It’s econ 101 it’s not econ 560.
If I had the knowledge to restore us steel production or video screens I would do it.
Our market is more valuable than their deprivation of it can tolerate.
Just is.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-28 22:20:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939086471170011298
That’s not the point Peter. The point is that tariffs incentivize domestic production. So a Tariff is the cost of the incentive necessary to repatriate an industry. And it’s rational because any POSSIBLE domestic production that was offshored was a game of labor arbitrage that lowered wages – thus privatizing the public commons: which is of course, theft.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-28 19:56:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939050195570073665
Yes but MA is adaptive because of a diversified economy in high value sectors (thank the universities). So it tends to recover from shocks better than other states. (which it has had plenty of).
I mean,. we all like to pick on MA, but the truth is that fiscally, the government has done a fair job – including it’s 1.4B kept in reserve for these sort of things.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-26 00:09:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1938026708298588614
HERE WE GO….
Accenture is exiting india in favor of AI. Why? India is used for low wage low productivity low value tech services. These are precisely the services that are most easy to replace with AI. This shift comes after the virtual consumption of Avanade (the microsoft tech version of Accenture) by Accenture.
Note: I sold my company’s division specializing in CRM to Avanade/Accenture for the simple reason that the business had grown past our point of comfort. (ie: concentration is not a good thing in consulting.)
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-23 15:51:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937176576074084749
Half true. Correct version: the civil war was fought to prevent the south, as a large scale ‘pre-industrial’ agrarian plantation export economy reliant on slave labor common among overseas empires from dominating the federal government under westward expansion, thus changing the locus of economic and political power from the newly industrial northeast domestic economy and it’s low volume small farms operating by families. The south would have controlled the continent by agriculture instead of the north by industry, only amplifying the slave problem. Ergo it was better to stop the spread of southern power before it was large enough to defeat northern power. Unfortunately, despite the possibility, (a) the north could have and should have paid the south for the repatriation of slaves back to africa (b) especially when slavery was rendered pointless by industrialization within 30 years. In other words it was a foolish loss of millions of people. The civil rights era was equally foolish as the black population made more progress prior to the era than after, and the policies of the era destroyed the black family, caused ‘the slaughter of the cities’ (look it up) and collapsed the emerging black upper middle and upper classes who defected and joined the ‘white’ classes.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-24 02:31:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1926103751405781040
COUNTER ARGUMENT: The ‘olympic medal problem’ with larger, wealthier countries originates with more national opportunities to attract talent, whereas smaller countries have fewer such opportunities. Secondly, opportunities, especially economic, often require scale, and athleticism generally requires fewer inputs and smaller organizations. As such the olympics create higher selection pressure in favor of talent in smaller countries producing the observed ratio of medals to population. So the ratio of opportunity to population is ‘as expected’. And yes we should pay attention to those small countries and credit them accordingly because after all, we are lionizing sport. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-23 15:24:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1925935864544117150
MSFT SAVINGS BY TERMINATION 7000 MIDDLE LEVEL PEOPLE IN RESPONSE TO AI.
–“Let’s see 7000 x $80,000 avg. salary = $560,000,000 That’s quite a bit of money they are saving.”–
That’s a dramatic underestimation, about 1/3 of the real number.
Instead: $144,000 (base) * 180% (Load) = $259,200 per employee.
7000 * $259,200 = 1,814,400,000 or ~ 1.8 Billion USD
Estimate via:
– The average salary for Microsoft employees in the USA varies across sources but generally falls between $115,000 and $220,000 annually, depending on the role, experience, and whether total compensation (including bonuses and stock) is considered.
– The average base salary is $130,000 per year, with an average bonus of $14,000, totaling ~$144,000.
– For most companies, use 130%–150% of base salary as a general rule.
– For Microsoft or similar tech giants, 160%–200% is reasonable, reflecting their investment in talent and infrastructure.
Reply addressees: @Neowick666 @ns123abc
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 02:27:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922478748483649536
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922343803479826935
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/1922343803479826935
–Q:Curt: “Would you agree that de-industrialization (outsourcing manufacturing) creates a sort of a gap between low-skill and high-skill (abstract) work, forcing everyone not interested or capable of the latter to work in the former, reducing their prospects for development and earnings?”–
Well of course. I would also add that the rapid increase in administrative jobs made possible by the advent of desktop computers will have been the equivalent of the postwar increase and collapse of manufacturing.
So while men were rendered unemployed by outsource of manufacturing women are going to be rendered unemployed by outsource of clerical work to AI.
But the real reason (somehow lost in time) is that unions drove manufacturing offshore. And the conservatives advanced it because of the alliance between unions and the democrat (communist) party.
Now, it’s the conservatives who have taken in labor as a means of repatriating industry now that unions are decimated, and the democratic (communist) party is disavowed.
Why? Responsibility. Right = Responsibility, Left = Irresponsibility.
Reply addressees: @slenchy
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-13 18:00:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922351353109872640
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922331666632081458
IN REPLY TO:
@slenchy
@curtdoolittle Would you agree that de-industrialization (outsourcing manufacturing) creates a sort of a gap between low-skill and high-skill (abstract) work, forcing everyone not interested or capable of the latter to work in the former, reducing their prospects for development and earnings?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922331666632081458
–Q: Curt: “Do you have any thoughts about Michael Saylor (MicroStrategy)?”–
It depends on what you’re asking me. I have an informal and a formal answer.
INFORMAL ANSWER
1) While his public persona and speech are inflationary, and his motives one of self interest, I can’t claim he’s other than optimistically honest despite his inflationary speech, rather than intentionally or unintentionally deceptive.
2) If I were to invest BTC I would happily put at least half of my holdings in his organization – not because of his salesmanship per se, but because I don’t believe there is any malfeasance going on, and now that not just the institutional investors but governments are treating BTC as a stable reserve I see nothing but a deterministically optimistic future with periodic withdrawals and advances, and my estimates for BTC price stabilization say that there is a long way to go.
3) In other words, his ‘marketing’ might be inflationary but it is not contradictory to likely predictive future outcomes.
FORMAL ANALYSIS (FROM NLI)
Normie Version
Michael Saylor presents himself as a champion of personal freedom and long-term thinking through Bitcoin. But if we examine his behavior through the lens of operational truth, reciprocity, and institutional responsibility, we get a more accurate picture:
Academic Version
Michael Saylor, is an epistemically inflationary entrepreneur whose rhetoric packages speculative asymmetric gain as moral truth. While he performs reciprocity in market terms, he fails operational tests of decidability and testifiability, and promotes an illusion of systemic sovereignty without institutional warrant. His actions contribute to evolutionary computation by accelerating monetary experimentation, but his discourse remains parasitic upon ambiguity, and fails to satisfy the demands of decidability or reciprocity in moral, legal, or institutional dimensions.
1. What He Says vs What He Does
What he says:
– Bitcoin is “digital energy” and a path to personal sovereignty.
– Fiat money is broken, and Bitcoin is the solution.
– Holding Bitcoin is a moral and strategic imperative.
What he does:
– Uses his company, MicroStrategy, to buy billions in Bitcoin, aligning his personal and corporate interests with the price.
– Gains enormous public influence by mixing investment advice with philosophical claims.
– Benefits financially and reputationally from market hype and belief in his narrative.
– Takeaway: His words and actions mostly align, but he packages investment speculation as a moral crusade—creating belief to serve both public cause and private gain.
2. Does His Argument Hold Up to Scrutiny?
Operational test:
– He uses powerful metaphors, but doesn’t define terms like “digital energy” in any measurable or testable way.
– He offers no rule set, no framework for decision-making, and no way to falsify his claims.
Reciprocity test:
– Market-wise, he’s reciprocal: he buys what others can buy, and takes risks.
– But rhetorically, he’s not: his claims are exaggerated, unaccountable, and can’t be challenged using shared standards.
– Takeaway: His public narrative fails the tests of clarity, accountability, and reciprocity. It motivates people, but doesn’t equip them to judge or decide for themselves.
3. What Role Does He Play in the Big Picture?
– He’s not building institutions or rules—he’s telling a story that encourages people to speculate.
– He speeds up the experiment of monetary decentralization, which can be good—but without offering safety nets, protections, or dispute resolution.
– His influence adds energy to the system, but also risk, volatility, and confusion.
– Takeaway: He’s an accelerant—driving change without building the structure needed to stabilize it.
4. Moral and Civilizational Contribution
– He draws on American values of liberty, property, and rebellion—but without offering the duties, rules, or institutions that make liberty sustainable.
He acts like a cross between a prophet and a salesman: inspiring but not accountable.
– Takeaway: He offers a compelling narrative but not a system. His contribution is to spread belief—not to build trust.
Final Verdict
Michael Saylor is a skilled communicator and bold investor who presents speculation as truth and risk as sovereignty. While his market behavior is reciprocal, his rhetoric is not. He contributes to change but not to order. He inspires belief but does not offer decidable knowledge. He is part of the evolutionary process—but not of its long-term solution.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-09 21:20:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920952106686742550
–Q: Curt: “Do you have any thoughts about Michael Saylor (MicroStrategy)?”–
It depends on what you’re asking me. I have an informal and a formal answer.
INFORMAL ANSWER
1) While his public persona and speech are inflationary, and his motives one of self interest, I can’t claim he’s other than optimistically honest despite his inflationary speech, rather than intentionally or unintentionally deceptive.
2) If I were to invest BTC I would happily put at least half of my holdings in his organization – not because of his salesmanship per se, but because I don’t believe there is any malfeasance going on, and now that not just the institutional investors but governments are treating BTC as a stable reserve I see nothing but a deterministically optimistic future with periodic withdrawals and advances, and my estimates for BTC price stabilization say that there is a long way to go.
3) In other words, his ‘marketing’ might be inflationary but it is not contradictory to likely predictive future outcomes.
FORMAL ANALYSIS (FROM NLI)
Normie Version
Michael Saylor presents himself as a champion of personal freedom and long-term thinking through Bitcoin. But if we examine his behavior through the lens of operational truth, reciprocity, and institutional responsibility, we get a more accurate picture:
Academic Version
Michael Saylor, is an epistemically inflationary entrepreneur whose rhetoric packages speculative asymmetric gain as moral truth. While he performs reciprocity in market terms, he fails operational tests of decidability and testifiability, and promotes an illusion of systemic sovereignty without institutional warrant. His actions contribute to evolutionary computation by accelerating monetary experimentation, but his discourse remains parasitic upon ambiguity, and fails to satisfy the demands of decidability or reciprocity in moral, legal, or institutional dimensions.
1. What He Says vs What He Does
What he says:
– Bitcoin is “digital energy” and a path to personal sovereignty.
– Fiat money is broken, and Bitcoin is the solution.
– Holding Bitcoin is a moral and strategic imperative.
What he does:
– Uses his company, MicroStrategy, to buy billions in Bitcoin, aligning his personal and corporate interests with the price.
– Gains enormous public influence by mixing investment advice with philosophical claims.
– Benefits financially and reputationally from market hype and belief in his narrative.
– Takeaway: His words and actions mostly align, but he packages investment speculation as a moral crusade—creating belief to serve both public cause and private gain.
2. Does His Argument Hold Up to Scrutiny?
Operational test:
– He uses powerful metaphors, but doesn’t define terms like “digital energy” in any measurable or testable way.
– He offers no rule set, no framework for decision-making, and no way to falsify his claims.
Reciprocity test:
– Market-wise, he’s reciprocal: he buys what others can buy, and takes risks.
– But rhetorically, he’s not: his claims are exaggerated, unaccountable, and can’t be challenged using shared standards.
– Takeaway: His public narrative fails the tests of clarity, accountability, and reciprocity. It motivates people, but doesn’t equip them to judge or decide for themselves.
3. What Role Does He Play in the Big Picture?
– He’s not building institutions or rules—he’s telling a story that encourages people to speculate.
– He speeds up the experiment of monetary decentralization, which can be good—but without offering safety nets, protections, or dispute resolution.
– His influence adds energy to the system, but also risk, volatility, and confusion.
– Takeaway: He’s an accelerant—driving change without building the structure needed to stabilize it.
4. Moral and Civilizational Contribution
– He draws on American values of liberty, property, and rebellion—but without offering the duties, rules, or institutions that make liberty sustainable.
He acts like a cross between a prophet and a salesman: inspiring but not accountable.
– Takeaway: He offers a compelling narrative but not a system. His contribution is to spread belief—not to build trust.
Final Verdict
Michael Saylor is a skilled communicator and bold investor who presents speculation as truth and risk as sovereignty. While his market behavior is reciprocal, his rhetoric is not. He contributes to change but not to order. He inspires belief but does not offer decidable knowledge. He is part of the evolutionary process—but not of its long-term solution.
Reply addressees: @partymember55
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-09 21:20:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920952106326110208