Theme: Institution

  • in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop tru

    in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop trust. In order to prevent the stagnation of every other civlization we must develop markets. In order to prevent the fall of our markets and trust we must develop market institutions. In order to prevent the failure of our institutions we must develop methods of measurement.

    A civilization fails when it can no longer measure success and failure.

    What must we measure? The treasury? In part. Because it is the first capital to expire. But in sum, all capital.

    What have we done in the 21st century to our measurements and to our capital?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 12:15:00 UTC

  • by James Augustus —“I don’t really think that you got the answer you were look

    by James Augustus

    —“I don’t really think that you got the answer you were looking for. It seemed more of an observation that the church failed along with other institutions, but not specifically *why* the church failed, which I think is not to difficult to explain.

    The church failed because in a market for lies, the most comforting lies (Cultural Marxism) will out-compete less comforting lies (Christianity), not to mention uncomfortable truths (Aristocracy).

    The solution, of course, is what you state, and repeatedly: truth.”—

    And there we go. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 04:24:00 UTC

  • Today’s winner is!…. —“To be fair almost no institution stood up to cultural

    Today’s winner is!….

    —“To be fair almost no institution stood up to cultural Marxism. The church evolved as required and bested all comers for quite a while. “–Greg Hamilton

    I was looking for this all day.

    YOU CAN’T FIX A PROBLEM UNTIL YOU KNOW THE CAUSE.

    So, now that we’ve had to pull some teeth today, how do you fix the church so that it can compete with cultural marxism?

    Why do people love cultural marxism? Who does?

    See how easy that was?

    (Damn.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 17:30:00 UTC

  • As far as I know, government has existed always. (See Iron Law of Oligarchy) bec

    As far as I know, government has existed always. (See Iron Law of Oligarchy) because in the end, decision making must occur to concentrate capital and to prevent defectors, and decision makers are extremely valuable to a population.

    So whether pater-warrior, headman, chieftain, council, republic, multi-house-government …. government has always and always must, exist. The question is not whether it must exist, but the method of decidability, and the scope of those decisions.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 09:48:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY —“Curt: Could you please define Aristocracy?”— A Friend Simply?

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/natural-law-doesnt-justify-aristocracy-it-justifies-markets-it-is-just-that-natural-law-is-only-possible-under-aristocracy/Q&A: ARISTOCRACY

    —“Curt: Could you please define Aristocracy?”— A Friend

    Simply? Meritocracy.

    Meritocracy how? Markets in Everything.

    Markets how? Limited by natural law.

    ARISTOCRACY = MARKETS

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/natural-law-doesnt-justify-aristocracy-it-justifies-markets-it-is-just-that-natural-law-is-only-possible-under-aristocracy/

    ALL MY POSTS INCLUDING THE TERM ‘ARISTOCRACY’

    https://propertarianism.com/?s=aristocracy


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-11 16:56:00 UTC

  • NO. Move capital to people so that they develop cultural capital (normative,inst

    NO. Move capital to people so that they develop cultural capital (normative,institutional,cultural,mythological) rather than degrade it.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 15:16:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850366571159703554

    Reply addressees: @hjarche @shackletonjones @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849626971269189632


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849626971269189632

  • “If you were given a new position as head of a large, multi-national company, wh

    —“If you were given a new position as head of a large, multi-national company, which was still around in spite of poor to abysmal management over the course of 100 or so years, how long do you think it would take you to turn that company around and set it on the right track?

    Assuming you have the knowledge and acumen for the job from years of experience successfully running other, smaller, but similar companies.

    Do you think you’d make any mistakes along the way? Do things that seem like mistakes to the casual observer, who doesn’t have your same experience, information, and understanding of the situation?

    How long before you start to see real results?

    Two years?

    Five years?

    Ten?

    Twenty?

    What about two and a half months?”—Danny O’Quillinan

    In my experience, almost always, the problems are :

    1) Debt that can’t be exited.

    2) Maximized rent-seeking that can’t be exited. (pensions etc)

    3) A board or management that can’t be exited, and Incentives that are perversely against the interests of the business.

    4) Capital Equipment or Information Systems, Contractual relations that are deadly but extremely difficult to change without causing even worse damage to the business immediately.

    5) Poor quality employees that cannot be trained to compete in the new market.

    6) The loss of the upper 10-20% of the best talent leaving you with little to work with – talent is the most scarce transitional capital.

    7) Inability to attract the talent necessary to restore competitive excellence.

    8) You’ve been hired too late, and they either want a fall guy, an organized end to the business, a sale to a competitor at fire sale prices. Or they’re stupid and they think a miracle will happen.

    The principle problem in restoring a company is whether you are able to bring in enough talent to make the change with a good enough plan, and enough capital to do it with, and have enough time to do it with, and if once you achieve it, the end product is worth more than what you have already.

    I have never seen a company I could not turn around assuming I had those options. The truth is that in the company, and in all companies, everyone or at least a lot of them, know what to do, but there are some sort of political or economic barriers that prevent them from doing it.

    Why did Microsoft displace IBM, but google and apple and sun fail to displace microsoft given all msft’s series of failures? the error was on both sides. Would you rather have 80% of your revenue dependent upon the iPhone or Windows+Office? (Samsung is a better phone btw).

    Why did nokia fail and iphone/samsung eat their lunch?

    Why is search a dead tennis ball and Walmart, Home Depot and Amazon together have replaced Sears (and its imitators)?

    Why did amazon succeed and barnes and noble (and everyone else) fail?

    When the Xbox team was started why did they demand separate offices away from the rest of campus, and why did that product (sort of) succeed where most other microsoft initiatives fail?

    I can usually diagnose a company in two weeks, and with certainty in thirty days. The problems are not hard.

    If you can’t turn it in two to three years you probably can’t turn it. I would make mistakes. Everyone does. Your strategy for the turnaround has to assume you will make mistakes, and have multiple tiers of success so that you can achieve different levels of success depending upon mistakes surprises, and shocks.

    THE PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 14:54:00 UTC

  • Um. we are supposed to be smart people. There is no law of war. there are on the

    Um. we are supposed to be smart people. There is no law of war. there are on the other hand agreements. And there are international agreements. And almost without exception international agreements rely upon natural law (non-provocation). Spain is violating the principle of non-provocation, and violating the principle of natural law, where natural law is the method of decidabilty we use in international agreements, the purpose of which is to ensure non-provocation, and therefore a reduction of war. Spain is attempting to reclaim Gibraltar but it is (as most weak nations do) a bit of theatre for the voters and nothing more. The people of Gibraltar are british citizens, they desire to be (who wouldn’t), the territory is British by long tradition and mutual agreement, and britan could eradicate the entirety of the spanish navy, airforce and army as a training exercise.

    So lets be the smart people. Spain violated britan’s territorial waters in an effort to defend the pride of the voters.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 22:33:00 UTC

  • “Proposition: Any institution or organization which does not hold the life of a

    —“Proposition: Any institution or organization which does not hold the life of a particular type of Man as its telos is doomed to the death of the soulless. Corrolary: Any instittution or organization which holds all life as its telos (universalist), will be functionally indistinguishable from that which holds no life as its telos.”— William Butchman


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 09:55:00 UTC

  • if you want to change culture; change culture so that it stays changed; and so t

    if you want to change culture; change culture so that it stays changed; and so that you need the fewest people to agree with your changes; and you do so at the lowest initial cost, and lowest cost of maintenance; and if you want to preserve that change without people feeling as you do, but by habit, then how do you create those behaviors? Can you force people to agree with you? to like what you do? to believe in what you do? to celebrate rituals? to spend time, money, energy, and to not fight it? How do you propose to do that?

    There is a difference between intuiting a possibility and constructing organizations that bring those possibilities into existence. And then once in existence surviving competitoin. And surviving competition persisting without changing. Since the tendency of all organizatoins is to swing to the left.

    How do you propose that?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 13:52:00 UTC