Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • SILICON VALLEY IS FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE Why? because economic regionalization

    SILICON VALLEY IS FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE

    Why? because economic regionalization is going to win (it has to). Because the USA is losing its dollar advantage (it has to). Because populism (self-defense) is the natural reaction to both (people have to).

    And all the valley leadership are doing is branding themselves as a political Hollywood v2, which can be regulated and taxed into submission.

    Ask Gates what happens when your government turns against you.

    The USA makes the EU look like mother Theresa when they go after you. Because they aren’t necessarily trying to win a case. They are trying to force you to submit through distracting and sewing uncertainty in your management team, the financial market, your shareholders, your employees, and forcing you to bear enormous opportunity, financial, and brand-sentiment costs.

    Ergo, Thiel is correct.

    Some of us understand how easy it would be for example to make the Hollywood lottery effect even more impossible than it is already. The same is for the tech giants of the day.

    The wild west of the internet is on its way to domestication. The dollar is on its way to domestication. Immigration is on its way to domestication. Overseas revenues are on their way to domestication. and the fact that tech is a distracting bright spot of profitability in an economy with few of them is a privilege that the valley takes for granted.

    Time to get on the bus.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-20 13:50:00 UTC

  • BUT I’M PRETTY CERTAIN THIS ISN’T TRUE (a) inflating away productivity gains (b)

    https://next.ft.com/content/54f0f5c6-4d05-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590aSORRY BUT I’M PRETTY CERTAIN THIS ISN’T TRUE

    (a) inflating away productivity gains

    (b) reducing the two parent rate, and therefore household income

    (c) dramatically increasing the size of the underclass

    (d) purchasing ‘invisibles’ (entertainment/info) is majority of spend

    (e) we have a lot of ‘other things’ that we didn’t in the 70’s

    (f) american postwar advantage was squandered by Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Carter under the false asumpiton of permanent growth and retention of global competitive abiilty.

    If you were alive and working in 65, 75, 85, 95, 05, 15, it’s pretty clear that the Reagan-ization of financialism gave us a huge boost, allowed us to sink global communism, but it was squandered by the citizenry not used to create competitiveness that would compensate for the financialization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-20 09:33:00 UTC

  • And the wealthy need not so much avoid harm as fail to construct commons, rather

    And the wealthy need not so much avoid harm as fail to construct commons, rather than engage in hyperconsumption.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 09:24:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754607758708764672

    Reply addressees: @joaops @lmarado

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754604528754982912

    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/754604528754982912

  • DOES THE FED TARGET INFLATION? OR INDIRECTLY TARGET THE CONSUMPTION OF PRODUCTIV

    DOES THE FED TARGET INFLATION? OR INDIRECTLY TARGET THE CONSUMPTION OF PRODUCTIVITY?

    ***The total rate of inflation does not fully account for the externalities – ie: what happened to productivity? Although the theory that inflation is consuming productivity still seems to be the most likely candidate. That we are inflating away productivity increases, and it is actually the rate at which we inflate away productivity increases that the government is unknowingly targeting, not the rate of inflation seems both possible and probable. If this is true then it’s catastrophic. And at least logically it appears to be true.****

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 07:12:00 UTC

  • Proximity decreases opportunity costs. We can also argue that as a consequence o

    Proximity decreases opportunity costs. We can also argue that as a consequence of reduced opportunity costs we can create opportunities otherwise impossible.

    And as a consequence we compete to discover and homestead those opportunities.

    We make this density possibly by the high cost of forgoing opportunities for imposing costs. Thereby preserving cooperation despite an equal decrease in the opportunity for parasitism. As such we exchange the increased cost of forgoing opportunity for parasitism for the decreased costs of opportunity for homesteading opportunities.

    This concept is missing from the literature.

    We focus too much upon money that provides numerous additional discounts. And we focus too little operationally on the creation of conditions that make trade and money possible.

    This oversight is related to the other errors of the enlightenment

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-15 10:36:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST PROPERTY OF PRODUCTION IS TIME. AND MONEY IS ITS COMMENSURABLE STORE I

    THE FIRST PROPERTY OF PRODUCTION IS TIME. AND MONEY IS ITS COMMENSURABLE STORE

    In the past ten years I have not been able to defeat the theory that money literally stores time ( saved by or spent in production ) and and that our claim that it is a store of value is a mistaken subjective perception given the utility in accounting rather than an objective description of its causality.

    When we cooperate we save time. When we divide labor we save more.

    When we exchange productively we save more.

    We are not wealthier in time than our distant ancestors, we have – depending upon how we wish to describe the phenomenon – made everything cheaper in cost of time while at the same time holding caloric expenditure relatively constant. And thanks to the nineteenth And twentieth centuries, dramatically reduced the cost in cellular damage per moment. Even if we have offset it a bit with chemical preservatives, carbohydrates and sugars.

    So all increases in productivity ( not aggregate productivity, but case specific productivity) reflect time savings. Just as all thefts and frauds its loss.

    Now we could also restate time saved as time created, or time made available rather than time saved.

    But I think doing so enters the domain of mathematical Platonism. No matter what we do, money is only able to influence others by paying them in saved time to prefer spending their time on what we desire of them versus the alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-10 10:18:00 UTC

  • In technology here in Ukraine we have a lot of ‘labor’ but not a lot of ‘profess

    In technology here in Ukraine we have a lot of ‘labor’ but not a lot of ‘professionals’. In America we have even professional ‘labor’. Just as we have nearly every living soul capable of entrepreneurship.

    A professional means a member of the middle class. What does the middle class mean? It means organizing production. What does a professional do? Organize his production and the production of others. And cooperate with peers on using empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to organize voluntarily.

    Still the post-soviet thing everywhere: limited empirical experience, limited theoretical understanding, the need for direct supervision, the inabilty to resolve problems scientifically rather than authoritarively and intuitionistically.

    I have problems with staff here that you only have at the very worst organizations in america – where people are overemployed above their abilities (which is very common in the states). But professionalism often compensates for lack of personal ability.

    What we see here is the opposite, self reliance, or reliance on instruction rather than teamwork.

    It’s one reason why they’re poor.

    When contemporary economists label a middle class they mean “the ability to possess discretionary income”. Well, in the western past, the middle class could possess discretionary income. But that is not what defined the middle class: it was organizing production.

    So while in theory economic, social, genetic, middle class should be synonyms, it’s quite possible to be a member of a genetic middle class, and socially and economically impoverished.

    Conversely, it’s also possible to be a member of an economic middle class but socially and genetically impoverished (most of our artistic classes, and sportsman classes).

    Most of ukraine seems to be populated by genetic middle classes with surprisingly few defects caused by long periods of urbanization. But they are artificially impoverished socially and therefore artificially impoverished economically.

    I love them. But it frustrates me no end.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 07:32:00 UTC

  • (What classifies you as an Aryan may be in your genes, or it may not be, but it

    (What classifies you as an Aryan may be in your genes, or it may not be, but it is reducible to the domestication of Man by productive, eugenic, means, that raise him out of ignorance, disease, and poverty.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 05:58:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-disaster-of-de-industrialization.html

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 16:45:00 UTC

  • THE ORIGINS OF THE LEFT’S EFFEMINATE R-SELECTION BIAS I think what is abhorrent

    THE ORIGINS OF THE LEFT’S EFFEMINATE R-SELECTION BIAS

    I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory.

    This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).

    In their world the cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality.

    They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all.

    They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences.

    Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously.

    It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 04:30:00 UTC