Curt Doolittle

Theme: Subsidy

  • WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS? —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you hav

    WHY DO WE HATE KEYNESIANS?

    —“All I know is that if you’re on Zerohedge you have to yell about Keynesians.”—

    If you are an investor of any kind, Keyensians (a) deprive you of interest, (b) do random unpredictable policy shifts that you can’t plan for that costs you and our clients all your hard earned money, (c) force you speculate and take risks, just so the government doesn’t destroy your hard earned money. and (d) incrementally drives the economy and the society into higher and higher risks, with large and larger boom and bust cycles, while killing off every safe haven available; and (e) Guarantee that at some point in the near future there will be a global collapse and that all investment for the past century will be wiped out, the dollar and our economy destroyed, and generations will suffer for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 20:29:00 UTC

  • COMMISSIONS ON THE MARKET (TAXES) SERIES Sales, financial transaction, income, i

    COMMISSIONS ON THE MARKET (TAXES) SERIES

    Sales, financial transaction, income, interest, and appreciation (in that series). I eliminate VAT because it’s distortive. And of those commission (taxes) income is the least distortive that I know of.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-21 06:12:00 UTC

  • RULE OR BE RULED Use violence to Rule and possess sovereignty, liberty, freedom,

    RULE OR BE RULED

    Use violence to Rule and possess sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy, or choose not to, and be ruled by those who deprive you of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy.

    Aristocracy: the organized use of violence to produce sovereignty by denying all others any alternative.

    In other words: natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-11 17:27:00 UTC

  • SUMMARY There is no source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and the luxury of s

    SUMMARY

    There is no source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and the luxury of subsidy of the weak, other than a monarchy, martial aristocracy, and militia of the enfranchised. Because there is no method of decidability, no method of insurance, and no process other than violence: threat, punishment, murder, and revolt. And the method of licensing violence and revolt early and often is a constitution of natural law that provides the incentive to prosecute individuals at all levels by anyone with the information to do so – such that no power can ever accumulate sufficiently to deny a group, the militia, the aristocracy, or the monarchy the license to first prosecute by juridical means, then by martial means. This institution is self perpetuating if for no other reason than the universality, the status, and the high cost of obtaining that status and responsibility. Expensive rituals endure. Every man a sheriff. A warrior. A Judge.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 09:06:00 UTC

  • The Conduct of Revolution: A Market for Action

    ( Sketch  ) Men with the Agency to demand Sovereignty for themselves, and liberty, freedom and subsidy for their kin, do not need a leader to direct them – that would be illogical.  They need an achievable goal, organization, communication, strategy, tactics, and communication.  And they need to rally a few handful of men of like minds. It is only logical that a group of men with agency, in pursue of sovereignty, natural law, markets in everything, and the transcendence that results, would conduct a revolution by market rather than means of central leadership. When throwing a revolution against a fragile but powerful state, one needs only to exploit the fragility of the fragile state, and to let fragility do the work for the revolutionaries. No civilization has been more fragile, and no time ever more full of opportunity than the anglo-american empire in the current era.

  • The Conduct of Revolution: A Market for Action

    ( Sketch  ) Men with the Agency to demand Sovereignty for themselves, and liberty, freedom and subsidy for their kin, do not need a leader to direct them – that would be illogical.  They need an achievable goal, organization, communication, strategy, tactics, and communication.  And they need to rally a few handful of men of like minds. It is only logical that a group of men with agency, in pursue of sovereignty, natural law, markets in everything, and the transcendence that results, would conduct a revolution by market rather than means of central leadership. When throwing a revolution against a fragile but powerful state, one needs only to exploit the fragility of the fragile state, and to let fragility do the work for the revolutionaries. No civilization has been more fragile, and no time ever more full of opportunity than the anglo-american empire in the current era.

  • compassion has nothing to do with either possibility or measurement. Instead, it

    compassion has nothing to do with either possibility or measurement. Instead, it’s intellectual laziness, status seeking, and virtue signaling.

    Regarding regulation. Unless you grasp the scale of the cost of compliance vs the returns on that compliance you are again making judgement out of intellectual laziness, and pseudo-morality rather than the science. While it may be one thing to punish the best dog owners whose dogs are fully trained because of those whose dogs require leashes, it is quite another to impose vast costs and the highest taxes on business and industry. While Foreign Affairs has traditionally been fairly conservative, the article you reference cherrypicks the regulatory nightmare of the EU where business is not growing, vs the remainder of the world where growth is continuing, regulation is non existent and corruption is rife.

    Why is it that ignorant people feel their opinions are anything but the fantastic impulses of the uneducated, uninformed, and unskillled implanted in them by critical theory and the ignorance of organizations and politiies at large scales?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 05:26:00 UTC

  • MY POSITION ON THE SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE Dick, (regarding the republican failu

    MY POSITION ON THE SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE

    Dick, (regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare)

    Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)?

    1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only.

    2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it.

    3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently.

    4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure.

    5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.)

    6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing.

    7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country.

    My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have.

    This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 15:05:00 UTC

  • 1/3 of our budget is for social security, medicare, and medicaid. 1/3 of the bud

    1/3 of our budget is for social security, medicare, and medicaid.

    1/3 of the budget goes to the military.

    1/3 of our budget is called ‘discretionary’ and that means ‘everything else’.

    We don’t pay for our military of the budget, we inflate it away through the world’s dependence on the dollar as a reserve currency. (really. I know it’s hard to imagine but it is what it is).

    The majority of the military costs go to wages and retirement. It is actually our largest means of redistribution in the economy, absorbing millions. So much so that in Washington it is sometimes referred to as a middle and lower middle class welfare program.

    While we might want to think we can save money on the military, we can only save it by transferring costs to other Nato countries. Without the military and the demand for the dollar for oil and reserve functions worldwide, americans would lose the marginal difference in consumption. If you understand world oil markets you will understand why Iran and Russia act as they do. If Iran can create a bourse and dominate the region, it can replace the USA as an oil backed reserve currency. This would destroy the US ability to fund the military, and cause somewhere between a 30-50% decrease in the american household’s standard of living. Oil is to the current world as tin and copper were to the bronze age, and silver and copper were to the ancient mediterranean.

    Since the military costs us nothing (really), and we can’t really see social security, medicare, and medicaid decreasing, then the only alterable cost are discretionary costs.

    Since it is the interference in the traditional european (admittedly eugenic) social order, that conservatives and the middle class object to (but the six major immigrant cities that have the high populations depend upon) then it is going to be (sort of has to be) the discretionary spending that declines.

    The general theory is that we can break violently into regions and lose our economic and strategic position in the world, or we can devolve the high-conflict properties of the federal government to the states and regions and maintain our economic advantages.

    That’s the thinking anyway.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 17:18:00 UTC

  • State – Business Alliances

    STATE BUSINESS ALLIANCES Forms of subsidy to companies that engage in international trade produces multipliers. The math has been done. That’s why it continues. In fact, throughout history, the state-biz partnership in international trade has been a requirement at worst, and the central source of economic competition at best. The problem with state-business relations occurs when:

    (a) consumers have no standing in court against violations of reciprocity in the domestic market, and

    (b) politicians grant rights and privileges in the domestic market

    (c) when zombie (dead) corporations are kept alive for political reasons. In the american case, corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. But our total tax rate is relatively low. Most advanced countries ( meaning those with audit-able financial systems) use VAT tax increases to offset corporate taxes. But you can easily see where that goes…. Libertarianism benefits from a little knowledge of economics, with a heavy dose of obscurantist moralizing. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And that is why there are many passionate libertarians, and only a half dozen libertarian ‘intellectuals’. Its because once you possess more than a little knowledge you either choose conservatism (long term and eugenic) or social democracy (short term and dysgenic).