Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • MORE EQUAL WORLD : THANK THE ANGLOS FOR CAPITALISM AND FOR DRAGGING HUMANITY OUT

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d79ffff8-cfb7-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz30MSBHmRhA MORE EQUAL WORLD : THANK THE ANGLOS FOR CAPITALISM AND FOR DRAGGING HUMANITY OUT OF IGNORANCE AND POVERTY.

    –“When looking at the actual consumption per head, the report found the new methodology as well as faster growth in poor countries have “greatly reduced” the gap between rich and poor, “suggesting that the world has become more equal”. The world’s rich countries still account for 50 per cent of global GDP while containing only 17 per cent of the world’s population.”–

    Of course, no man is felt a hero to his debtors.

    The only measure of equality is consumption – the rest is investment and taxes. If we look at consumption per capita, rich western countries are far more equal than their ‘egalitarian’ counterparts. Because all that extra ‘wealth’ is merely the means of influencing the voluntary organization of production. It is ‘pressure’ not consumption. It’s not ‘real’ money that can be consumed.

    But getting human beings to understand that it is not consumable without likewise losing the ability to voluntarily organize production, is just beyond their comprehension.

    Rich countries are rich because they voluntarily organize very complex, highly rewarding production with little corruption at low risk.

    One may not think of the US military as an organizer of production. But both the UK Navy and the US postwar military are the defacto-organizers of world production.

    The question remains, that if the west ceases organizing voluntary production by meritocratic means, then what form of involuntary production by unmeritocratic means will prevail.

    History is not terribly comforting in this regard.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 05:47:00 UTC

  • AS ENEMY COMBATANTS: 250 MAJOR FIRMS LEAVE CALIFORNIA SINCE 2011 “[They have] a

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042914-698893-toyota-moves-from-torrance-california-to-dallas-texas.htm#ixzz30LdXIxBEBUSINESS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS: 250 MAJOR FIRMS LEAVE CALIFORNIA SINCE 2011

    “[They have] a regulatory structure in California that treats businesses, especially manufacturers, like enemy combatants. Joseph Vranich, a California-based business relocation adviser, who has long tracked the migration of companies from California, cites more than 250 major firms that left the state since 2011 through last year. Why? “Today,” he said, “California businesses can reduce costs by 20% by moving to many states and up to 45% in some areas.” One big cost factor: California’s green-energy mandates are driving up electric utility costs to near the highest in the nation.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 02:24:00 UTC

  • The Difference Between Productive Cooperation and Non-Productive Interaction

    PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • The Difference Between Productive Cooperation and Non-Productive Interaction

    PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • SPINOZA: PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD HAVE A TRADE I’m not a big fan of Spinoza’s ideas,

    SPINOZA: PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD HAVE A TRADE

    I’m not a big fan of Spinoza’s ideas, but am very much a fan both his writing style and his work ethic.

    Spinoza earned his living as a lens-grinder. He wrote his extremely parsimonious book, taking most of his life, from a musty apartment. It’s what, 200 pages long? A brutally concise work of numbered and ordered sentences.

    The first statement that struck me was ‘endeavor to speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people’. I’ve always viewed this as my curse. Which is why I work so hard at it. Because I’m aware of my frame of reference, and my near absence of conceptual empathy.

    The other influential thing that he said, can be roughly translated as “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue”. A sentiment I agree with. And have tried to imitate.

    I’ve always tried to earn enough money that I could research and write either part time or full time.

    I don’t like the idea of philosophers trying to earn money from their work. I don’t trust it at all. I can barely respect teaching as a way to pay for writing.

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb reflects this same sentiment when he says: “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.”

    And I practice philosophy the same way. I’m trying to find a solution to the problem of ethics. In particular, the problem of deception in ethics, politics, and economics.

    Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. Use the accumulated wisdom of centuries to solve a problem in the real world.

    Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 07:52:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC NECESSITY OF NERDY WHITE BOYS (Finally some legitimacy. lol)

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/nyt-white-nerds-cant-live-with-em-cant-get-rich-without-emTHE ECONOMIC NECESSITY OF NERDY WHITE BOYS

    (Finally some legitimacy. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-08 12:07:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION AND NON PRODUCTIVE INTERACTION (ed

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION AND NON PRODUCTIVE INTERACTION

    (edited and reposted)

    PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS

    Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs.

    BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE:

    Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False)

    RESULTS (In Descending Order)

    1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT

    2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN

    3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF

    4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF

    5) (?): both are harmed : FF

    OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION

    The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not.

    An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man.

    Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea.

    EXAMPLE

    A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange.

    Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in.

    This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost.

    Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero.

    CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE

    P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm

    1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE

    2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE

    3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE

    4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE

    5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE

    EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION

    Genetic Distance: |<-Self, Offspring, Kin, Associates, Neutrals, Competitors, Enemies->|

    Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring.

    INSTINCTS

    a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity)

    b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism)

    CONCLUSION

    Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses.

    This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 10:15:00 UTC

  • Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic

    1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.

  • Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic

    1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.

  • I said, almost ten years ago, that if the dollar collapsed that we could no long

    I said, almost ten years ago, that if the dollar collapsed that we could no longer afford our military and that the standard of living of the average american would decline by 40-50% – and stay there.

    End the empire.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-14 11:59:00 UTC