which is a fairly accurate predictor of the reduction and intensity of sexual maturity produced by neotonic selection.

    This is the most parsimonious explanation of the variation in racial (latitudinal), sub racial (generation), and tribal and class difference in the world. It means, that just as Belyaev’s Foxes, we can speciate extremely quickly, within a few generations if we select only for neotonic (calmness). Which turns out is producible by as simple a thing as reducing testosterone. Possibly even accounting for eye and hair color variation – although that is still an open question.

    So,

    (a) left, socialist, communist, equalitarian produces r-selection and r-selection moral intuitions (what we call beta or feminine or child-driven) and (b) right, aristocratic, meritocratic, egalitarian, k-selection (alpha or male, or tribe-driven) evolutionary strategies are all we are ever arguing about.

    All our prattle is just negotiation on behalf of our genes.

    So, just as the copernican revolution was profoundly humiliating the current revolution in biology and social sciences is profoundly humiliating.

    The world is a very simple thing: reduce underclasses and then the middle to upper classes will work together just fine. But because below about 105, people start becoming a burden, the primary problem we face, and the world faces, is not global warming, or pollution, but finding some way to morally cull populations under 105 (current measure) by a one-child policy for long enough that we equilibrate the vast underclasses with the advanced civilizations. Otehrwise the problem of india is going to be the world;s problem -everywhere.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 16:00:00 UTC

  • WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE? I think people fought against homosexuality

    WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE?

    I think people fought against homosexuality for the following reasons:

    (a) marriage in public prohibits interference which causes high rates of male violence, often resulting in death, the consequences of which export vast cascading costs onto the polity – trust being one of the most important.

    (b) marriage in public asks warranty of non-interference in the marriage and family as a means of preventing the moral hazard of the public carrying the cost of broken families.

    (c) Homosexuality invokes a disgust response in many (very many) people, not the least of which because we do not want to increase ‘marginal cases’.

    (d) homosexuality is of negative evolutionary, familial, value other than labor, and so why does the public need to insure it by means of marriage?

    (e) Without offspring they could signal hyperconsumption more easily, and with two incomes they could signal hyperconsumption more easily

    (f) homosexuals by hyperconsumption, sexual signaling, promiscuity, have demonstrated precisely the public behaviors that we have spent thousands of years removing from the public – precisely so that we could limit risk of violating the marriage and family as means of limiting the export of costs.

    (g) It certainly appears that given all of us contain masculine and feminine traits, and that while in-utero homosexuality is merely a birth defect, various forms of mental illness can result from developmental issues such as bulimia, anorexia, sexual identity, issues. In other words, ‘gender preference’ appears to be, like anorexia and bulimia, a developmental disorder easily corrected by constant exposure to norms. (and therefore without loss of genetic persistence,)

    (h) Genetically (and economically) non-reproducing people who are capable of productivity and self financing of reproduction are dead weight on civilization.

    So externalities are the cause of marriage. homoxexuality does not require the institution of marriage: a corporation for the pooling of assets by which intergenerational reproduction, ‘financing’ and ‘insurance’ are provided.

    Instead homoseuality requires only the formation of a partnership, and universal power of attorney. This is the only legal content of the marriage.

    The question remains whether homosexuals can produced offspring in equal or not worse quality to hterosexuals and the money is against them. Not because some cannot. But because there are too many who cannot.

    So we are running an experiment. I have no idea how it will play out.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 10:00:00 UTC

  • “WE JUST NEED A RELIGION AND WE ARE DONE ” by Joel Davis —“I’m just getting st

    “WE JUST NEED A RELIGION AND WE ARE DONE “

    by Joel Davis

    —“I’m just getting started. I have another piece on the relationship between religion, ritual, language, ethics and sociology that I’ve been formulating in the inspiration generated from my reading of Eric Gans’ work that I think has big potential when combined with Nietzschean aesthetics.

    We have a political ideology, an ethics, and now a philosophical school.

    We just need a religion and we’re done.”— Joel Davis


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:47:00 UTC

  • THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM OF THE MONEY SUPPLY the problem of monetary supply is

    THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM OF THE MONEY SUPPLY

    the problem of monetary supply is created by (a) a single currency for all purposes, and (b) distribution through the financial system rather than consumers.

    Rather than targeting, I use changes in capital (capital-in-total) and sector-interest-rates. (My suspicion is that all we are doing today is spending down capital and calling it efficiency.)

    For example, we can regulate home loan interest separately from regulating car loan interest. We could supply money for purposes instead of regulating interest. This is the amazing property of digital money substitutes.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:29:00 UTC

  • CORPORATIONS The reason for the corporation is to permit limited liability and f

    CORPORATIONS

    The reason for the corporation is to permit limited liability and fungibility of management and control. Like any organization that permits cooperation for gain without consumption of the commons produced thereby, the returns on corporations are higher than the returns on individual ownership. Scale makes a profound difference. Poor countries with low trust societies cannot form large corporations producing multiples of returns. But the income largely stays inside the corporations where it continues to produce returns. The problem is figuring out HOW to tax a corporation, since the state does not wish to kill the golden goose. Double taxation is the real issue. Corporations must either pay taxes OR distribute dividends that are taxed by the rate of individual income of the shareholders. (we do both today which is one of the very bad things we do.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:33:00 UTC

  • In employment, IQ tests are used for two reasons. One, to filter people out both

    In employment, IQ tests are used for two reasons.

    One, to filter people out both above(who would be bored) and below(who would be incompetent).

    Second to provide a legal means of defending against racism/sexism/forced intergration charges.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 18:15:00 UTC