Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • OUR ONLY ASSET IS TIME. POVERTY DIDN’T EVOLVE. WEALTH DID. Poverty didn’t evolve

    OUR ONLY ASSET IS TIME. POVERTY DIDN’T EVOLVE. WEALTH DID.

    Poverty didn’t evolve, wealth and money evolved.

    Poverty is merely a relative assessment of one’s ability to consume.

    Hence why indigenous peoples commit suicide in droves once aware of their relative condition.

    That relative condition is poverty.

    However, it can only be known to be poverty once one is aware of a relative condition.

    Prosperity (wealth) evolved from the division of labor.

    Money of some kind (commodities) is necessary to remove frictions to the coincidence of wants in a division of labor.

    Prices are necessary to allow planning, complex production of multi-part products and services, credit, and debt.

    Non-Commodity Money is necessary to reduce frictions to the coincidence of wants, that limits the expansion of trade.

    ****Our only asset is time. We are not wealthier than cavemen. We have simply made all goods, services, and information cheaper, through the division of knowledge and labor using the information system we call money and prices. This is the most important lesson of economics. All understanding of wealth exists in this one paragraph.****

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 09:31:00 UTC

  • Money Functions As A Store Of Time

    1 – The only commodity we are born with is time. if we were not short of time, then we would need nothing. we have needs and wants because we lack the time to obtain them ourselves. 2 – Through cooperation in a division of labor we save time. A division of labor is so disproportionately productie that no other human ability can compensate for it. The problem is, people need a coincidence of wants in order to cooperate. 3 – Although we only know we have saved time if others will trade something with us for it. Until then we have spent and possibly wasted time. 4 – When people voluntarily trade, they only do so if they have more after doing so than they did before. People do not trade at a loss because it only encourages those who parasitically deprive others. 5 – Ergo, all value is created during exchange, at which time, time is saved. 6 – And All value consists of saved time. 7 – All goods obtained in trade therefore save time, and demonstrate a creation of value or they would not have been traded. 8 – Any goods obtained by trade therefore serve as a store of value (no matter how small). 9 – Money (commodity money) not only stores value but is in universal demand for the simple reason that it is in universal demand. 10 – Money reduces the cost of opportunities because it is both light, divisible, commensurable, and because of the formation of prices ‘production is calculable’, and as a consequence ‘plannable’. And risks can be taken to produce for the market. The reason ‘You’ err, is that you do not grasp that until you have traded for something you do not know if you have wasted time and the world’s resources or not. We are not family. We are not kin. We are not friends. There is no common good other than the reciprocal benefit of cooperation on a coincidence of wants. The first question of philosophy is and always will be ‘why do I not commit suicide?’ The first question of ethics is and always will be, ‘Why do I not kill you and take your things?” The first question of politics is ‘Why do I and mine not kill, enslave, or enserf, you and yours and take your things?” This explains all that there is to explain. Only the infantile, with minds of children, assume that the conditions of the family extend to the conditions of the polity, civilization and mankind. And that is the problem. Children believe fairy tales.

  • Money Functions As A Store Of Time

    1 – The only commodity we are born with is time. if we were not short of time, then we would need nothing. we have needs and wants because we lack the time to obtain them ourselves. 2 – Through cooperation in a division of labor we save time. A division of labor is so disproportionately productie that no other human ability can compensate for it. The problem is, people need a coincidence of wants in order to cooperate. 3 – Although we only know we have saved time if others will trade something with us for it. Until then we have spent and possibly wasted time. 4 – When people voluntarily trade, they only do so if they have more after doing so than they did before. People do not trade at a loss because it only encourages those who parasitically deprive others. 5 – Ergo, all value is created during exchange, at which time, time is saved. 6 – And All value consists of saved time. 7 – All goods obtained in trade therefore save time, and demonstrate a creation of value or they would not have been traded. 8 – Any goods obtained by trade therefore serve as a store of value (no matter how small). 9 – Money (commodity money) not only stores value but is in universal demand for the simple reason that it is in universal demand. 10 – Money reduces the cost of opportunities because it is both light, divisible, commensurable, and because of the formation of prices ‘production is calculable’, and as a consequence ‘plannable’. And risks can be taken to produce for the market. The reason ‘You’ err, is that you do not grasp that until you have traded for something you do not know if you have wasted time and the world’s resources or not. We are not family. We are not kin. We are not friends. There is no common good other than the reciprocal benefit of cooperation on a coincidence of wants. The first question of philosophy is and always will be ‘why do I not commit suicide?’ The first question of ethics is and always will be, ‘Why do I not kill you and take your things?” The first question of politics is ‘Why do I and mine not kill, enslave, or enserf, you and yours and take your things?” This explains all that there is to explain. Only the infantile, with minds of children, assume that the conditions of the family extend to the conditions of the polity, civilization and mankind. And that is the problem. Children believe fairy tales.

  • MONEY FUNCTIONS AS A STORE OF TIME 1 – The only commodity we are born with is ti

    MONEY FUNCTIONS AS A STORE OF TIME

    1 – The only commodity we are born with is time. if we were not short of time, then we would need nothing. we have needs and wants because we lack the time to obtain them ourselves.

    2 – Through cooperation in a division of labor we save time. A division of labor is so disproportionately productie that no other human ability can compensate for it. The problem is, people need a coincidence of wants in order to cooperate.

    3 – Although we only know we have saved time if others will trade something with us for it. Until then we have spent and possibly wasted time.

    4 – When people voluntarily trade, they only do so if they have more after doing so than they did before. People do not trade at a loss because it only encourages those who parasitically deprive others.

    5 – Ergo, all value is created during exchange, at which time, time is saved.

    6 – And All value consists of saved time.

    7 – All goods obtained in trade therefore save time, and demonstrate a creation of value or they would not have been traded.

    8 – Any goods obtained by trade therefore serve as a store of value (no matter how small).

    9 – Money (commodity money) not only stores value but is in universal demand for the simple reason that it is in universal demand.

    10 – Money reduces the cost of opportunities because it is both light, divisible, commensurable, and because of the formation of prices ‘production is calculable’, and as a consequence ‘plannable’. And risks can be taken to produce for the market.

    The reason ‘You’ err, is that you do not grasp that until you have traded for something you do not know if you have wasted time and the world’s resources or not.

    We are not family. We are not kin. We are not friends. There is no common good other than the reciprocal benefit of cooperation on a coincidence of wants.

    The first question of philosophy is and always will be ‘why do I not commit suicide?’ The first question of ethics is and always will be, ‘Why do I not kill you and take your things?” The first question of politics is ‘Why do I and mine not kill, enslave, or enserf, you and yours and take your things?”

    This explains all that there is to explain.

    Only the infantile, with minds of children, assume that the conditions of the family extend to the conditions of the polity, civilization and mankind.

    And that is the problem. Children believe fairy tales.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-12 16:37:00 UTC

  • THE REASON FOR “PROGRESSIVE” CLASS INCREASES The lifting of the laboring and und

    THE REASON FOR “PROGRESSIVE” CLASS INCREASES The lifting of the laboring and underclasses from subsistence to consumption was made possible by the increases in relative productivity. In other words, we are simply wealthy enough that we can afford (for a time) to reverse four thousand years of the domestication of human groups, by the rapid expansion of th eunderclasses and their movement from rural agrarian marginal self-sustenance to Nothing occurred because of feminine (left’s) good intentions, but instead the left caused the consumption of increases in productivity as increases in population rather than the traditional western means of increasing the commons. People were not oppressed. They were domesticated, generation by generation like every other animal through harsh winters, manorialism (most important) and aggressive hanging of up to one percent of the population every year. The industrial revolution reversed the trend, and we have already lost one standard deviation in median intelligence in the much of the west through dysgenia. Cities are exacerbating the issue since they are IQ and ovary graveyards. This is just the data. It is what it is.

  • THE REASON FOR “PROGRESSIVE” CLASS INCREASES The lifting of the laboring and und

    THE REASON FOR “PROGRESSIVE” CLASS INCREASES The lifting of the laboring and underclasses from subsistence to consumption was made possible by the increases in relative productivity. In other words, we are simply wealthy enough that we can afford (for a time) to reverse four thousand years of the domestication of human groups, by the rapid expansion of th eunderclasses and their movement from rural agrarian marginal self-sustenance to Nothing occurred because of feminine (left’s) good intentions, but instead the left caused the consumption of increases in productivity as increases in population rather than the traditional western means of increasing the commons. People were not oppressed. They were domesticated, generation by generation like every other animal through harsh winters, manorialism (most important) and aggressive hanging of up to one percent of the population every year. The industrial revolution reversed the trend, and we have already lost one standard deviation in median intelligence in the much of the west through dysgenia. Cities are exacerbating the issue since they are IQ and ovary graveyards. This is just the data. It is what it is.

  • THE REASON FOR “PROGRESSIVE” CLASS INCREASES The lifting of the laboring and und

    THE REASON FOR “PROGRESSIVE” CLASS INCREASES

    The lifting of the laboring and underclasses from subsistence to consumption was made possible by the increases in relative productivity.

    In other words, we are simply wealthy enough that we can afford (for a time) to reverse four thousand years of the domestication of human groups, by the rapid expansion of th eunderclasses and their movement from rural agrarian marginal self-sustenance to

    Nothing occurred because of feminine (left’s) good intentions, but instead the left caused the consumption of increases in productivity as increases in population rather than the traditional western means of increasing the commons.

    People were not oppressed. They were domesticated, generation by generation like every other animal through harsh winters, manorialism (most important) and aggressive hanging of up to one percent of the population every year.

    The industrial revolution reversed the trend, and we have already lost one standard deviation in median intelligence in the much of the west through dysgenia.

    Cities are exacerbating the issue since they are IQ and ovary graveyards.

    This is just the data.

    It is what it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-10 18:22:00 UTC

  • In Theory, How Do Innovative New Companies Get Created In A Textbook Socialist Economy?

    You know, I have been working on debunking the pseudoscience in economics – whether under the pretenses of socialist, social democratic, classical liberal, or libertarian dogmas for a couple of decades now. And I have a very hard time grasping how anyone can be literate enough in the subject to ask such a question, and still suggest that socialism is possible ever under any conditions whatsoever.

    I know why people intuit that such a thing is possible (it isn’t), at least it isn’t for more than a few decades, any more than uninsured (unregulated) markets are possible (they aren’t).

    The better the demographics the higher trust the polity the more effective are markets (rule of law) and the worse the demographics, the lower trust the polity, the more effective is command and control (rule by discretion).

    Socialist economies do not innovate because of incentives. In socialist economies people can enact change through access to command (rule by command), and they cannot innovate privately without fear of capture(theft) of the proceeds of their RISK. So, (and this is true through all of history) people maximize their effort in obtaining rents (parasitism).

    It’s better to think of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Frankfurt School, and Postmodern schools as a kind of pseudoscientific fiction that competes with science fiction and fantasy and the novel to inspire us such that we learn about ourselves by what we wish could be but cannot be.

    https://www.quora.com/In-theory-how-do-innovative-new-companies-get-created-in-a-textbook-socialist-economy

  • Do Rising Us Stock Markets Translate Into A Higher Quality Of Life For More Americans?

    The stock market does not represent the economy. If the stock market DOES represent the economy, then monetary policy is too loose and the stock market will act as the indicator that a correction of that monetary policy is in place – by correcting. So it’s better to treat the stock market as a canary in a coal mine that senses extremes.

    Think of the economy as an enormous school of fish, or flock of birds, that has incentives both to stay near one another, to follow others who have found opportunities, and to ‘defect’ (branch off) if they find counter-opportunities.

    Bad monetary policy that is used to inflate employment, by artificial stimulation of demand,

    The primary value of the stock market is providing an alternative store of value given that the government is constantly destroying the value of money through inflation.

    The secondary value of the stock market is that because the financial sector must desperately seek returns in order to prevent the governments’ destruction of value, the money is reinvested in increasingly risky possibilities stimulating innovation and risk taking.

    The third value is that some of these infinitely risky possibilities are what we call ‘startups’ that produce technological innovations that has been the chief contribution of american society to the world economy. And the possibility of going public and ‘winning the economic lottery’ by doing so, provides the lottery effect, that although few people win, many people ‘play’, and this generates economic opportunity.

    Now, I can also list all the bad things. But I’ll leave that for another post.

    How does this affect the average american? Quality of Life? Well, that’s a very … troublesome term. It’s like happiness. We can’t measure it, because it’s dependent upon the individual, not the polity. We can however measure standard of living, which means the resources available to the individuals prior to their mixture of good and bad decisions.

    And the evidence speaks for itself.

    yes.

    There is a reason that americans have the stock market and produce technology. There is a reason that london holds the bond market, and produces financing. There is a reason that germany masters capital production. There is a reason that russia masters military production.

    Those reasons are the differences in risk tolerance and the sensitivity to failure of each of the polities.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-rising-US-stock-markets-translate-into-a-higher-quality-of-life-for-more-Americans

  • In Theory, How Do Innovative New Companies Get Created In A Textbook Socialist Economy?

    You know, I have been working on debunking the pseudoscience in economics – whether under the pretenses of socialist, social democratic, classical liberal, or libertarian dogmas for a couple of decades now. And I have a very hard time grasping how anyone can be literate enough in the subject to ask such a question, and still suggest that socialism is possible ever under any conditions whatsoever.

    I know why people intuit that such a thing is possible (it isn’t), at least it isn’t for more than a few decades, any more than uninsured (unregulated) markets are possible (they aren’t).

    The better the demographics the higher trust the polity the more effective are markets (rule of law) and the worse the demographics, the lower trust the polity, the more effective is command and control (rule by discretion).

    Socialist economies do not innovate because of incentives. In socialist economies people can enact change through access to command (rule by command), and they cannot innovate privately without fear of capture(theft) of the proceeds of their RISK. So, (and this is true through all of history) people maximize their effort in obtaining rents (parasitism).

    It’s better to think of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Frankfurt School, and Postmodern schools as a kind of pseudoscientific fiction that competes with science fiction and fantasy and the novel to inspire us such that we learn about ourselves by what we wish could be but cannot be.

    https://www.quora.com/In-theory-how-do-innovative-new-companies-get-created-in-a-textbook-socialist-economy