Curt Doolittle

Theme: Subsidy

  • If we ruin 1/7 of the economy trying to socialize medicine, and spend 11T on for

    If we ruin 1/7 of the economy trying to socialize medicine, and spend 11T on foreign intervention a wall is easy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-10 08:07:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/741180068865671168

    Reply addressees: @AlHernandez21 @PanoiuS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/741045896138399744

    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/741045896138399744

  • It still means the lower classes reproduce faster than the upper: dysgenic. w/o

    It still means the lower classes reproduce faster than the upper: dysgenic. w/o marriage, and with redist.=dysgenia.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-03 19:09:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738809818224398336

    Reply addressees: @dirkkingston @mfckrx

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738771255663288320

    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/738771255663288320

  • ( It certainly SEEMS like the entirety of the NATO/UN organizations are nothing

    ( It certainly SEEMS like the entirety of the NATO/UN organizations are nothing more than welfare programs: desperate attempts for post-empire anglos to perpetuate by bureaucracy what they’d constructed with arms and finance. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 02:36:00 UTC

  • Charles Murray ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND First a

    http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/#comment-154183Dear Charles Murray

    ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND

    First a bit of humor: (wink) thank you for further advancing the disparaging narrative against a great norman name. 🙂 What further thought crimes will be done to the sons and daughters of the Norman Radolfo De Dolietta (Doolittle), his descendants, the literate Puritans who escaped the english civil war and founded towns throughout Connecticut – and the many sergeants, captains of generals before and after them. “Dwoo’-little” has been a middle class land-holding name since the Norman conquest. 🙂 And Puritans never needed a reason for production. They were economic eugenicists like all those who advanced Bipartite Manorialism.

    That ancestral defense aside, I’ll offer a counter-argument against the ‘Doolittle Effect’:

    1) If women are more narrowly distributed than men. (they are)

    2) And if women only desire to marry and stay married upward. (they do)

    3) And if no man who is available to many women are desirable by women (they aren’t)

    4) And if women do not economically need a man. (they don’t)

    5) And if men marry and divorce bearing child support rather than trading productivity for a new mate, they will almost universally die lonely and poor – and we should see increasing rates of suicide. (We do)

    6) Then there is no incentive for man or woman to marry – or reproduce. (there isn’t)

    7) And the Universal Basic Income will only exacerbate the existing trend. (True)

    8) Because it will increase the possibility of non-working or black-market subsistence for even more people.

    UBI is extremely risky. If instead, we provided returns on the economy per quarter or per year then the incentives of the population would be to limit immigration of dependents, and limit reproduction of the lower classes, as a means of preventing dilution of their income.

    So for this reason a ‘dependable’ UBI provides a malincentive in every possible way; while a ‘market’ or ‘national dividend on the economy’ produces every possible good incentive that the UBI seeks to provide.

    The Singapore and Corpus Christi models are calculable. The intergenerational promissory models of the socialist era are non logical, fragility-inducing, and behaviorally dangerous.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Keiv, Ukraine

    http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-25 05:11:00 UTC

  • WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRO

    WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM

    WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRODUCTION), WE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING BAD.

    (From elsewhere)

    Competition is necessary for INVENTION, including the inventions in productivity that reduce prices – and competition is necessary to eliminate rent seeking (parasitism).

    Property, Contract, Money, Prices, Profit, are necessary for people to possess the information necessary to determine how to fulfill their self interest, while acting in the service of others.

    The problem with capitalism is that large numbers of the population are not able to provide others with any value in exchange for production other than NOT DOING bad things. In other words, an increasing percentage of the populace is unnecessary to production of good and services. But as long as they don’t interfere with the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, by undermining property, contract, money, prices, profit, and competition, and as long as they don’t engage in rent seeking, then by their INACTION they are contributing to the construction of the order we call capitalism, that makes an advanced consumer economy possible.

    The issue then is if a minority of people are paid for production and the majority of people are not paid for production, but we still need them to produce the possibility of capitalist production, then how will we pay them?

    In the past one gained access to the market by observing manners, ethics, morals and laws. But if one cannot gain access, then how do we compensate him for not doing bad things. Because it is by not doing bad things that the capitalist method of voluntary organization of production is made possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-25 04:49:00 UTC

  • ELIMINATION OF ‘TAXES’. As far as I know the only ‘fee’ that produces no malince

    ELIMINATION OF ‘TAXES’.

    As far as I know the only ‘fee’ that produces no malincentives is a universal sales tax (a fee) on all activity within the market. I would prefer (myself) that prices included this fee as a percentage, and that it was totally transparent to everyone. I have fought with the idea that this ‘fee’ is collected and redistributed as inflation of the money supply through direct redistribution (dilution) rather than through credit and interest. As long as the rate is relatively predictable then I don’t see the any informational reason why it wouldn’t work – or why we should pay interest to third parties who merely accumulate capital via this inflationary process.

    The only reason we don’t do this is because we can’t trust the government to leave our fees constant, or to buy votes with the use of these fees. This is again a fixable problem if we use direct economic democracy for the provision of commons and do not make use of representatives. Moreover, we would have to participate as houses since at any given time a decreasing minority of the population is productive.

    As for local improvements, I don’t see why we pool this money as taxes rather than apportion a debt and pay it off one way or the other – maintaining operational calculability, and eliminating political discretion. I assume most people would simply let the debt accumulate on their property and pay it when they transferred (sold) it. Again this is preventable.

    Do we really need drivers license fees? Do we really need income taxes or income tax forms? Do we really need to conduct campaigns and decide on character, rather than to post ideas and decide upon which ones we want to pay for? No. No we don’t.

    Voting for individuals is another error of aggregation. Just as Keynesian economics is an error of aggregation – an admission that we do not understand, and are ‘winging it’. They are excuses to make us think we have influence and decision rather than the truth that we are farmed like other domesticated animals.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 05:58:00 UTC

  • A guaranteed income is very different from a ‘dividend’. A dividend produces ben

    A guaranteed income is very different from a ‘dividend’. A dividend produces beneficial incentives – guaranteed the opposite.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-30 09:01:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726335762506125313

    Reply addressees: @CatoInstitute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726219028423925760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @CatoInstitute

    Most U.S. conservatives & libertarians would dismiss the idea of a guaranteed national income. Should they? https://t.co/0aNdzjRHN3

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726219028423925760

  • I talk about the fact that people tolerate redistribution when groups are homoge

    I talk about the fact that people tolerate redistribution when groups are homogenous.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-13 15:00:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/720265472239755265

    Reply addressees: @SpiritSplice @BenedictKMiller

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/720259798713901056

    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/720259798713901056

  • Distribute liquidity to advance the economy directly to citizens by equidistribu

    Distribute liquidity to advance the economy directly to citizens by equidistribution without exception. This will by pass the financial system and create dependence upon citizens rather than the state, and deprive them of most if not all interest fees.

    Eliminate interest collection on consumer borrowing by direct debit from the treasury by rule (formula) that is without exception. Bypassing consumer credit, and bypassing consumer interest.

    Revise freedom of speech to freedom of truthful speech. Meaning that one must warranty that which is placed in the commons, and that we can demand restitution for that false speech inserted into the commons.

    Restore Libel, Slander for court and Insult, Ridicule, and lie as criteria for judicially sanctioned duels. Denial of a duel when challenged for ridicule, insult, and lie (falsehoods) means you will either perform restitution(apology) or you can be simply killed.

    I am not so concerned about politicians once this occurs since we can kill them and their advocates with ease.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-02 08:19:00 UTC

  • RT @MartianHoplite: Western decline is caused by liquidation of commons and subs

    RT @MartianHoplite: Western decline is caused by liquidation of commons and subsidizing of fertility of the underclass — magnifying the cy…

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-30 20:11:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/715270298719879168