Theme: Institution

  • VERSION OF THE BUFFET RULE : MANAGERS MUST BE OWNERS. I’ve been saying this fore

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/01/solving-the-principal-agent-problem-apple-insists-that-executives-must-hold-company-stock/APPLE’S VERSION OF THE BUFFET RULE : MANAGERS MUST BE OWNERS.

    I’ve been saying this forever. The data is pretty clearly in favor of it. And attempts to circumvent it fail.

    The value of outside owners is to make sure you’re not privatizing capital in the business. The value of inside owners is to make sure you have the incentives to produce capital not privatize it. Outside non-owners, inside non-owners are I suppose fine for volunteer organizations. But otherwise Taleb’s argument holds: Skin in the game is the only insurance.

    Free riding is everywhere.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-18 15:19:00 UTC

  • The team is working on FB style blocking and banning in Oversing today. Blocking

    The team is working on FB style blocking and banning in Oversing today. Blocking is an individual thing but banning is managed by a configurable vote/based workflow. I havent figured out the weighting of votes yet but I assume it will be managed by your Karma level. In other words, the better your reputation the more influential your vote. Likewise a bunch of douchebags cant ban someone easily,

    But for all intents and purposes you and your peers can effectively “fire” someone in Oversing by making it impossible to obtain work.

    Anyway, they are using my account to test the feature and its giving me subconsious feelings of rejection every time, and elation when I am forgiven. 😉

    So i guess it sorta works. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-16 04:58:00 UTC

  • This qualifies as gotta read

    http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Sobel-Relationship-Political-Connections.pdfOk. This qualifies as gotta read.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 13:01:00 UTC

  • DEAR UKRAINIANS: THE PROBLEM IS YOU. Another day dealing with pervasive ukrainia

    DEAR UKRAINIANS: THE PROBLEM IS YOU.

    Another day dealing with pervasive ukrainian incompetence. If any protocol is non trivial in that it crosses boundaries of responsibikity, then in true soviet fashion there is a near certsinty a ukrainian will fuck it up by not handling the exception and instead laziliy and incompetently following the rule.

    And they dont even understand that they fucked up, or that the primary reason they are poor is their failure to understand that they fucked up.

    Here is the rule: if you ate aware of it or can be aware of it, its your problem until you are aware it is fixed completely.

    Soviet version is that you are only responsible for that about which you do not have to think.

    Every time you do not take responsibility for everything not right of which you are aware, you are stealing from the possible prosperity of you and your people.

    There are no conditions – ever – under which you are not responsible for that of which you are aware.

    Ukraine is poor because no one takes responsibility for making it prosper. And what makes a people prosper is not a few big things by government but a million billion tiny things by each individual.

    So the next time you wonder why you are poor, look in the mirror at the person to blame.

    If you are aware of it, then you must fix it until someone else promises you that they will fix it faster and better than you will instead.

    Ukraine is poor for this single reason. People do not pay for the common things that make a people economically efficient and free of risk to compete with the rest of the world.

    Look in the mirror.

    The problem is YOU. Not your culture, not your government, but YOU.

    The culture and the government are made of people just like YOU.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 04:38:00 UTC

  • WE CAN CHANGE THAT…. “The primary problem of politics is the lag in the develo

    WE CAN CHANGE THAT….

    “The primary problem of politics is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and economic change”– Huntington.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 18:18:00 UTC

  • (sketch) (model) (computer model of polities) The literature of psychology and s

    (sketch) (model) (computer model of polities)

    The literature of psychology and sociology is not just littered, but polluted with the errors of universalism (equality etc). Where it isn’t it’s polluted with socialism or the fallacy of treating non-compliance and conformity as a disease rather than a specialization. So the axis of thought tends to be largely pseudoscientific if not just plain ‘wrong’. You may want to help an individual in terms of diagnoses, but you want to help a culture with an understanding of psychological _supply and demand_.

    ———————–

    Pretty sure this is about right. All can be represented as ‘v’ shaped curves I think, or overlapping bell curves

    1) SOLIPSISTIC – AUTISTIC SPECTRUM

    –FEMININE–

    …………”CRAZY”

    …………SOLIPSISTIC

    …………SENSITIVE

    …………CONSIDERATE

    –NORMAL–

    …………FOCUSED

    …………OCD

    …………ASPIE

    …………AUTIST

    –MASCULINE–

    2) IQ SPECTRUM – VERBAL SPECTRUM and SPATIAL SPECTRUM

    3) IMPULSIVITY SPECTRUM and TIME PREFERENCE SPECTRUM

    4) REPRODUCTIVE DESIRABILITY SPECTRUM and GROUP UTILITY SPECTRUM

    5) FAMILY STRUCTURE SPECTRUM MATERNAL(COLLECTIVE – socialism) and PATERNAL(INDIVIDUAL – property rights)

    6) MILITARY CRITERIA FOR ‘WINNING’ and GEOGRAPHY/TERRAIN SPECTRUM

    That’s a simple model. And I think it’s probably very predictive. I could add geography, and competitors to it and probably produce a wonderful model (simulation) and that would be pretty interesting.

    Be fascinating to start out with different data sets and see what survives to some sort of equilibrium.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 10:49:00 UTC

  • THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH – THE CONSEQUENCE OF COLONIALISM It turns out that hones

    THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH – THE CONSEQUENCE OF COLONIALISM

    It turns out that honesty (truth) is the most important political institution, because it permits people to trust, which in turn permits risk taking, which in turn permits capital accumulation, which in turn produces economic velocity, which in turn produces prosperity. You might not think it matters so much, but of all the institutions humans have invented, creating an incentive to tell the truth is perhaps the hardest one. And while we in the west, particularly the anglo-germanic west, take it for granted that telling the truth is ‘good’ in some sort of civic or spiritual way, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the world, outside of christendom, not only does not think that way but does not feel that way either.

    Truth is a ‘universalist’ good. Only westerners are more universalist than familial or tribalist. We are the only people to have done it. We stomp around the world with our suicidal universalism promoted as a spiritual good, rather than contract and rule of law that hold us accountable for trades. It is quite possible to construct enforceable contracts as long as the language facilitates it,and by using an alternative language if not, and from the habit of rule of law, property rights, and enforceable contracts, an upper commercial class will form from the wealth generated by using them. Others, seeking entry into the commercial class and its resulting wealth, will adopt the behavior, and this becomes an upper class norm that people must demonstrate in order to participate in economic prosperity, and failure to participate in that norm will leave one in poverty.

    Our civilization evolved truth telling first, because of our tactics in war. But most civilizations must have a reason to evolve property, truth telling, and therefore trust.

    But just because a civilization evolves a normative technology, does not mean that the institutions that perpetuate that technology cannot be spread. They can. Anything that enforces a norm, can be used to instill a norm.

    The technology to export around the world was (a) title registry – ie property rights. (b) contract law (c) trial by randomly selected jury (d) juridical (law) universities, with extraordinary performance requirements rather than recitation. One can use recitation of facts with those who already understand the norms, but one cannot instill facts dependent upon norms that do not exist.

    For these reasons, democracy was damaging to societies. One can administer a territory in whatever way necessary for the production and service of the commons. And a leader can certainly seek rents this way, and not be threatened by commercial activity. But the means by which one conducts commerce via property law has nothing to do with that, and as such, there is no need for property rights and law to be part of the government – instead property law constructs the institutional means of cooperating within society itself, independent of government. Government need do nothing about it, except not to interfere.

    Judges resolve disputes based upon property rights. Advocacy is for the church. Administration of the commons for the government. Mixing the three functions Commerce, Culture and Commons is a recent mistake even in our western cultures – the church, law and state must be independent creatures to keep each other from excessive rents.

    We really screwed up the world. We gave them science, accounting, medicine and law, and the moral charter to service the population. But we also gave them democracy, which is dangerous luxury good. And we did not give them the means of producing the common law, which is the first NECESSARY good.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 10:20:00 UTC

  • "Consensus, Intent, Taboo and Sacred" VS "Incentives and Institutions" : Another Inequality.

    CONSENSUS, INTENT, TABOO AND SACRED VS INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS : ANOTHER INEQUALITY (very good piece) [W]e humans are usually much happier once we figure out that “consensus and intent” are possible only for small groups, and beyond that scale we must construct protocols (processes) and incentives (information) via institutions (formal institutions) such that it is unnecessary for individuals to constantly exist in conflict between incentives for self interest and the goals of the organization and the polity. There are certain “taboos and sacredness” that it is possible to instill pedagogically. But the more rational and educated the human the less taboos can be used to restrain him from making exceptions that he can justify by his reason. The lower the intelligence of individuals, the more they rely upon intuition, upon the information that they obtain from others, and upon intuitions of ‘sacred and taboo’. So the more educated the populace, the more complex the division of knowledge and labor, the more necessary are incentives and institutions and the lower value there is to “consensus, intent, sacredness and taboo”. We require formal institutions. The pricing system is our most important formal information system. It tells us everything we need to know about our condition related to that of others, and tells us what we we should be doing to serve others whether we want to do it, or can do it, or not. It is our most important information system. Morality and ethics captured in the law prohibits a spectrum of “free riding” (the violation of the contract for logical participation in cooperation) from the criminal, to the ethical, to the conspiratorial, to the moral. We are left to our own devices to prevent conquest. Army, Religion and Credit are our most common defenses. The failure of the sentimental, lesser mind, is not to grasp this basic spectrum whereby humans are materially unequal in their abilities an there frames of reference, and therefore in their means of action. The lower you are on the scale, the more consensus, intent, taboo, and sacred, and the more you depend upon others for knowledge necessary for action. The higher you are on the scale the more you depend on reason, incentives, justification, institutions and abstract information to make your decisions independently of those who rely upon their peers. This pattern means that the exceptional people are always trying to outwit the less, and therefore, invent new economic means which those below them adopt and later benefit from. We tend to think only in terms of technology and consumption, and not behavior as technology. But rational innovations can easily be adopted by repetition and habituation and from that we develop the sacred and the taboo. As such the rational and scientific solution to the problem of creating commons is, as the british did, privatization of administration of the commons so that institutions and rules and incentives can suffice where consensus, intent, taboo and sacred cannot. The enlightenment error is everywhere. We are not equal. We are not similar, and that is why we form a division of knowledge and labor. We cannot ask each other to operate by the same consensus, intent, taboo and sacredness. Because we unequally make use of peers versus non-peer, abstract, information. The conservatives say this in moral language that is so arational it is impossible to disassemble. But they have made sacred this set of ideas. And that is how they function.

  • “Consensus, Intent, Taboo and Sacred” VS “Incentives and Institutions” : Another Inequality.

    CONSENSUS, INTENT, TABOO AND SACRED VS INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS : ANOTHER INEQUALITY (very good piece) [W]e humans are usually much happier once we figure out that “consensus and intent” are possible only for small groups, and beyond that scale we must construct protocols (processes) and incentives (information) via institutions (formal institutions) such that it is unnecessary for individuals to constantly exist in conflict between incentives for self interest and the goals of the organization and the polity. There are certain “taboos and sacredness” that it is possible to instill pedagogically. But the more rational and educated the human the less taboos can be used to restrain him from making exceptions that he can justify by his reason. The lower the intelligence of individuals, the more they rely upon intuition, upon the information that they obtain from others, and upon intuitions of ‘sacred and taboo’. So the more educated the populace, the more complex the division of knowledge and labor, the more necessary are incentives and institutions and the lower value there is to “consensus, intent, sacredness and taboo”. We require formal institutions. The pricing system is our most important formal information system. It tells us everything we need to know about our condition related to that of others, and tells us what we we should be doing to serve others whether we want to do it, or can do it, or not. It is our most important information system. Morality and ethics captured in the law prohibits a spectrum of “free riding” (the violation of the contract for logical participation in cooperation) from the criminal, to the ethical, to the conspiratorial, to the moral. We are left to our own devices to prevent conquest. Army, Religion and Credit are our most common defenses. The failure of the sentimental, lesser mind, is not to grasp this basic spectrum whereby humans are materially unequal in their abilities an there frames of reference, and therefore in their means of action. The lower you are on the scale, the more consensus, intent, taboo, and sacred, and the more you depend upon others for knowledge necessary for action. The higher you are on the scale the more you depend on reason, incentives, justification, institutions and abstract information to make your decisions independently of those who rely upon their peers. This pattern means that the exceptional people are always trying to outwit the less, and therefore, invent new economic means which those below them adopt and later benefit from. We tend to think only in terms of technology and consumption, and not behavior as technology. But rational innovations can easily be adopted by repetition and habituation and from that we develop the sacred and the taboo. As such the rational and scientific solution to the problem of creating commons is, as the british did, privatization of administration of the commons so that institutions and rules and incentives can suffice where consensus, intent, taboo and sacred cannot. The enlightenment error is everywhere. We are not equal. We are not similar, and that is why we form a division of knowledge and labor. We cannot ask each other to operate by the same consensus, intent, taboo and sacredness. Because we unequally make use of peers versus non-peer, abstract, information. The conservatives say this in moral language that is so arational it is impossible to disassemble. But they have made sacred this set of ideas. And that is how they function.

  • "Consensus, Intent, Taboo and Sacred" VS "Incentives and Institutions" : Another Inequality.

    CONSENSUS, INTENT, TABOO AND SACRED VS INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS : ANOTHER INEQUALITY (very good piece) [W]e humans are usually much happier once we figure out that “consensus and intent” are possible only for small groups, and beyond that scale we must construct protocols (processes) and incentives (information) via institutions (formal institutions) such that it is unnecessary for individuals to constantly exist in conflict between incentives for self interest and the goals of the organization and the polity. There are certain “taboos and sacredness” that it is possible to instill pedagogically. But the more rational and educated the human the less taboos can be used to restrain him from making exceptions that he can justify by his reason. The lower the intelligence of individuals, the more they rely upon intuition, upon the information that they obtain from others, and upon intuitions of ‘sacred and taboo’. So the more educated the populace, the more complex the division of knowledge and labor, the more necessary are incentives and institutions and the lower value there is to “consensus, intent, sacredness and taboo”. We require formal institutions. The pricing system is our most important formal information system. It tells us everything we need to know about our condition related to that of others, and tells us what we we should be doing to serve others whether we want to do it, or can do it, or not. It is our most important information system. Morality and ethics captured in the law prohibits a spectrum of “free riding” (the violation of the contract for logical participation in cooperation) from the criminal, to the ethical, to the conspiratorial, to the moral. We are left to our own devices to prevent conquest. Army, Religion and Credit are our most common defenses. The failure of the sentimental, lesser mind, is not to grasp this basic spectrum whereby humans are materially unequal in their abilities an there frames of reference, and therefore in their means of action. The lower you are on the scale, the more consensus, intent, taboo, and sacred, and the more you depend upon others for knowledge necessary for action. The higher you are on the scale the more you depend on reason, incentives, justification, institutions and abstract information to make your decisions independently of those who rely upon their peers. This pattern means that the exceptional people are always trying to outwit the less, and therefore, invent new economic means which those below them adopt and later benefit from. We tend to think only in terms of technology and consumption, and not behavior as technology. But rational innovations can easily be adopted by repetition and habituation and from that we develop the sacred and the taboo. As such the rational and scientific solution to the problem of creating commons is, as the british did, privatization of administration of the commons so that institutions and rules and incentives can suffice where consensus, intent, taboo and sacred cannot. The enlightenment error is everywhere. We are not equal. We are not similar, and that is why we form a division of knowledge and labor. We cannot ask each other to operate by the same consensus, intent, taboo and sacredness. Because we unequally make use of peers versus non-peer, abstract, information. The conservatives say this in moral language that is so arational it is impossible to disassemble. But they have made sacred this set of ideas. And that is how they function.