Theme: Productivity

  • And they were wrong. A central bank is the economic equivalent of an army – nece

    And they were wrong. A central bank is the economic equivalent of an army – necessary. Fiat currency is the ability to borrow from your future production w/o interest. However, once you divorce from hard money pricing, how do you measure your debt and returns? ..We can. We don’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 14:33:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252968671418425346

    Reply addressees: @DeguTanya

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252967502004404224

  • I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY —“Is there an art

    I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY

    —“Is there an article in which you relate these claims to the specific Marxist tenets, like surplus value, the labor theory of value, historical materialism, alienated labour, and so on? … I noticed you didn’t mention any of these in your comment here, so I’m not sure we’re really talking about the same thing.​”—Morus Alba

    It is not necessary to refute marx since it’s been done for decades. Just the fallacy of the labor theory of value eradicates most of the work; the claim on profits without claim on risk and loss; the claim that the primary beneficiary of industrialization is not the working classes and the poor; the claim of equality and oppression rather than natural sortition by genetic ability individual and family; the claim of society as corporal over family and polity for family; the claim of oppression rather than continuation of natural selection; The means of argument and it’s monopoly proposition to undermine trifuncationalism, markets, and rule of law.

    I mean, I don’t think I need to do anything other than state correctly that it’s a pseudoscientific authoritarian religion that repeats the false promise of the supernatural authoritarian religion of judaism, christianity, and islam and sold to the poor in the modern world as freedom from physical law, just as freedom from physical law was sold to the underclases in the ancient world – and that gave us the dark ages of ignorance by judaism, christianity, and islam.

    That’s why we don’t teach marx in economics, only non-science.

    So if you want me to refute a given marxist proposition I will because it’s trivially easy. If you want me to refute ashkenazi capitalism I’ll refute that just as easily. If you want me to refute neoconservatism I’ll do that easily. If you want me to refute postmodernism or feminism I’ll do those just as easily.

    My goal of course is to expand the law so that false promise of freedom from physical, natural and evolutionary law, by baiting people into hazard is as illegal in political fraud as the same strategy is in commercial fraud.

    So most of my work is in exposing the strategy of abrahamic deception – which is as sophisticated a means of deceit as aristotelianism is a means of truth production – and writing laws that not only reverse it’s harms, but which prevent its future use … thereby restoring us to trifuncationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, the natural law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, including the suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive classes so that they do not return man to middle eastern ignorance and poverty as did christianity and islam, nor tolerate survival by parasitism as we have seen with judaism’s profiting from baiting host peoples into hazard with tax collection, usury, gambling, prostitution, drug and alcohol sales on credit, organized crime. propaganda, and rent seeking.

    BY ANALOGY

    We humans are just monkeys running software with more memory and cpu power.

    I’m removing ‘memory leak’ from the human software. And law ist he means by which we program humans via negativa, without needing to program them via-positiva, and therefore leaving them open to competition in adversarial markets continuing our rapid evolution during this brief geological respite between crisis that threaten mankind.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 13:37:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE by Scott De Warren Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces repr

    THE DIFFERENCE

    by Scott De Warren

    Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity (demand for capitalization). (Male)

    Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty. (demand for redistribution). (Female)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 13:08:00 UTC

  • Snowflakes like you aren’t capable of building an economy. Hopefully the next ge

    Snowflakes like you aren’t capable of building an economy. Hopefully the next generation is capable enough to continue carrying you around in your postmodern bassinets. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 18:01:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250484524330496000

    Reply addressees: @heraclitean11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250170672032231427

  • We didn’t conquer you because we were Christian. We ended your poverty by lettin

    We didn’t conquer you because we were Christian. We ended your poverty by letting you steal our technology because we are Christian. We had Christian faith that once you failed at Communism you would no longer be barbarians.

    We were wrong. You remain barbarians.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 14:56:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250437723950739461

    Reply addressees: @Djww5 @healingbyhenry @sunkiisss

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250437272257748994


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Djww5 @healingbyhenry @sunkiisss That is communist chinese propaganda. Does that mean your ancestors who kept the secret recipe for porcelain should not have?
    A thing belongs to those who use violence to maintain their ownership. We don’t use violence – Because we wanted to end your primitive chinese barbarism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1250437272257748994

  • And for what it’s worth, Egyptians created papyrus paper – they had lower qualit

    And for what it’s worth, Egyptians created papyrus paper – they had lower quality fibers. Chinese discovered finer plant fiber paper by accident from waste products (rags etc). But until then china used bamboo because it was too poor to use skins/papyrus.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 14:51:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250436536400633863

    Reply addressees: @healingbyhenry @sunkiisss

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250435267086839809


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @healingbyhenry @sunkiisss I mean truth-before-face, rule of law, jury and testimony, independent judiciary, science, medicine, industry, and technology you pimple-dicked sheep beg, borrow and steal from us. … We did more in 400 years in the ancient world and 400 years in the modern than you did in 3000.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1250435267086839809

  • RT @StefanFSchubert: Paper: cognitive ability of top 5% more important for count

    RT @StefanFSchubert: Paper: cognitive ability of top 5% more important for country wealth than mean cognitive ability; in turn more key tha…


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 03:33:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1249178700245086208

  • Well, because there is a limit to to those benefits, and no limit to market inco

    Well, because there is a limit to to those benefits, and no limit to market income other than one’s age and health. https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1249005341884461058

  • FED ACCUSERS ARE PROTECTING THEIR MALINVESTMENTS AND RESISTING NEW INVESTMENTS b

    FED ACCUSERS ARE PROTECTING THEIR MALINVESTMENTS AND RESISTING NEW INVESTMENTS

    by John Mark

    My standard response to the fed-post accusation is to:

    a) mock anyone who says using 2A for its primary intended purpose is “bad” (were the founding fathers “feds”? lmao), and;

    b) demand they produce and articulate a solution: “What is your plan for when the Right can’t win any more elections?”

    Often these groups/individuals that countersignal are either consciously or subconsciously trying to hold on to their “market share” of right-wing audience – they have invested significantly in what they are doing, and many people even on the dissident right are still hoping in vain that there is some other way to win without force.

    P kinda makes everybody else look bad and threatens to make them irrelevant because we are a) describing the situation with brutal honesty (force or at least show of force will be necessary) while they are not, and b) P is so stunningly well thought out, with such thorough coverage and breakthrough insight both in explanatory power and recommended solutions, that it is impossible for anyone else on the Right to compete with. (Simply put, no other group has Curt on their team.)

    P also requires a decent amount of time investment to understand well enough to say “yeah, I get how this could work”. And time is something leaders have very little of – I have very limited time to invest in learning details about what other leaders/movements/packs are doing.

    We are also slaying the sacred cows of libertarianism/ancap etc., and correcting a bunch of failed strategies all around. (For example, we say persuasion & voting can’t be the Right’s primary strategy – but most groups on the Right are built around that primary strategy.)

    All this results in the leaders of other “packs” sometimes having an initial negative reaction toward us.

    One way to mitigate this without compromising on the truth, may be to invite people like this on my show and genuinely try to promote them (cuz many of them are doing great work in many ways), and then also ask them what they think of our basic solution proposals (policies etc, not in-depth P stuff), and have that discussion.

    Propertarians are the adults in the room on the Right. And we’re figuring out how to deal with/work with the other “packs”.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 11:37:00 UTC

  • I think the price sounds about right. Manufacturer markup generally must be some

    I think the price sounds about right. Manufacturer markup generally must be something like 100% in order to cover all costs of borrowing, manufacturing, inventory, administering, marketing, sales, distribution, and sufficient profit to adjust to shocks. (think: Patent not price)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 15:25:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246821165273960449

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246817655253880834