Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE (re other, older, civilizations) You are all making the

    YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE

    (re other, older, civilizations)

    You are all making the same mistake between innovation (which is a function of wealth available for investment) and what one DOES with that innovation. The question remains: why did china stagnate (we know). Why did India stagnate (we know). Why did judaism stagnate (we know), Why did islam stagnate (we know). Why did christianity stagnate (we know). And why did the west recover in the modern world (we know).

    The west isn’t always first. We are however FASTEST.

    From the age of the chariot to the present, that is what separates the west from the rest: we use truth to outmaneuver opposition regardless of threat to the dominance hierarchy – and we can do so because we maintain many small markets that constantly adapt, rather than a large bureaucracy that calcifies.

    There is no comparison to the west, and the only one even close is china. The optimum for western civilization would be either the west builds a great wall against the steppe and desert tribal peoples (primitives), as has china, and stay within our boundaries as has china, or to complete our transformation of the planet, but WITHOUT integrating with the local peoples.

    Our attempt at discount: the best of both worlds, which is the problem in the ancient world and in our modern, is to assume that primitive peoples are able to exist in, or operate, high trust polities with markets that present consistent threats to the dominance hierarchy. As far as I know, only the west is able to do so.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:40:00 UTC

  • CAUSES OF POVERTY 1-The destruction of the family by divorce,common property, no

    CAUSES OF POVERTY

    1-The destruction of the family by divorce,common property, no fault marriage. (divorce makes both poorer permanently)

    2- The rapid expansion of single motherhood. 70black/50hisp/30%wht.

    3-The import of as much as a third of the third world’s underclass. The single most important means of increasing your people’s standard of living is eliminating the underclasses. That’s just all there is to it.

    4-The financialization of the economy and extraction of rents via interest on fiat money.

    5-The outsourcing of labor to avoid un-payable pensions demanded by unions.

    6-The decline in education, particularly grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and history and geography.

    7- The infantilization of three consecutive generations in postmodern classrooms.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 22:15:00 UTC

  • THE VALUE IS ALL IN ORGANIZING, NOT IN LABORING —“This is profound. How about

    THE VALUE IS ALL IN ORGANIZING, NOT IN LABORING

    —“This is profound. How about expanding it and making it into its own post? Who organizes violence? Who organizes reproduction? Etc.”—Ben Smith

    THE ECONOMICS OF TIME

    our only existential commodity is time. It is very scarce. when we divide labor we produce multiples of returns on time that are not achievable by any other means. In this sense we are not wealthier than cave men, we have simply made all things cheaper.

    When we come together in groups we have the choice of flight, cooperation, or conflict. If we cooperate that means at the very least we do not prey upon each other. At best it means that we engage in a division of labor. But most importantly, we reduce opportunity costs – the time necessary to find an opportunity.

    So while our second commons is cooperation, (property), our first commons is opportunities. When we cooperate we do not allow one another to seize opportunities. Instead, we only allow one another to homestead opportunities. This is why competition succeeds: we compete for opportunities created by proximity and property. And we empirically test our hypotheses by our success or failure in seizing those opportunities via the market.

    Now, we hold this set of opportunities (territory) by defending them from others. We defend them from others who would take them without homesteading. We defend them from others who would reallocate that property and those opportunities.

    The military ‘owns’ the territory. All of it. Everyone else is merely a customer. That’s simply an operational fact.

    So the military organizes the territory. Within it, the government organizes the commons. Within the commons the capitalists organized production; the bourgeoise organize production distribution and trade. Within the commons the people organize families. And Labor (important distinction) organizes physical things as needed by transforming them from one state to the next. So nearly all work is using incentives to organize people, while labor organizes that which is not human.

    Now we come together into markets (cities) where opportunity costs are low, but territorial costs are high, and commons are cheap. Others distribute to suburbia and rural areas where opportunity costs are higher, territorial costs are lower, and commons are terribly expensive.

    Some countries intelligently solve this problem (french concentration in cities, and protectionism in the rural areas; or german mandatory family sized apartments in cities) or really poorly (british homes are tiny, dark, expensive, hovels by comparison), new york is moving the way of tokyo, and much of asia is returning to pre-civilized eras where one rents a cubicle for sleeping and lives outside of that area the rest of the day.

    The costs of commons differ by density. If we were to vote on commons then votes should consist of the inverse of population density, since the cost of commons in rural areas is absurd, and this is what accounts for the differences in urban and rural behavior: accurate perception of differences in costs of commons.

    Landlordism (manorialism) has proven an exceptional method for allocating territory to those who are most productive with it, and pushing out those who are unproductive. In America we already have Georgist taxation on land. It hasn’t changed anything. Property rents vary by location but mostly by the built capital upon that location. So it doesn’t make any difference. The russians tried the opposite and it led to shitty life everywhere.

    If you said that the resources are a commons, then yes, that makes sense. If you said that taxes on rental properties are not empirically matched to total service costs I would say that was easy to test and it’s unlikely to be true.

    So unless you can make a fairly strong portfolio case then it’s hard to argue.

    Landlords organize density the way investors organize industry, the way entrepreneurs organize talents, the way managers organize labor.

    All the value is in organizing people. The labor isn’t worth shit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 13:00:00 UTC

  • Since, like the chinese system demonstrated knowledge of the political system is

    Since, like the chinese system demonstrated knowledge of the political system is demonstrably harmful compared to the british requirement for demonstrated SUCCESS in the production of the private and common before one could participate in the political process.

    The political process is relatively meaningless. It is a market for favors within a market for divvying up the spoils of population density.

    So while we originally had a ‘house’ for each class: the monarchy (‘private governor of last resort’), the regional nobility (private ‘governors’ of regional businesses), the house of commons (‘private governors of homes – small businesses’) we now have majority rule by women and the peasantry.

    Where Jefferson’s intention was to widen the net of enfranchisement as widely as possible because nearly everyone participated in the markets (owned property, farmed), but where the lower classes (slave, ‘serf’, employee) who were not successful at responsibility for others, had no influence – today what percentage of people demonstrate responsibility for (a) the business of the home (b) a small or medium business, (c) a large business or region. And what percentage of people are outside of the market where goods and services must perform? (media, schools, academy, state bureaucracies, and employees of most businesses).

    So the question is not *who knows how the government works* (since it’s a trivial question), but *who can produce demonstration of knowledge of how the world works, such that we minimize the damage that slaves, serfs, employees, bureaucrats, and intellectuals, who don’t have any warranty of responsibility cannot do the damage to our civilization*

    It is one thing to say we should not have mob rule. It is another thing to say we should have ‘reported pretense of understanding’, and quite another that has DEMONSTRATED application of understanding.

    In other words, a bureaucracy with ‘reporting’ epistemology is just another self-reinforcing fantasy priesthood (like the postmodern academy) while a DEMONSTRATED epistemology provides a the only scientific method of selecting people for the operation of a government.

    Reasoning is nothing without empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted for tests of one’s reasoning. Reason is just another form of fantasy literature.

    It’s acting with it as a formula that decides the veracity of the literature.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 08:08:00 UTC

  • PERCEIVED RISK AND FEAR OF FAILURE Entrepreneurship in the UK and Germany feels

    PERCEIVED RISK AND FEAR OF FAILURE

    Entrepreneurship in the UK and Germany feels very much like 1000 overzealous virtue-signal conformists are trying to strangle you at all times – as if the damage they do by their virtue signaling and constraints does not somehow cause one thousand times as much damage to the people and the economy as any entrepreneurial error or fraud has any potential of doing.

    And all those poor european morons thing that by preventing someone from taking some small advantage doesn’t stifle all the advantages that are possible save the outliers.

    There is a reason the stock market and research in consumer goods are in the USA, that bond market and banking are in the London, that engineering is in Germany, and that military is in Russia.

    PERCEIVED RISK AND FEAR OF FAILURE

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 11:03:00 UTC

  • THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEAR There is a reason the stock market and research in cons

    THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEAR

    There is a reason the stock market and research in consumer goods are in the USA, that bond market and banking are in the London, that engineering is in Germany, and that military is in Russia.

    PERCEIVED RISK AND FEAR OF FAILURE

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 11:00:00 UTC

  • ‘ INSERT IGNORANT MARXIST / KEYNESIAN DRIVEL HERE ‘—- (the relationship betwee

    —‘ INSERT IGNORANT MARXIST / KEYNESIAN DRIVEL HERE ‘—-

    (the relationship between time, money, interest, and limits)

    Time is the commodity we all manage, savings of time produced by a division of labor, savings or loss tested only by voluntary exchange and mutual gain, and hard money in an agrarian economy, and soft money in a regulated money supply is a means of storing it in least possible volatile form, given that the only means of testing the existing voluntary organization of production in sustainable networks of specialization and trade, is exhausting them, and the resulting corrections.

    The primary problem we face in modernity is the reduced transaction cost of large, regulated, money supplies, and the extension of risk because of the insurance such supplies provide, dampens information distribution, and allows us to overcommit to the existing anticipated demand, and its networks of sustainable specialization and trade, and then corrections are not small and frequent but less frequent and very large. At present major corrections (overcommitments of promises based upon erroneous estimations of demand) are cycling every five to eight years. But we are accumulating overextensions across the economy under marxist, socialist, Keyensian, and postmodern assumptions of ongoing innovation that will provide greater gains than any correction can erase. (this is demonstrably false not only in the present century but throughout all of history).

    Well of course, the problem is that it’s necessary for us to charge interest on production for reasons that are well understood, and only simpletons don’t understand.

    We dont’ need to pay interest on consumer CONSUMPTION since the need for interest is provided by the calculation of production.

    Democratic is always use as a lie, since it means ‘majority rule’ or ‘mob rule’ and nothing else. I think you mean, instead, ‘capacity to repay’.

    And no it is not as simple as double entry book keeping. It is as simple as calculating the losses from a failure to collect interest in the treasury, and treating it as redistribution instead (cost).

    The reason you don’t grasp all of this, which is fairly obvious to me, and might be obvious to economists who practice full accounting (austrians), is that all forms of exhcange and their constituent products, including barter, money, cost, profit, credit, interest, exist to calculate the underlying commodity of TIME.

    But if you fancy marxist pseudoscientific drivel, then it’s unlikely that you have the knowledge necessary to grasp such things.

    We manage time. And it’s time that we use to coerce each other. Money is just a store of accumulated time savings. Credit is borrowing against future time.

    The average idiot still does not grasp that naturall production, agrarian production, and cooperation from agrarian barter were able to sustain small numbers, and that the production of TIME was limited by the rates of production of consumable flora and fauna minus the cost of harvest, and that when we developed a division of labor and then money, we could still calculate our uses of time, such that we were staying ahead of the production of monther nature.

    The central issue with the current era is that hydrocarbons have given us the illusion that we no longer need conduct a full accounting, but this is a ‘spendable inheritance’.

    (.. I will not go deeper. Not worth my time…..)

    MONEY = a store of TIME. Credit = Borrowing of time. we can run out of ‘time’ just as we run out of gold. Although that is probably a simplification that is too difficult for you.

    Hence why I am an advocate of full accounting in economics and all of science.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 09:18:00 UTC

  • Will Future Economies Depend On Socialist Governments, As Technology Makes Human Labour Redundant?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER

    1. socialism means central management of property and production. Socialism is dead. It cannot exist, ever, any more than communism or anarchism can exist – for obivous reasons, that I won’t go into here.
    2. Almost the entire world works on a mixed economy. A mixed economy means that private property, money, and prices are used to provide calculability, planning, and incentives for individuals, yet the proceeds of their unequal productivity are captured, and redistributed.
    3. The means of this redistribution varies from the investment in research, in industry, and infrastructure, to the subsidy of retirement, unemployment, general income, and the provision of health care and justice, military and defense.
    4. the uncomfortable truth is that the lower classes (dumber, more impulsive people, with lower industriousness) are far more costly than people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and industrious can compensate for, so the countries that are the most advanced and have the highest redistribution are those that have eliminated their underclasses through attrition during the middle and late middle and early modern ages. In other words, the best way to increase your wealth and unemployment is to force one or zero children to people who require redistribution.
    5. Moreover: There are limits to energy consumption available on the planet.
    6. Moreover: There are limits to productivity using energy available on the planet.
    7. Moreover: Humans are *extremely* expensive organisms.

    SO:

    THE OPTIMISTIC VERSION:
    We impose worldwide one or zero child policy on those people who cannot engage in fruitful employment and over about four generations raise the median ability of humanity about one standard deviation, eliminating most demand. Meanwhile we impose a law that says that any job that CAN be done by a human without repetitive stress injury, shall be done by a human. And that would solve most of the problems.

    THE STATUS QUO VERSION
    Since that would be untenable for the third world the vast majority of their populations being ‘surplus humans’, and impolitic for the first world, given that the state is empowered by women and the lower classes through voting I expect what will occur is no change, until the existing system of credit collapses (which should occur somewhere in the next generation if not this one.) And we will

    THE SCARY VERSION
    The vast importing of underclasses into the civilized world in order to attempt to compensate for the impossibility of maintaining these levels of redistribution in a world that is no longer economically and institutionally backward, nor pervasively superstitious and illiterate, will reverse 3500 years of reduction of the underclasses, and reduce all but say the japanese and Han chinese to worldwide malthusian poverty, since it is DIFFERENCES that make productivity possible.

    Regardless of what economists like to promote the carrying capacity of the planet looks as if the current standards of living cannot be extended to the full population extant.

    That’s my understanding of the choices.

    https://www.quora.com/Will-future-economies-depend-on-socialist-governments-as-technology-makes-human-labour-redundant

  • Will Future Economies Depend On Socialist Governments, As Technology Makes Human Labour Redundant?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER

    1. socialism means central management of property and production. Socialism is dead. It cannot exist, ever, any more than communism or anarchism can exist – for obivous reasons, that I won’t go into here.
    2. Almost the entire world works on a mixed economy. A mixed economy means that private property, money, and prices are used to provide calculability, planning, and incentives for individuals, yet the proceeds of their unequal productivity are captured, and redistributed.
    3. The means of this redistribution varies from the investment in research, in industry, and infrastructure, to the subsidy of retirement, unemployment, general income, and the provision of health care and justice, military and defense.
    4. the uncomfortable truth is that the lower classes (dumber, more impulsive people, with lower industriousness) are far more costly than people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and industrious can compensate for, so the countries that are the most advanced and have the highest redistribution are those that have eliminated their underclasses through attrition during the middle and late middle and early modern ages. In other words, the best way to increase your wealth and unemployment is to force one or zero children to people who require redistribution.
    5. Moreover: There are limits to energy consumption available on the planet.
    6. Moreover: There are limits to productivity using energy available on the planet.
    7. Moreover: Humans are *extremely* expensive organisms.

    SO:

    THE OPTIMISTIC VERSION:
    We impose worldwide one or zero child policy on those people who cannot engage in fruitful employment and over about four generations raise the median ability of humanity about one standard deviation, eliminating most demand. Meanwhile we impose a law that says that any job that CAN be done by a human without repetitive stress injury, shall be done by a human. And that would solve most of the problems.

    THE STATUS QUO VERSION
    Since that would be untenable for the third world the vast majority of their populations being ‘surplus humans’, and impolitic for the first world, given that the state is empowered by women and the lower classes through voting I expect what will occur is no change, until the existing system of credit collapses (which should occur somewhere in the next generation if not this one.) And we will

    THE SCARY VERSION
    The vast importing of underclasses into the civilized world in order to attempt to compensate for the impossibility of maintaining these levels of redistribution in a world that is no longer economically and institutionally backward, nor pervasively superstitious and illiterate, will reverse 3500 years of reduction of the underclasses, and reduce all but say the japanese and Han chinese to worldwide malthusian poverty, since it is DIFFERENCES that make productivity possible.

    Regardless of what economists like to promote the carrying capacity of the planet looks as if the current standards of living cannot be extended to the full population extant.

    That’s my understanding of the choices.

    https://www.quora.com/Will-future-economies-depend-on-socialist-governments-as-technology-makes-human-labour-redundant

  • The minute you have skin in the game, you become an advocate of meritocracy. The

    The minute you have skin in the game, you become an advocate of meritocracy. The moment you can obtain returns without skin in the game, you become an advocate of equalitarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 13:21:00 UTC