The voluntary organization of production.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-a-unique-characteristic-of-capitalism-as-an-economic-system
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-a-unique-characteristic-of-capitalism-as-an-economic-system
Theme: Productivity
-
What Is A Unique Characteristic Of Capitalism As An Economic System?
The voluntary organization of production. -
Slavery is a terrible business model, since consumers are far more profitable. i
Slavery is a terrible business model, since consumers are far more profitable. instead we killed .5M
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 11:14:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619464595758051328
Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619059766950817792
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/619059766950817792
-
Choice Words on Cooperation
—“[C]ooperation in a division of knowledge and labor is a disproportionately rewarding action – so much so, that without it, it’s nearly impossible to survive, and with it, and increasing amounts of it, we prosper. And instead of income being the result of action, it is the result of action to acquire, and the most valuable things one can acquire are opportunity for cooperation, acts of cooperation, and debts of cooperation that can be inventoried for future use. Which is precisely what mankind demonstrates daily by his actions in every walk of life.”—
Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – COOPERATION: CHOICE WORDS FROM MY CURRENT PAPER…
-
Choice Words on Cooperation
—“[C]ooperation in a division of knowledge and labor is a disproportionately rewarding action – so much so, that without it, it’s nearly impossible to survive, and with it, and increasing amounts of it, we prosper. And instead of income being the result of action, it is the result of action to acquire, and the most valuable things one can acquire are opportunity for cooperation, acts of cooperation, and debts of cooperation that can be inventoried for future use. Which is precisely what mankind demonstrates daily by his actions in every walk of life.”—
Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – COOPERATION: CHOICE WORDS FROM MY CURRENT PAPER…
-
COOPERATION: CHOICE WORDS FROM MY CURRENT PAPER (good stuff!) —“Cooperation in
COOPERATION: CHOICE WORDS FROM MY CURRENT PAPER
(good stuff!)
—“Cooperation in a division of knowledge and labor is a disproportionately rewarding action – so much so, that without it, it’s nearly impossible to survive, and with it, and increasing numbers of it, we prosper. And instead of income being the result of action, it is the result of action to acquire, and the most valuable things one can acquire are opportunity for cooperation, acts of cooperation, and debts of cooperation that can be inventoried for future use. Which is precisely what mankind demonstrates daily by his actions in every walk of life.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-08 07:56:00 UTC
-
ECONOMICS OF CONCURRENCY
[C]oncurrency – e.g. multitasking – is hard, we all know that.
In the following post I analyze the economics of concurrency, using the example of a layered conversation with two members, and many concurrent threads occurring in overlapping time intervals.
(If you would think it a fun exercise, write up a comment about another topic of choice in multitasking – besides conversations, that is — and I’ll merge it into a generalized theory. I already have that theory in the back of my head one way or another, and social proof by induction is nice (beware the pun.) )
Handling n+1 threads of conversation with another person concurrently requires:
- excellent working memory, to generate shared implicit context,
- excellent verbal intelligence, to generate shared explicit context for ambiguity mitigation,
- precision in phrasing,
- parsimony in phrasing,
- shared, similar, experiences,
- unshared, differing, experiences,
- similar time preference
Fulfilling these seven requirements, it is possible to handle any amount of conversations at the same time, where the amount must not conflict with:
a) your working memory limitations – most people can maintain five to nine different chunks of data at the same time quite well – to generate implicit shared context, or,
b) the verbosity of speech you can mentally afford to invest in, to generate explicit shared context, or;
c) the precision of speech you can mentally afford to invest in – from fluffy-emotive to precise-systemizing – or;
d) the use of the absolute minimum amount of words necessary to convey your point precisely;and converges on having:
e) experienced, and grown up with, overlapping and similar, as well as differing past life histories, and;
f) overlapping future planning horizons, and;
g) similarity in future time orientation.So you see, handling any amount of ongoing conversations with the same person is a matter of fulfilling those requirements, and not putting oneself under too many restrictions due to acting, and having acted, unconstructively.
Now, the above part was about one quite specific use case. Can you think up more?
Head tips to Bernard Spil for the idea and Curt Doolittle for review.
-
ECONOMICS OF CONCURRENCY
[C]oncurrency – e.g. multitasking – is hard, we all know that.
In the following post I analyze the economics of concurrency, using the example of a layered conversation with two members, and many concurrent threads occurring in overlapping time intervals.
(If you would think it a fun exercise, write up a comment about another topic of choice in multitasking – besides conversations, that is — and I’ll merge it into a generalized theory. I already have that theory in the back of my head one way or another, and social proof by induction is nice (beware the pun.) )
Handling n+1 threads of conversation with another person concurrently requires:
- excellent working memory, to generate shared implicit context,
- excellent verbal intelligence, to generate shared explicit context for ambiguity mitigation,
- precision in phrasing,
- parsimony in phrasing,
- shared, similar, experiences,
- unshared, differing, experiences,
- similar time preference
Fulfilling these seven requirements, it is possible to handle any amount of conversations at the same time, where the amount must not conflict with:
a) your working memory limitations – most people can maintain five to nine different chunks of data at the same time quite well – to generate implicit shared context, or,
b) the verbosity of speech you can mentally afford to invest in, to generate explicit shared context, or;
c) the precision of speech you can mentally afford to invest in – from fluffy-emotive to precise-systemizing – or;
d) the use of the absolute minimum amount of words necessary to convey your point precisely;and converges on having:
e) experienced, and grown up with, overlapping and similar, as well as differing past life histories, and;
f) overlapping future planning horizons, and;
g) similarity in future time orientation.So you see, handling any amount of ongoing conversations with the same person is a matter of fulfilling those requirements, and not putting oneself under too many restrictions due to acting, and having acted, unconstructively.
Now, the above part was about one quite specific use case. Can you think up more?
Head tips to Bernard Spil for the idea and Curt Doolittle for review.
-
GAWKER PROFITS 6M? So, it’s an interesting internet era statistic, that online m
GAWKER PROFITS 6M?
So, it’s an interesting internet era statistic, that online media can have so much presence and influence with so little money. I mean, it’s little more than a small business.
Same for Drudge. Somewhere in the 10-15M range.
Compare this to newspapers and television whose infrastructure and distribution costs are tremendous by comparison.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-04 03:36:00 UTC
-
Inequality is a Good
[I]nequality is a good. In evolves man. Invention is a good. In increases our ability to consume. If we were all equal, we would have nothing to trade. And we would be poor. As are extant people who are in practice equal. To create an economy to sustain man we must create equality constantly. To create humans that evolve man, we must create equality constantly. Equality = stasis = extinction.