Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • (SLAP!) MARXIST…. MUNCH YOUR CRAYONS —“Just go read Das Capital”— Young Fe

    (SLAP!) MARXIST…. MUNCH YOUR CRAYONS

    —“Just go read Das Capital”— Young Female Marxist

    I have read every significant work of economic theory ever written, (as well as most in mathematics, logic, philosophy, history, politics, the military and the arts).

    As far as I know I’m one of the best philosophers working today. Really. And that’s not because I’m all that good, but that philosophy is in such a death spiral.

    1) Marxism is a work of fiction for the ill mannered, not-very-bright and abysmally ignorant which is why they only teach it in non-STEM disciplines where the not-very-bright and ignorant can munch literary crayons while in the context of pseudo intellectual coloring books.

    2) Subjective value is true and labor value is false. This cannot be otherwise. Sorry. There is zero evidence to the contrary.

    3) Value is created by organizing production not performing production. Labor is the least valuable part of the cycle with the lowest return on time per hour.

    4) Property, Money, Prices, Interest, Contract are necessary for the organization of production in a kaleidic universe.

    5) Prices and prices for our time in particular, are necessary for both decidability and for incentives.

    6) The incentives necessary to motivate the semi-domesticated animals and the cost of training them to function whatsoever are far higher than motivating the domesticated humans and the cost of training them is far lower than their underclass peers.

    7) People were raised out of ignorance and poverty by consumer capitalism and the primary beneficiaries are those at the bottom.

    8) People (underclasses) are not oppressed, but incrementally domesticated, because they’re largely only partly domesticated animals, and our prosperity is dependent upon increasing the humans and decreasing the semi-domesticated human animals, for the simple reason that people are only 20% more productive than they can consume and therefore every person at the bottom consumes the entire productivity of five to six people at the top.

    9) If you cannot compete in today’s market it is because you are too ill mannered, ill cultured, poorly raised, with an undesirable personality and stupid to provide any value to your fellow man other than staying out of the way and causing as little harm, damage, and parasitism as possible.

    Thanks.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 14:36:00 UTC

  • BTC – Initial Generation Issues

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

  • BTC – Initial Generation Issues

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

  • —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”–

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions. You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity. You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably. You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars. But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking. It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

  • —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”–

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions. You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity. You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably. You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars. But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking. It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

  • “Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just th

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman

    No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions.

    You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity.

    You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably.

    You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars.

    But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking.

    It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 09:35:00 UTC

  • Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 08:36:00 UTC

  • Libertarians Are Wrong. War Is the Best Industry After Rule.

    LIBERTARIANS ARE WRONG. WAR IS THE BEST INDUSTRY AFTER RULE.
    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/03/war-drove-18th-century-industrial-revolution-great-britain/
    WAR, RULE, FINANCE … Everything else is just noise.

  • Libertarians Are Wrong. War Is the Best Industry After Rule.

    LIBERTARIANS ARE WRONG. WAR IS THE BEST INDUSTRY AFTER RULE.
    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/03/war-drove-18th-century-industrial-revolution-great-britain/
    WAR, RULE, FINANCE … Everything else is just noise.

  • More “Life’s Potential Energy (capital)”

    —“Everyone is born with X amount of potential (genetic, cultural, material and technological capital). If they do nothing or pursue a hedonic lifestyle, that potential will be consumed and then one dies. Most people barely sustain it, maybe increase it marginally. Exceptional people increase it exponentially, and that’s why we have pareto distributions of success. The people that take advantage of the most opportunities and put their potential/capital to work gain the most potential/capital in return. Simple.”— @Yannis Kontinopoulo ( h/t: Simon Ström )