Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • Market Failure? Political Failure? No. Our Failure.

    [W]e can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’). We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction. We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve. The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons. The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all. We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes. We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common. We have failed more so by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • MARKET FAILURE? GOVERNMENT FAILURE? NOPE. OUR FAILURE. We can fail to construct

    MARKET FAILURE? GOVERNMENT FAILURE? NOPE. OUR FAILURE.

    We can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible.

    If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’).

    We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible.

    If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction.

    We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible.

    Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve.

    The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons.

    The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all.

    We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes.

    We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common.

    We have failed moreso by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 06:41:00 UTC

  • Interesting to look back over the past 15 years at the people who succeeded with

    Interesting to look back over the past 15 years at the people who succeeded with our company but didn’t succeed so much without it. Conversely, those that succeeded after regardless of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 16:11:00 UTC

  • The Private Mind and Home vs the Sacred Commons

    MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMONIES.(trigger warning – some comments may be offensive) [S]ome people cant manage separating what’s acceptable in their living rooms from that which is acceptable in the commons. And conversely, what is unacceptable in the commons is non of our business in the bedroom. We must always be cautious, and understand that we are not terribly wise. And that over thousands of years we have developed a set of norms and taboos needed to ensure that the bedroom, home, and commons operate by different principles We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason. As far as I know, when nursing, the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom. I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts. Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust. Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies. Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism. To preserve the difference between home and commons we show purity (deference) for doing so. This is why some societies have foul commons (most of the world outside of the high-trust west) and a few societies (the protestant west) have high trust societies, and beautiful commons. Covering yourself is signaling respect for the high trust society and the commons, and the distinction between the home and commons. It means you’re a good person, and not covering up means you’re a bad person. It’s pretty simple. Your opinion isn’t meaningful in the matter. NOTICE OUR COMMONS Notice how our commons looks in western civilization and how (shitty) it looks in the rest of the world. Notice how our commons looks in our middle and upper classes and how it looks in our lower and out-of-sight classes. Europe is a vast open air museum. Western man evolved to consider nature and the commons sacred. This is why we have commons and lesser cultures do not. A commons is created when we deny ourselves consumption in order to save. A commons may not be privatized. It was very expensive to develop commons. And commons are OUR MOST competitive advantage over other groups. Truth, Property, Property Rights, Trust are all commons just as surely as is Central Park. THEREFORE Attacks on the commons are attacks on western civilization and all that derives from it. Anarchism is an attempt to attack the commons and destroy the west’s advantage. Cosmopolitan (jewish) immoralism is an attempt to generate impulsivity from which they can profit because of non-competition from high trust (Christian) moralists. If you understand this it will change you forever. Rothbard was a jewish, cosmopolitan, immoralist, attempting to attack the commons so that his people and others could profit from the impulsive immorality of the underclass that we have worked for millennia to reduce and contain through our norms and laws. Now he would not KNOW that. He would intuit it as merely mutually beneficial. Because his intuition was intrinsically immoral. Again. Westerners solved the problem of the underclasses through hard work. And the jews do the opposite: they surrender the commons in order to profit from the underclasses at the expense of the civilization. This is what they have done to every host culture. It is their evolutionary strategy. I have no idea if it is genetic, but it appears to be likely at this point that it is a combination of genetics, religious duplicity, and sub-cultural tradition and norm.

  • The Private Mind and Home vs the Sacred Commons

    MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMONIES.(trigger warning – some comments may be offensive) [S]ome people cant manage separating what’s acceptable in their living rooms from that which is acceptable in the commons. And conversely, what is unacceptable in the commons is non of our business in the bedroom. We must always be cautious, and understand that we are not terribly wise. And that over thousands of years we have developed a set of norms and taboos needed to ensure that the bedroom, home, and commons operate by different principles We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason. As far as I know, when nursing, the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom. I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts. Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust. Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies. Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism. To preserve the difference between home and commons we show purity (deference) for doing so. This is why some societies have foul commons (most of the world outside of the high-trust west) and a few societies (the protestant west) have high trust societies, and beautiful commons. Covering yourself is signaling respect for the high trust society and the commons, and the distinction between the home and commons. It means you’re a good person, and not covering up means you’re a bad person. It’s pretty simple. Your opinion isn’t meaningful in the matter. NOTICE OUR COMMONS Notice how our commons looks in western civilization and how (shitty) it looks in the rest of the world. Notice how our commons looks in our middle and upper classes and how it looks in our lower and out-of-sight classes. Europe is a vast open air museum. Western man evolved to consider nature and the commons sacred. This is why we have commons and lesser cultures do not. A commons is created when we deny ourselves consumption in order to save. A commons may not be privatized. It was very expensive to develop commons. And commons are OUR MOST competitive advantage over other groups. Truth, Property, Property Rights, Trust are all commons just as surely as is Central Park. THEREFORE Attacks on the commons are attacks on western civilization and all that derives from it. Anarchism is an attempt to attack the commons and destroy the west’s advantage. Cosmopolitan (jewish) immoralism is an attempt to generate impulsivity from which they can profit because of non-competition from high trust (Christian) moralists. If you understand this it will change you forever. Rothbard was a jewish, cosmopolitan, immoralist, attempting to attack the commons so that his people and others could profit from the impulsive immorality of the underclass that we have worked for millennia to reduce and contain through our norms and laws. Now he would not KNOW that. He would intuit it as merely mutually beneficial. Because his intuition was intrinsically immoral. Again. Westerners solved the problem of the underclasses through hard work. And the jews do the opposite: they surrender the commons in order to profit from the underclasses at the expense of the civilization. This is what they have done to every host culture. It is their evolutionary strategy. I have no idea if it is genetic, but it appears to be likely at this point that it is a combination of genetics, religious duplicity, and sub-cultural tradition and norm.

  • “A country is not a nation but a territory. A nation is a people not a corporati

    —“A country is not a nation but a territory. A nation is a people not a corporation. Nor is a corporation a person – but a partnership we sanction with limited liability acting ourselves as the insurer of last resort.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 09:35:00 UTC

  • MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMO

    MIND > TOILET > BEDROOM > HOME > COMMONS > COURT > SACRED-PLACES > SACRED CEREMONIES.

    (trigger warning – some comments may be offensive)

    Some people cant manage separating what’s acceptable in their living rooms from that which is acceptable in the commons. And conversely, what is unacceptable in the commons is non of our business in the bedroom.

    We must always be cautious, and understand that we are not terribly wise. And that over thousands of years we have developed a set of norms and taboos needed to ensure that the bedroom, home, and commons operate by different principles

    We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason.

    As far as I know, when nursing, the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom.

    I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts.

    Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust.

    Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies.

    Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism.

    To preserve the difference between home and commons we show purity (deference) for doing so.

    This is why some societies have foul commons (most of the world outside of the high-trust west) and a few societies (the protestant west) have high trust societies, and beautiful commons.

    Covering yourself is signaling respect for the high trust society and the commons, and the distinction between the home and commons.

    It means you’re a good person, and not covering up means you’re a bad person. It’s pretty simple.

    Your opinion isn’t meaningful in the matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 02:59:00 UTC

  • OVERSING UPDATE Getting down to the wire for v1 beta. They have fixed almost eve

    OVERSING UPDATE

    Getting down to the wire for v1 beta. They have fixed almost everything open but the problem with the Gantt Chart, and the ‘sprint accounting’. Still not ready for reports.

    We spent most of December and January so far on Usability Issues and minor bugs and it’s really come together nicely.

    OVERSING: *A SOCIAL AND AGILE ERP*

    Oversing is the only ERP that we know of that allows you to drive your entire business using the Agile Method. We use at least these four kinds of sprints.

    Strategy Period (‘Long Sprint’)

    |<-Plan->|<–Forecast–>|<—Perform->|<–Measure->| (repeat)

    Executives establish goals.

    Accounting Period (‘Medium Sprint’)

    |<-Forecast ‘Costs’->|<–Open Period–>|<-Perform->|<-Lock Period->|<-Update with Actuals->|<-Close Period->| (repeat)

    Accountants forecast costs and then adjust with actuals. This allows us to calculate the ‘real’ profit and loss from operations, so that we can target net profit rather than just gross margin. Why? Incentives.

    Operational Period (‘Short Sprint’)

    |<-Open->|<–Forecast–>|<—Perform->|<-Close->|<–Measure->| (repeat)

    Just as we ask sales to commit to sales goals, we ask project and middle managers to commit to revenue goals.

    Project Period (‘Variable Sprint’)

    |<-Estimate->|<-Plan->|<-Perform->|<-Measure->|(repeat)

    Just as we ask staff sales and management to commit to goals, we ask individuals to commit to completion goals.

    WHY? Because over time we improve our collective ability to accurately predict and forecast our futures, and undesrtand our risks. So the most important property of the agile business is constant training of everyone in the organization.

    This process creates an agile organization that can adapt to any market shift, any strategic change.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 03:09:00 UTC

  • RELYING ON YOUR DEV LEAD I love my business partner Kirill, and we work pretty w

    RELYING ON YOUR DEV LEAD

    I love my business partner Kirill, and we work pretty well together.

    I am more emotional, he is more steady.

    There are some things that are just matters of understanding the user.

    There are some things that are important to keep consistent so that the user will understand it. And I sort of carry weight with the former, and he the latter.

    But we are very similar otherwise.

    I rarely if ever say ‘well, we just gotta do it this way’.

    I find that as in most things if we agree we should do it.

    If we don’t agree we should wait until we do to do it.

    And at this point he understands the application better than I do.

    Alexey is sort of like the adult in the room. He humors us. Lets us babble, then says its logical or not, or that we’re not thinking clearly. It’s kind of interesting.

    So if you watch us work, I submit issues. I rarely assume I am right. I just expect that these issues must survive team criticism. Which is the scientific thing to do.

    Now, most of the time there is an analyst on a project (business rules), and a UI analyst (user experience), and these people try to minimize the impact on the development team.

    But we can’t find those people here in this part of the world (and I think in many cases we’re much better at UX anyway even if our detail design isn’t often there – an artist problem not a UX problem).

    So this is how we work. I say something insane, Kirill makes it compatible, and Alexey finds the limits and contradictions and corrects us and that seems to work pretty well.

    There are some very old UI gaffs in there that I just don’t like. But we’ll fix them sooner or later.

    Thanks for listening.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 03:08:00 UTC

  • WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO EXIT THE CONSULTING BUSINESS? (OVERSING UPDATE) Everyone w

    WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO EXIT THE CONSULTING BUSINESS?

    (OVERSING UPDATE)

    Everyone who builds a consulting company always seems to want to exit. There are a lot of reasons for this. First, it is a low capital investment industry that is easy to get into and exit even if exit is at low multiples (1-2x). So it attracts people who work overly hard, and get tired of it. Second, it is an extremely volatile business full of constant risk, because there is no way to entrench yourself in a customer other than relationships and knowledge of their business. It is very hard to raise rates. Skills are rapidly perishable and subject to swings. Employees are not sticky. Receivables very high, and credit on receivables difficult and constraining to your growth. And it is the first business to feel recessionary pressures. It is a very mercenary business. And that is because it is largely impossible to collect rents. (which I find fascinating really. it is an example of how all of us seek rents, because the constant productivity of consulting is like the constant productivity of hourly labor, except you’re working in a higher paid white collar capacity. So by inversion that means most of us seek employment where we can seek rents.)

    You start get enter the safety zone as you approach 500 people, and generally get somewhat safe after 1000, because even if you halve the business, you can halve the staff, and have the cash flow to rebuild.

    SOLVING THE PROBLEM

    The only way to solve the problems of the stressfulness of running a services business is BRAND, SCALE, PORTFOLIO, and PROCESS.

    Build a reputation for excellence that feeds you leads.

    Get large enough that you can tolerate volatility without causing doubt in the staff. (maintain your ‘other’ customer base of employees).

    Look at portfiolios of either customers or offerings or both, and plan two years out at least, if not three.

    Create a process of continuous training (education) for your employees.

    WHY CAN SOME PEOPLE NOT DO THIS?

    Because actively managing your business is pretty hard. And investing in your employees skills is not expensive, but it is a constant effort.

    ****So the best way to create process of continuous improvement is to treat the company as a university that does paying work for clients rather than unpaid homework for the professor.****

    And instead of relying upon the professor’s or management’s opinion for your grades, you rely upon the reviews of your peers and your customers.

    If you grasp this. That this is probably the business model for all businesses in the 21st century. That we have passed the era of lifetime careers. That we have passed the era of decade long careers. That instead we are in an era of continuous education of our staffs, and that we need processes to achieve that continuous training at lowest possible cost, then you will understand why we built oversing.

    ***BECAUSE ALL COMPANIES ARE TURNING INTO CONSULTING COMPANIES AND ALL LABOR INTO PROFESSIONAL WORK.***

    Whether we have made oversing powerful enough yet to achieve this is certainly debatable. But that we have made it powerful enough to do much of it is not.

    Oversing is a platform of the management of human capital in the 21st century.

    It’s a Social ERP for The constant Improvement of human beings.

    And the data we will give you about your organization after using Oversing will blow your mind.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 02:45:00 UTC