Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • We have women and minorities consuming genetic capital, and the use of fiat mone

    We have women and minorities consuming genetic capital, and the use of fiat money and financialization to consume physical capital, and democracy consuming normative capital.

    Of course we feel good. We feel good on morphine, heroine, and many other drugs too. But we burn cellular capital using them also.

    We feel good when we plunder anything – natural, man made, intellectual, or cellular. Because we’re wired to acquire and consume. Because we evolved under scarcity.

    But we evolved out of scarcity by the simple act of accumulating capital. And we accumulated capital by producing more than we consumed.

    The music played by the hamster wheel always slows and stops eventually, and there are not enough chairs to sit on.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 03:40:00 UTC

  • TOO SMALL A PRODUCT LINE for the culture to persist

    TOO SMALL A PRODUCT LINE for the culture to persist.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 16:05:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737314032152150016

    Reply addressees: @drkent

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737313381988896769

    IN REPLY TO:

    @drkent

    Apple Shifts From Genius Bars to Genius Groves, Hoping Patrons Linger https://t.co/STunhLBdjO https://t.co/YOpPjXLNg2

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737313381988896769

  • Future of Work in a Bottle. 🙂

    https://shar.es/1dy4CCThe Future of Work in a Bottle. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 07:53:00 UTC

  • Unfortunately, every individual under 80 is more of a burden than every individu

    Unfortunately, every individual under 80 is more of a burden than every individual over 115 is an asset.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 07:01:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735727456112386049

    Reply addressees: @themightypuck @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735724202683027457

    IN REPLY TO:

    @themightypuck

    @curtdoolittle @charlesmurray Is this Gregory Clark’s argument?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735724202683027457

  • Mobility contributed to the destruction of family and kin. Move capital to peopl

    Mobility contributed to the destruction of family and kin. Move capital to people, not people to capital. Happening in tech.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:29:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735719564827197445

    Reply addressees: @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734070533776642050

    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlesmurray

    Pick up and move to where the opportunities are. A great American tradition. Dying. https://t.co/FFY71ZM8Mo

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734070533776642050

  • What’s Wrong With Contemporary Capitalism?

    WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRODUCTION), WE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING BAD. (From elsewhere)

    Competition is necessary for INVENTION, including the inventions in productivity that reduce prices – and competition is necessary to eliminate rent seeking (parasitism). Property, Contract, Money, Prices, Profit, are necessary for people to possess the information necessary to determine how to fulfill their self interest, while acting in the service of others. The problem with capitalism is that large numbers of the population are not able to provide others with any value in exchange for production other than NOT DOING bad things. In other words, an increasing percentage of the populace is unnecessary to production of good and services. But as long as they don’t interfere with the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, by undermining property, contract, money, prices, profit, and competition, and as long as they don’t engage in rent seeking, then by their INACTION they are contributing to the construction of the order we call capitalism, that makes an advanced consumer economy possible. The issue then is if a minority of people are paid for production and the majority of people are not paid for production, but we still need them to produce the possibility of capitalist production, then how will we pay them? In the past one gained access to the market by observing manners, ethics, morals and laws. But if one cannot gain access, then how do we compensate him for not doing bad things. Because it is by not doing bad things that the capitalist method of voluntary organization of production is made possible.

  • What’s Wrong With Contemporary Capitalism?

    WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRODUCTION), WE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING BAD. (From elsewhere)

    Competition is necessary for INVENTION, including the inventions in productivity that reduce prices – and competition is necessary to eliminate rent seeking (parasitism). Property, Contract, Money, Prices, Profit, are necessary for people to possess the information necessary to determine how to fulfill their self interest, while acting in the service of others. The problem with capitalism is that large numbers of the population are not able to provide others with any value in exchange for production other than NOT DOING bad things. In other words, an increasing percentage of the populace is unnecessary to production of good and services. But as long as they don’t interfere with the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, by undermining property, contract, money, prices, profit, and competition, and as long as they don’t engage in rent seeking, then by their INACTION they are contributing to the construction of the order we call capitalism, that makes an advanced consumer economy possible. The issue then is if a minority of people are paid for production and the majority of people are not paid for production, but we still need them to produce the possibility of capitalist production, then how will we pay them? In the past one gained access to the market by observing manners, ethics, morals and laws. But if one cannot gain access, then how do we compensate him for not doing bad things. Because it is by not doing bad things that the capitalist method of voluntary organization of production is made possible.

  • Charles Murray ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND First a

    http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/#comment-154183Dear Charles Murray

    ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND

    First a bit of humor: (wink) thank you for further advancing the disparaging narrative against a great norman name. 🙂 What further thought crimes will be done to the sons and daughters of the Norman Radolfo De Dolietta (Doolittle), his descendants, the literate Puritans who escaped the english civil war and founded towns throughout Connecticut – and the many sergeants, captains of generals before and after them. “Dwoo’-little” has been a middle class land-holding name since the Norman conquest. 🙂 And Puritans never needed a reason for production. They were economic eugenicists like all those who advanced Bipartite Manorialism.

    That ancestral defense aside, I’ll offer a counter-argument against the ‘Doolittle Effect’:

    1) If women are more narrowly distributed than men. (they are)

    2) And if women only desire to marry and stay married upward. (they do)

    3) And if no man who is available to many women are desirable by women (they aren’t)

    4) And if women do not economically need a man. (they don’t)

    5) And if men marry and divorce bearing child support rather than trading productivity for a new mate, they will almost universally die lonely and poor – and we should see increasing rates of suicide. (We do)

    6) Then there is no incentive for man or woman to marry – or reproduce. (there isn’t)

    7) And the Universal Basic Income will only exacerbate the existing trend. (True)

    8) Because it will increase the possibility of non-working or black-market subsistence for even more people.

    UBI is extremely risky. If instead, we provided returns on the economy per quarter or per year then the incentives of the population would be to limit immigration of dependents, and limit reproduction of the lower classes, as a means of preventing dilution of their income.

    So for this reason a ‘dependable’ UBI provides a malincentive in every possible way; while a ‘market’ or ‘national dividend on the economy’ produces every possible good incentive that the UBI seeks to provide.

    The Singapore and Corpus Christi models are calculable. The intergenerational promissory models of the socialist era are non logical, fragility-inducing, and behaviorally dangerous.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Keiv, Ukraine

    http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-25 05:11:00 UTC

  • WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRO

    WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM

    WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRODUCTION), WE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING BAD.

    (From elsewhere)

    Competition is necessary for INVENTION, including the inventions in productivity that reduce prices – and competition is necessary to eliminate rent seeking (parasitism).

    Property, Contract, Money, Prices, Profit, are necessary for people to possess the information necessary to determine how to fulfill their self interest, while acting in the service of others.

    The problem with capitalism is that large numbers of the population are not able to provide others with any value in exchange for production other than NOT DOING bad things. In other words, an increasing percentage of the populace is unnecessary to production of good and services. But as long as they don’t interfere with the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, by undermining property, contract, money, prices, profit, and competition, and as long as they don’t engage in rent seeking, then by their INACTION they are contributing to the construction of the order we call capitalism, that makes an advanced consumer economy possible.

    The issue then is if a minority of people are paid for production and the majority of people are not paid for production, but we still need them to produce the possibility of capitalist production, then how will we pay them?

    In the past one gained access to the market by observing manners, ethics, morals and laws. But if one cannot gain access, then how do we compensate him for not doing bad things. Because it is by not doing bad things that the capitalist method of voluntary organization of production is made possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-25 04:49:00 UTC

  • We are compensated for our organization of production. Almost none of us labor a

    We are compensated for our organization of production. Almost none of us labor any longer in the original sense. (Marxist hangover.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 12:55:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734729525385416704

    Reply addressees: @pmarca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734516865813250048

    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/734516865813250048