Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • No. The economic foundations of NS were impossible. Iv’e gone through it and so

    No. The economic foundations of NS were impossible. Iv’e gone through it and so have others. Economics was an afterthought.

    If you want to say communism, socialism, social democracy, classical liberalism, and market fascism serve simply as a set of economic orders for the slave class, peasant class, working class, middle class, and aristocratic class, in that order, then I would say that’s correct.

    And that we can determine which political order is necessary for any group given its degree of (under)development. I would argue that this is precisely why we need separate micro states on one hand, or multiple economies on the other hand. As far as I can tell it’s almost impossible to create multiple economies in a single polity. But it is possible to use monarchy and natural law and to create any kind of economic polity. And that appears to be possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:37:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: RESOURCES That which we have acted, or may act, to acquire and inven

    DEFINITION: RESOURCES

    That which we have acted, or may act, to acquire and inventory for the purpose of current and future transformation or consumption – from territory and all its natural assets, to perishable capital, to portable capital, to built capital, to institutional capital, to normative capital, to informational capital, to genetic capital.

    “That which we can use to transform state for our benefit.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 09:41:00 UTC

  • “Is criticism of economic velocity a sentiment against pure capitalism?”—Ayela

    —“Is criticism of economic velocity a sentiment against pure capitalism?”—Ayelam Valentine Agaliba

    It’s that velocity is not a sufficient measure. At some point you’re either increasing risk(insufficient reserves) or decreasing accumulated capital(consuming reserves), or maximizing rents(creating fragility) such that it is not possible to (a) adapt to shocks, (b) adapt to change, because there is insufficient free capital or available debt to adjust the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade, consisting in patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, and you achieve in organizational continuity, the same effect as deflation in economic continuity.

    Collapses aren’t rare and usually occur in one generation or less. But they always occur for the same reasons: accumulated fragility.

    All the drastic collapses occur from overextension, economic colonization, export of technology, reproductive decrease, and primitive (empowered underclass) migrations willing to pay higher costs to obtain than advanced societies are willing to pay to maintain. (china the durable exception that even egypt didn’t survive.)

    Now, in our current condition this fragility is 3 hours of power, 2 days of water, 7 days of food, 14 days of gasoline, and about 30-60 days of ‘chaos’. (Which I’m sure enough people in govt know. I know members of the boards of power companies who are all too clear about it.)

    So i view pure capitalism as full accounting of all changes in state of all capital, not what it is now, ‘just run at high rpm’s until everything breaks’. SO it’s not a criticism of capitalism but a criticism of keynesianism (measurement of velocity without measurement of capital.)

    AFAIK: all economic collapse is a failure of measurement.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 10:03:00 UTC

  • REDMOND/BELLEVUE: YOU ARE THE NEXT ROCHESTER You know, I said all this would hap

    https://www.yahoo.com/tech/microsoft-cuts-3-000-jobs-focus-cloud-171151815.htmlDEAR REDMOND/BELLEVUE: YOU ARE THE NEXT ROCHESTER

    You know, I said all this would happen. I said they couldn’t course correct. I said WHY they couldnt’ course correct. And I was right that Ballmer was the reason it wouldn’t be able to course correct. There is no replacement generation.

    They cannot buy a way into competency. Microsoft management culture and organizational cultures is Toxic.

    Not gonna happen. It won’t be a decline like Kodak, but it will be a decline like Xerox. And for the greater seattle area it will make the Boeing debacle in the 70’s look like a bad hair day.

    You become your parents if you aren’t careful. (IBM)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 16:44:00 UTC

  • by Taimur Akbar Interest is used for economic calculation in commercial loans in

    by Taimur Akbar

    Interest is used for economic calculation in commercial loans in that that money is going towards expanding the productive capacity of the market, and it is a matter of reciprocity for the borrowers in commercial loans to give “dividends” to the lenders in the form of interest, as well as to signal to the market the profitability and risk inherent in said investments, allowing for credit to shift the interest rates towards equilibrium in calculation of risk/reward, leading to sustainable credit markets and production lines.

    Then, with consumer loans, all that is happening is that the family wants to use their future income to make purchases now, and it is a matter of consumption vs a matter of investment, so the financial sector engages in a conflation between constructive and consumptive lending, when consumption and investment should not be treated the same as they serve different functions. The treatment of consumption and investment as one then allows predation if one accepts the act of extension of a loan as the key ingredient rather than the purpose of the loan.

    So one should regard the purpose of the end funds rather than the extension of the funds as the operation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 14:51:00 UTC

  • 3) The challenge for liberty is scale since production multiplicative competitiv

    3) The challenge for liberty is scale since production multiplicative competitive commons is the penultimate competitive advantage.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:08:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882904149205147648

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    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/882819237009649664

  • Poverty and the brain. Hard to judge cause. stress effects yes. but poverty is t

    Poverty and the brain.

    Hard to judge cause. stress effects yes. but poverty is the norm and the question is why are so many people not poor? Intelligence .7, and industriousness .4+ and conscientiousness .4. Prosperity in modernity requires a combination of personality traits of which intelligence is but one. And if any of those traits is inadequate the person cannot succeed in a market economy requiring the service of the needs of others FIRST in order to serve the needs of themselves SECOND. Worse, the cost of educating people at each std deviation of intelligence is dramatically higher, and if accompanied by shortages of necessary personality traits, then it only increases. If we then account for different rates of maturity based on the geography of ethnic origin necessary to fight infant mortality, we run into extremely high costs per individual with extremely low returns, and increasing chances of failure. The uncomfortable truth that we have learned over the past twenty years, is that the prosperity of any people is largely due, not to its smartest, but to the decrease in the population of the underclasses and the extraordinary burden they place on societies. The bottom is a drag on the rest so severe that most gorps of people in non-hostile climates cannot escape it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 15:28:00 UTC

  • INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF ABILITY AND BIAS (NOT LABOR) We should try to kill off

    INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF ABILITY AND BIAS (NOT LABOR)

    We should try to kill off the term ‘division of labor’. Principally because it implies the labor theory of value and relative equality of individuals in laboring.

    The problem is, labor – meaning transformation of physical state – is of little value (and we are of little difference to one another), where as the organizing people into networks of production, distribution, trade, using incentives, where those incentives require the application of credit, money, and reward, is extremely difficult – and we differ in our ability to form networks of trust to do that, dramatically.

    So I use the series: the intertemporal division of perception, ability, bias, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy. Which is quite wordy. But the short version might be reducible to “the intertemporal division of bias and ability”.

    This is one of those memory devices that might take me six months or six hours. I have no idea.

    But the intertemporal division of ability and bias, draws our attention to our marginal differences, where the division of labor draws attention to our marginal indifferences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 10:12:00 UTC

  • PENDER STRIKES INTERGENERATIONAL GOLD —“Would it be good policy, to provide fo

    PENDER STRIKES INTERGENERATIONAL GOLD

    —“Would it be good policy, to provide for parental retirement savings account accessible only after 70, to garnish 2% of the income of only one’s *own* children after they turn 22? This would align the incentives of parents with their kids to keep them debt-free in their youth, with the lowest cost of living with the highest income… and probably encourage looking into alternatives to $$$ college that increasingly has low ROI other than STEM majors.”—Steve Pender

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 09:09:00 UTC

  • NO IT’S NOT SOCIALISM IT”S BANKING AND INVESTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE –“What if

    NO IT’S NOT SOCIALISM IT”S BANKING AND INVESTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE

    –“What if I told you that any government ownership of industry is socialism?’— (a well meaning fool)

    That is not true. Any government ownership is separate from government management. Any management at cost (loss), at non-profit, and for profit determines returns for shareholders. The empirical evidence is that government investment in research and development, and in serving as financier and insurer of last resort has be disproportionately beneficial for peoples. We might argue instead that it is *necessary*. The only question is whether the government forces a monopoly or partial monopoly in favor of such an industry, and whether the management operates at a loss, at non-profit, or for profit. And whether those profits are distributed to employees, managers, or owners (citizens). In fact, we should, as citizens, ask why the majority of investment returns are not returned to the commons (government) for use by the citizenry when government (citizens) provide funding and insurance of last resort. In other words, the financial sector as it is structured today other than as early stage investors, appears to be parasitic upon those institutions (industries) for which the government serves as both financier and insurer of last resort.

    The question is whether government manages (bad) or not. Not whether government invests or not.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:59:00 UTC