Between banks and the government, I’m thinking a safe under concrete in the basement, or even stuffing the mattress might be making a comeback.
My father bought a company in the early 60s and it came with this massive turn of the century floor safe. Used it. Nice piece of…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-29 00:34:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640875054190800896
MAX WITH HIS USUAL CLARITY ON HOUSING PRICES
Housing Market COLLAPSE Worse Than 2008? https://youtu.be/8HMZm-uyHUQ
Follow @StoicFinance on YT
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 08:08:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640264452682526720
That tells us nothing.
I’m just more knowledgeable than anyone else who will ever respond to you, here or elsewhere.
We know why markets, money, prices, property rights, and courts are necessary: because they are the only defense against corruption both private and public.
We know why y’all want communism. Becuase you think it will change your low status, because status is the reason for human behavioral envy and competition. And because it determines reproducdtive selection.
But inequality is the product of genetics and genetics the product of re reproductive selection, and selection the result of status seeking, and progress in due to status seeking, and the result is the unequal utility we have in the service of one another. It’s inescapable. Forever. Period.
Reply addressees: @Z3r0An0n
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 03:58:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640201567000227841
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640198249171783682
That tells us nothing.
I’m just more knowledgeable than anyone else who will ever respond to you, here or elsewhere.
We know why markets, money, prices, property rights, and courts are necessary: because they are the only defense against corruption both private and public.
We know why y’all want communism. Becuase you think it will change your low status, because status is the reason for human behavioral envy and competition. And because it determines reproducdtive selection.
But inequality is the product of genetics and genetics the product of re reproductive selection, and selection the result of status seeking, and progress in due to status seeking, and the result is the unequal utility we have in the service of one another. It’s inescapable. Forever. Period.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 03:58:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640201567100891139
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640198249171783682
We are able to imagine a world of corruption, decline, poverty and oppression. And that’s what all alternatives to rule of law and market economies result in.
BECAUSE THEY MUST result in such.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 03:38:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640196537115353088
Reply addressees: @Z3r0An0n
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640188390971936769
–“Socialists steal private property; libertarians steal public property.”–William Shockley
Correct. Let’s break it down even further:
(+) Conservatives(Established Male, Meritocratic): Natural Aristocracy: Produce private property because it produces the most commons, and commons reduce costs for all regardless of ability or property.
(=) Libertarians(Young Male, Egalitarian): Middle-class monopoly: Marxists of the commons: either steal from the commons, privatize the commons, socialize losses into the commons, rent-seek on, free ride on, and prevent the production of commons.
(-) Socialists (Female, Equalitarian): Underclass Monopoly: Marxists of private property: either steal, socialize the gains of private property, socialize losses onto private property, rent-seek or privatize on the gains of private property, and prevent the formation of private property.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-26 17:51:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640048842350419970
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639998007352369152
–“Socialists steal private property; libertarians steal public property.”–William Shockley
Correct. Let’s break it down even further:
(+) Conservatives(Established Male, Meritocratic): Natural Aristocracy: Produce private property because it produces the most commons, and commons reduce costs for all regardless of ability or property.
(=) Libertarians(Young Male, Egalitarian): Middle-class monopoly: Marxists of the commons: either steal from the commons, privatize the commons, socialize losses into the commons, rent-seek on, free ride on, and prevent the production of commons.
(-) Socialists (Female, Equalitarian): Underclass Monopoly: Marxists of private property: either steal, socialize the gains of private property, socialize losses onto private property, rent-seek or privatize on the gains of private property, and prevent the formation of private property.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @William68332190 @VelenskiMeir
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-26 17:51:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640048842224680961
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639998007352369152
Bryan,
What would you suggest, if I were to interview @ErikVoorhees, I try to draw attention to? I understand the moral message but then of course, that’s ‘not enough’ to make the case.
As you know I have these concerns:
1) that registry and transfer of title are more important than money substitutes.
2) that trading the spectrum of financial instruments is more important than money substitutes.
3) that originating and holding loans and only selling shares in them is more important than money substitutes.
4) that escrow and clearing are more important than money substitutes.
5) that solving ‘banklessness’ is more important than money substitutes.
6) that modern economies cannot function without fiat currency (and privatization of appreciation isn’t earned income.)
7) that States can (and likely will) create digital fiat and will suppress non-state money substitutes.
8) that most states will issue short term exchange for existing digital for fiat digital, before gradually suppressing them.
9) So my question is, are we really so much worried about money substitutes, or even if we only solve the above problems isn’t that enough?
10) Maybe, why not just call digital what it is? Shares in the network (token money), and treat it like any other tradable financial medium, as a way of insulating one’s wealth from inflation et al?
Thanks 😉
Reply addressees: @bryanbrey
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-21 21:07:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638286347038257153
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638278376795394050
CORRECT ANSWER
1) Rigidity of all roles is an innovation necessary under the scale produced by agrarianism. Property, Sex Roles, Marriage, Monogamy, Classes, Specialists, all were caused by the conversation of man under agrarianism from a parasite on the ecologies into a producer of economies. In the case of sex roles, given the utility of intergenerational labor to the family, the general disgust at sexual deviancy increased for practical reasons: dead weight first, and second, preying on children, and third, baiting into hazard. Today we are seeing the reemergence of baiting into hazard (“Grooming”), because of the end of intergenerational economic dependence within families, and an organized effort of dysfunctional to increase legitimacy by increasing their numbers. In other words, the present restoration of self-satisfaction over ‘duty to family clan and commons’ is a deterministic ‘problem’, and how we solve it over time relatively obvious: it’ll eventually be suppressed again.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 12:37:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637795504179257344
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637696710632939520
CORRECT ANSWER
1) Rigidity of all roles is an innovation necessary under the scale produced by agrarianism. Property, Sex Roles, Marriage, Monogamy, Classes, Specialists, all were caused by the conversation of man under agrarianism from a parasite on the ecologies into a producer of economies. In the case of sex roles, given the utility of intergenerational labor to the family, the general disgust at sexual deviancy increased for practical reasons: dead weight first, and second, preying on children, and third, baiting into hazard. Today we are seeing the reemergence of baiting into hazard (“Grooming”), because of the end of intergenerational economic dependence within families, and an organized effort of dysfunctional to increase legitimacy by increasing their numbers. In other words, the present restoration of self-satisfaction over ‘duty to family clan and commons’ is a deterministic ‘problem’, and how we solve it over time relatively obvious: it’ll eventually be suppressed again.
Reply addressees: @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 12:37:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637795504045080576
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637696710632939520