Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • Why Is It That Iranian Americans Make More Than Double Income Per Capita Than Iraqi Americans?

    There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant.

    We were horrified by the Galilean Revolution but we adapted to it anyway. In the west we were horrified by the Darwinian Revolution. But we adapted to it anyway. We were somewhat horrified by the consequences of industrialization but we adapted to it anyway. So some knowledge must be adapted to if we want to prosper.

    Persians divided from common ancestors with Europeans a long time ago, but are the ethnic group closest to West Eurasians (Europeans) – They integrate well, tend toward professional occupations, and demonstrate relatively high trust versus their other levantine neighbors. They have an extraordinary history of intelligence and scholarship despite the destruction to their civilization, language, culture, and demographics by the Arab conquest. So they are ‘compatible’ with American Civilization.

    Persians, like the Ashkenazi, are high performance ethnic group. They will do better in any country no matter where they go. The Indians and Chinese start with very large populations, and their best talent travels the world. They are consistently high performers. The difference is that Persians and Ashkenazi produce asymmetric success despite their small numbers.

    Some groups consist largely of the upper genetic classes, some the middle, and some the lower. Economic, scientific, and artistic performance corresponds directly with the demographic constitution of an ethnic group. So no matter what anyone does, the fact that some ethnic groups consist almost exclusively of the genetic middle and upper classes means that they will always statistically outperform those groups with large underclasses. It’s just math.

    So the differences in performances of ethnic groups is not so much due to genetic differences between groups but the scale of the underclass and the drag that the underclasses put on language, culture, institutions, and knowledge.

    The problem that produces inequality isn’t race, or ethnicity, it’s class. Some groups have vast underclasses, and some have nearly eliminated them.

    The Arab conquest was the most catastrophic event in human history, destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, causing 500M dead, and creating a 1400 year dark age from which only a remote corner of northern europe was able to rescue the world from.

    And the side effect of that civilization was a rapid expansion of the size of the underclass due to the inability to develop a middle class, due to low trust, due to tribalism. Outbreeding with the slaves didn’t help much either. It just made it worse.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-Iranian-Americans-make-more-than-double-income-per-capita-than-Iraqi-Americans

  • Why Is It That Iranian Americans Make More Than Double Income Per Capita Than Iraqi Americans?

    There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant.

    We were horrified by the Galilean Revolution but we adapted to it anyway. In the west we were horrified by the Darwinian Revolution. But we adapted to it anyway. We were somewhat horrified by the consequences of industrialization but we adapted to it anyway. So some knowledge must be adapted to if we want to prosper.

    Persians divided from common ancestors with Europeans a long time ago, but are the ethnic group closest to West Eurasians (Europeans) – They integrate well, tend toward professional occupations, and demonstrate relatively high trust versus their other levantine neighbors. They have an extraordinary history of intelligence and scholarship despite the destruction to their civilization, language, culture, and demographics by the Arab conquest. So they are ‘compatible’ with American Civilization.

    Persians, like the Ashkenazi, are high performance ethnic group. They will do better in any country no matter where they go. The Indians and Chinese start with very large populations, and their best talent travels the world. They are consistently high performers. The difference is that Persians and Ashkenazi produce asymmetric success despite their small numbers.

    Some groups consist largely of the upper genetic classes, some the middle, and some the lower. Economic, scientific, and artistic performance corresponds directly with the demographic constitution of an ethnic group. So no matter what anyone does, the fact that some ethnic groups consist almost exclusively of the genetic middle and upper classes means that they will always statistically outperform those groups with large underclasses. It’s just math.

    So the differences in performances of ethnic groups is not so much due to genetic differences between groups but the scale of the underclass and the drag that the underclasses put on language, culture, institutions, and knowledge.

    The problem that produces inequality isn’t race, or ethnicity, it’s class. Some groups have vast underclasses, and some have nearly eliminated them.

    The Arab conquest was the most catastrophic event in human history, destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, causing 500M dead, and creating a 1400 year dark age from which only a remote corner of northern europe was able to rescue the world from.

    And the side effect of that civilization was a rapid expansion of the size of the underclass due to the inability to develop a middle class, due to low trust, due to tribalism. Outbreeding with the slaves didn’t help much either. It just made it worse.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-Iranian-Americans-make-more-than-double-income-per-capita-than-Iraqi-Americans

  • Violence always and everywhere determines everything. it is just more productive

    Violence always and everywhere determines everything. it is just more productive and less stressful to use violence to suppress negatives (which we do know), rather than use violence to create positives (which we don’t know). So the only question is what end violence is put to

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 14:32:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975379487083958272

    Reply addressees: @capital_matter @JordanPeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377498396659713

    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/975377498396659713

  • (Responding only because some well intentioned fool ‘liked’ your reply) That’s f

    (Responding only because some well intentioned fool ‘liked’ your reply) That’s false. Because all differences in economic productivity are reducible to time. Calculation is possible. The problem is competition that determines price, not the method by which price is calculated.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:31:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975016778156920832

    Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon @FriedrichHayek

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134

    IN REPLY TO:

    @BobMurphyEcon

    @curtdoolittle @FriedrichHayek What are you talking about? Mises talks e.g. about building a railroad connecting two points, and how the planner can’t know which route is most economical.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134

  • the reason marx was wrong was that the principal beneficiaries of consumer capit

    the reason marx was wrong was that the principal beneficiaries of consumer capitalism were consumers (labor). capitalism has been the great leveller of consumption. the only difference between the classes is the purchase of signal goods (really).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 07:59:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974918089811857408

    Reply addressees: @npdrifter @TorontoStar

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974860888317374464

    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/974860888317374464

  • 7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, whe

    7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 00:14:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974801137776783360

    Reply addressees: @FriedrichHayek @BobMurphyEcon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974765006825832449

    IN REPLY TO:

    @FriedrichHayek

    I’m rather shocked at how many fundamental mistakes @BobMurphyEcon makes in this article on Hayek, knowledge, Mises, and calculation. Stunned actually. https://t.co/rn3JZED9pi

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974765006825832449

  • Unfortunately, we must now perform our ‘mansplaining’ for overweight, low testos

    Unfortunately, we must now perform our ‘mansplaining’ for overweight, low testosterone, fatherless, uncompetitive, unproductive, video-game playing, comic-reading, underdeveloped males as well as our wives and daughters. 😉 it’s a dirty job but men have to do it. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 23:56:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974796591457554439

    Reply addressees: @theS0D

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794679190540296

    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/974794679190540296

  • Hayek Vs Mises (Responding To Bob Murphy)

    1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital. 2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible. 3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost. 4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done. 5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence. 6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity. 7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason. Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity. 8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response. You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

  • Hayek Vs Mises (Responding To Bob Murphy)

    1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital. 2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible. 3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost. 4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done. 5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence. 6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity. 7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason. Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity. 8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response. You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

  • HAYEK VS MISES (RESPONDING TO BOB MURPHY) 1- Mises always and everywhere only ad

    HAYEK VS MISES (RESPONDING TO BOB MURPHY)

    1- Mises always and everywhere only addresses commodities (cherry picking) and never addresses the rest of the capital stack which makes commodity trade possible – particularly tacit knowledge capital (all paradigms). Hayek’s Serfdom includes ALL capital.

    2 – Of calculation and incentive, incentive, norms, traditions, and institutions, have been demonstrably superior to calculation in influence. Impositions on calculation are costly, and shocks must be absorbed by the polity, but function is demonstrably possible.

    3 – If we look at the soviets who are our best living example, the problem was not the economics of organizing production of housing (which they were exceptional at), but the fact that the craftsman lost interest in competitive advantage and skills were lost.

    4 – Hayek was among the first to change the category of analysis from the physical to information -which is how all sciences function today. Mises was the first to discover economic operationalism but he understood math and science too poorly to understand what he’d done.

    5 – In all things, Mises was only half right, which is the problem we fall into whenever we cherry pick what we measure. Hayek started with cognition, and worked through economics, and finally understood behavioral capital was created by TORT LAW, and all else was a consequence.

    6 – MI/Rothbardians fight the last battle -one that doesn’t matter, with shoddy arms. The Marxist era of Pseudoscience was over by 1970. We have been fighting Rousseau v2 in Postmodernism: Silencing, Ridicule and Denial, just as we battled Christianity and Islam in antiquity.

    7 – No one tries to advocate socialism. They try to achieve Pareto Maximums, wherein the maximum extraction from the productive can be used to buy the fealty of the non, in order to extract rents, and denial of any science or reason.

    Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity.

    8 – Just as we have discovered in science, all truth is determined by exhaustive attempts at falsification. The same is true in social orders. Exhaustively falsify lying, cheating, theft, and violence by any and all means, and all incentives and institutions develop in response.

    You are rarely wrong. In fact, in the entire discipline you are pretty much the only person rarely wrong.But the fact that you don’t take the argument through the conclusion, simply perpetuates everything that has led anarchism to a dead end. Only Commons Produce Private Property

    Anything important that can be said about economics or law, can only be said about externalities. The only way to restore libertarianism to the discipline of the natural law of reciprocity in the anglo saxon tradition, is to return commons and externalities to the discourse.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 20:55:00 UTC