“The majority of every population is ballast. Their principle contribution is in doing as little harm as possible while producing enough to pay for themselves. So the principle problem of society is organizing the limit on the ballast’s harms. This is the via-negativa statement of the obvious. And Robots will lay this obviousness bare.”
A paraphrase.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-06 03:51:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1997151854954967257
Failure since 2000 to expand into computation.
Lower capital availability due to distributed markets.
Safety over opportunity.
Certainty over risk.
Legal prior restraint (regulation).
Bureaucratic load.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-27 22:29:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1994171767007359412
College education, outside of STEM, in the age of AI, is just impoverishment, when with industrial repatriation, and basic apprenticeship, income is superior, requires no debt, and allows you to escape the education ‘signal game’ that causes you to use income to purchase signal goods instead of intertemporal goods.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-18 18:00:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1990842574291267897
This is due to the immaturity of the product, and the hype necessary to fund it despite it’s low profitability – until it’s mature.
I’ve been repeating this argument for a couple of months now, but the future of LLMs, is brighter than ever.
Why?
There are at least the remaining issues:
1 – episodic memory,
2 – associative prediction,
3 – abstraction,
4 – solution point wayfinding (real reasoning),
5 – ethics,
6 – and decidability.
We have solved the hardest ones: ethics and decidability. We know how to solve most of the rest of them. The problem isn’t know-how. The problem is the extraordinary costs of those innovations using extant technology rather than neuromorphic hardware.
Our work, that I know of, is the only solution to revenue production sufficient to cover those costs.
Cheers
CD
Runcible
http://
Runcible.com
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-11 01:00:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1988049180317937789
THE FOLLY OF YOUNG PEOPLE’S WANT OF SOCIALISM
Curt Doolittle argues that true socialism—where the government controls production—sounds appealing but is impossible to achieve.He says that if people really mean “social democracy” like in Europe (which focuses on heavy wealth redistribution rather than owning businesses), it only works under specific conditions:
– The population must keep growing through high birth rates.
– The people’s skills and makeup must align with what the modern economy needs to support that growth.
That’s why Europe will have to cut back on these policies, and the US can’t sustain them either—especially for things like retirement and healthcare in the coming years.
He criticizes young people pushing for socialism as ignorant “nitwittery.”
Instead of that, he favors Trump-style reforms:
– Overhaul global strategies to lower costs.
– Strengthen the economy to create more jobs and increase self-sufficiency (autarky).
– Reduce the burden of immigration by only allowing people who meet demographic standards for competitiveness and viability.
– These young advocates are essentially self-destructive, he claims, because they’re assuming the US and Europe can cling to or revive their post-World War II advantages in strategy, demographics, institutions, science, technology, and economics.
But those edges were temporary “windfalls” from historical revolutions (like the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution), which have now spread worldwide and can’t be recaptured.
In short, pushing for more socialism is like “barking up a dying tree”—it’s a failing, outdated idea.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-09 19:01:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1987596462293926309
Socialism sounds good. It can’t happen. Sorry. If you mean social democracy (Europe) which doesn’t mean centralization of production, but aggressive redistribution even if only indrectly, then it only works as long as (a) your rate of reproduction is increasing the population over time, (b) your demographic distribution remains parallel to the scientific and technological demands of the economy necessary to support that reproduction and growth. Hence why europe must cease their redistributive policies, and why the USA cannot maintain it’s redistributive policies, particularly in retirement and healthcare in the coming decades.
So my assessment is that the young ignorant nitwittery that’s harping on socialism instead of Trumpian aggressive restructuring of geostrategy to reduce our costs, the economy to increase our employability and autarky, and decrease our costs of supporting immigration that does’t pass the demographic threshold of competitive viability is trying to commit suicide under the presumption that the pre-and postwar worlds of american and european strategic, demographic, institutional, scientific, technological, and economic advantage are either possible to continue or possible to restore – when those circumstances were windfalls of the enlightenment, scientific, industrial, and technological revolutions that have been dissipated out into the world.
You’re barking up a dying tree.
Curt Doolittle.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-09 18:43:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1987591814363430987
Morgan; Do you look at the budget numbers, vs the demographic distribution of age – and, despite its offense, the heterogeneity of the population what the differences in productivity of those groups?
Moral arguments are satisfactory under conditions the industrial revolution and postwar windfalls. But the world is equilibrating and europens and americans have lost their six hundred years of political, economic, social, scientific and techological advantage.
The postwar prosperity isn’t continuing and can’t continue because we do not have a world that is both backward and growing in popultioon yet capable of participating in advanced production distribution and trade.
The math isn’t complicated.
We can’t live as we did because we don’t have the advantages that we did.
Source date (UTC): 2025-11-06 02:37:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986261716754440386
GOOD OPINIONS:
Cathy Wood on the US economic future.
I hold the same opinion. And yes, Trump’s team is in large part responsible, both for our strength and world weakness.
First Point: the effective rate of corporate taxation if investing in say, repatriating manufacturing, is only 10-12%. That’s the lowest in the world. After tax returns dramatically higher.
The Second: The Dollar will strengthen. As I’ve said, the more chaotic the world whether war, politics, or trade the better the North AMERICAN ISLAND will fare vs the WORLD ISLAND.
The third: If this happens, the dollar will be a better investment than gold.
This is not the first time in my lifetime (think 80s) that this has happened.
Cathy has been betting on revolutionary technological change in multiple fields. IMO capital MUST flee to promising fields. This reallocation of investment should drive growth, pulling us out of our rolling recession and into growth.
IMO the only thing that will diminish the present probability of civil war in the USA and world wars externally, is this tech, investment, economic, shift.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-29 16:37:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1983573899813253274
Adam (
@AdameMedia
)
This is an exellent example of people with little understanding of economic foundations failing to grasp the ‘science’ behind their observations.
1) All Capital is a store of time.
2) All Credit and Debt are a trade of time.
3) All Contracts of credit and debt (promises) are agreements over presumed (theoretical) returns on time.
4) All stock prices constitute anticipated but unrealized returns on time.
5) All modernity is predicated on this speculation of returns on time.
There is nothing illogical, foolish, or nefarious about speculating returns on time. The mistake you are making is confusing temporal asset of currency with the inter temporal asset of shared hypotheses of the potential returns on time
The fact that we use dollars to provide commensurability between two different things is no different from using numbers to compare lengthens or weights or volumes of two different things.
Doing so is s a cognitive crutch for natural limitations of our human brains.
‘AS FOR THE POTENTIAL’
The truth is you and the author of the original post are simply wrong. I know so because we have already solved hallucination and determinism problems, and my organization has solved truth ethics and possibility. That means the only remaining technical problem is episodic memory for indexing and prediction.After that all ai improvements are simply matters of learning recursively – which is something all of us know how to do. And after that it’s a matter of waiting for neuromorphic hardware instead of compression through matrix mathematics – a solution that will collapse the power consumption issue but is still two decades away (estimated).
AS FOR THE INCENTIVE
Given the spectrum of incentives which will be as big a leap as the Industrial Revolution, it is logical to pursue the investment just as it was the space program and the settlement of the west.
There is nothing odd or extreme or irrational here.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-27 16:05:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1982841057554645022
RE: FUTURE ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION
I think that many of us see a change of vast proportions, and that the economic value of the individual is in question when we discuss consumption goods.
Our assertion is that we will need fewer poeple in production distribution and trade, and will be able to shift those people to the production of commons.
Think of the use of people in egypt on one hand, to the soviet experience, to village polity of the middle ages england, to contemporary america on the other.
This forms a spectrum between central organization of production of goods and commons to the distributed production. But the allocation of the population within that spectrum between private and public goods is variable.
So we have two dimensions to play with as humans: the dominant means of organization, and the application of people variable.
So I don’t really see these potential futures as ‘challenges’ I see them as questions of practical necessity.
Our organization recommends all peoples base their polities on natural law, while the means of political decision making and the means of economic organization must be flexible and the polity’s ability to adapt politically and economically a choice built into the political order (constitution).
So the future if it manifests as a decrease in the necessity of people to be allocated to production, then it just means we allocate people to the production of commons.
Right now there is a terrible failure to maintain the commons – whereas much of europe remains an open air museum. And that investment into the commons creates a better environment for all, and a greater common interest for all.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 16:02:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981390854834311577