Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Constitutionally Banning Corporate Taxes
I'll say it again for posterity or (as they said in "The Last Boy Scout") the cheap seats-
Providing the people with CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES the state, federal and local governments will NOT confiscate or tax certain percentage of income and wealth is about the only way out of this economic mess.
You CONSTITUTIONALLY BAN corporate taxes
You CONSTITUTIONALLY cap total government spending at 20% GDP
You CONSTITUTIONALLY mandate balance budgets
You CONSTITUTIONALLY ban the government from taxing any wealth
and you will get a flood of multiple-trillions of dollars into the US economy.
But no, you morons would prefer to instead focus on the "gini coefficient."
Is it wrong for me to cheer on the utter collapse of the US economy?
Providing the people with CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES the state, federal and local governments will NOT confiscate or tax certain percentage of income and wealth is about the only way out of this economic mess.
You CONSTITUTIONALLY BAN corporate taxes
You CONSTITUTIONALLY cap total government spending at 20% GDP
You CONSTITUTIONALLY mandate balance budgets
You CONSTITUTIONALLY ban the government from taxing any wealth
and you will get a flood of multiple-trillions of dollars into the US economy.
But no, you morons would prefer to instead focus on the "gini coefficient."
Is it wrong for me to cheer on the utter collapse of the US economy?
Codify or Let People Fail
Allow me to explain a concept I hope quickly.
If you let people learn from their mistakes and let people fail/suffer from their mistakes, they will:
1. Not repeat those mistakes
2. Be pulled out of the system they destroyed with their mistakes.
Case in point, banking.
If we had a capitalist economy, most banks and the idiotic bankers that populated them would not only be wiped out, most of those bankers would be on the unemployment line or flipping burgers at McDonald's. The banking system would have been "cleansed" and what banks remained would have in a darwinistic sense been the "best" and would have continued to better serve society.
Instead, we bailed them out which means the idiotic bankers are not flipping burgers, but still employed in the banking system.
This puts government regulators at a quandry. Do we hope those naughty bankers learned their lesson?
Probably not, and so NOW we get to codify behavior.
This is an impossible task because you cannot codify behavior of amoral people. But don't let that stop the Feds from trying.
If you let people learn from their mistakes and let people fail/suffer from their mistakes, they will:
1. Not repeat those mistakes
2. Be pulled out of the system they destroyed with their mistakes.
Case in point, banking.
If we had a capitalist economy, most banks and the idiotic bankers that populated them would not only be wiped out, most of those bankers would be on the unemployment line or flipping burgers at McDonald's. The banking system would have been "cleansed" and what banks remained would have in a darwinistic sense been the "best" and would have continued to better serve society.
Instead, we bailed them out which means the idiotic bankers are not flipping burgers, but still employed in the banking system.
This puts government regulators at a quandry. Do we hope those naughty bankers learned their lesson?
Probably not, and so NOW we get to codify behavior.
This is an impossible task because you cannot codify behavior of amoral people. But don't let that stop the Feds from trying.
The Captain Mobile
Saw this on my way back from Minneapolis. Tempted to purchase it, but it would not be minimalism. That being said, redoing the interior with white leopard print would be awesome:
My Trek Across South Dakota
Monday, July 30, 2012
Big Boobs, Tight Ass, Long Legs, Long Hair
The title of this post is NOT meant to be sophomoric, crass, or shallow.
I make it the title to make a point. So please listen.
Men like:
1. Big books
2. Tight asses
3. Long legs
4. Long hair
This will not change. It will not be socially or psychologically engineered out of us. It is what we like and will continue to like despite communists, feminists and leftists' best efforts to tell everybody else otherwise. It is genetic, so please don't complain about us being "shallow" for having a physical preference for an in-shape, "blessed by the lord" 25 year old than an overweight 55 year old. You may as well complain that water is wet, the sky is blue and bears poop in the woods.
Now, you girls have a choice. You really do. Complain about it. OR accept it as fact.
Guess which option will be more productive!
I make it the title to make a point. So please listen.
Men like:
1. Big books
2. Tight asses
3. Long legs
4. Long hair
This will not change. It will not be socially or psychologically engineered out of us. It is what we like and will continue to like despite communists, feminists and leftists' best efforts to tell everybody else otherwise. It is genetic, so please don't complain about us being "shallow" for having a physical preference for an in-shape, "blessed by the lord" 25 year old than an overweight 55 year old. You may as well complain that water is wet, the sky is blue and bears poop in the woods.
Now, you girls have a choice. You really do. Complain about it. OR accept it as fact.
Guess which option will be more productive!
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The White Suit Came In
and damn do I make it look good:
I hereby decree all Cappy Cappites must buy and don white suits.
I hereby decree all Cappy Cappites must buy and don white suits.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Day 57: Measuring the Performance of the Economy – Part 3
I commit myself to the establishment of an economic system which is in support of Life instead of being a parasitic entity as what is currently exists as
I commit myself to the establishment of a world economic system which is sustainable and support all Life by taking into consideration all equally, and not just those with money
I commit myself to the establishment of a world economic system which is rooted in reality, and does not just go about distributing and producing stuff with no regard of consequence and actual physical capability of planet Earth, nature, animals and humans
I commit myself to establish a world economic system which caters for All Life Equally – so that this resource distribution leading to those with money and skipping those without can stop
I commit myself to expose the ridiculousness of our current economic systems objectives as they in no way have any connection to physical reality but are only concerned with the Egos of man as those who identify themselves with the current economic system and benefit from it – where it’s all about who can produce the most stuff with no regard for consequence and the billions of people suffering
I commit myself to the establishment of Common Sense, Best for All macroeconomic Objectives – such as ensuring that the economic system provides for everyone’s basic needs, and uses the Earth’s resources in a responsible, sustainable way
I commit myself to expose the wicked nature of man which is reflected within the attitude of conventional economists as their words clearly show that they have no regard for any other life form but themselves
I commit myself to a world economic system where people do not have to work to earn a living, but where people will be supported unconditionally from Birth to Death
I commit myself to a New World Order where work/labour becomes a point of self-responsibility where we see / realise that certain things need to be done in order for everyone to be taken care of, and so do our part in ensuring the wellbeing of the whole, where each dedicate a few years of their lives to play their part – and where afterwards work/labour becomes a point of expression where you take on a position because you enjoy doing so, not because your life depends on it
I commit myself to expose the nature of our current economic system as a ruthless, brutal, heartless system which only cares for itself and if you do not meet the criteria to ‘play’ its game, you are spitted out and left to fend for yourself – where this current economic system is here by our own acceptance and allowance, and where we can just as well design and implement an economic system of Real Love as unconditionally giving and receiving where no-one is left behind
I commit myself to expose how our current economic system and the economists who defend it have no interest whatsoever in the equitable distribution of income and hide behind petty excuses and justifications as to why they will not discuss this point and bring about change, because apparently they do not have the authority to comment on this and so all they can do is ‘leave it be’ and do what they do as economists which is protect the system
I commit myself to an Equal Money System where an Economic System of Equality will be implemented, which caters for all life, in a sustainable, responsible way – ensuring the well being of All Life Now and in the Future
Friday, July 27, 2012
Day 56: Measuring the Performance of the Economy – Part 2
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a world economic system where Life on Earth is placed in the service of the Economic Machine of Greed and Unsustainability – instead of a world economic system which serves Life on Earth
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have completely missed the point of economics – where I accepted and allowed myself to believe in - and support a system of Hope where few win and the majority lose, where Hope is the only thing keeping the system standing as the majority hope to one day be in a position of the few – while obviously this is not mathematically possible, as the lifestyle of the few is only possible if they remain few – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to have created and economic system which actually looks at all the points in the world which require support within sustenance and then unconditionally direct the flow of resources towards all points which require sustenance/support without any form of discrimination which is in fact what the Equal Money System is designed to do
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value ‘economic growth’ as a macroeconomic objective, and where this objective is valued above all other objectives as the Holy Grail of Success – without seeing and realising that the desire for economic growth is just another way of saying ‘more..More.. MORE, I WANT MORE!!!’, as a spoilt child throwing a tantrum for not getting what it wants – while in the meantime half the world perishes in poverty and starvation and get to be ignored while we economists stare at economic growth like a moth being attracted to a flame - ever hypnotised, never considering the consequences of one’s actions
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value “how much more stuff has been produced” as the primary marcoeconomic objective
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the news today which I can see/hear/read about daily – clearly indicate that there are much more important objectives to consider as the suffering and madness is undeniable, yet I will value ‘producing stuff’ more over ‘making sure everyone’s living a comfortable life’
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have mindfucked myself into believing that ‘producing stuff’ equals ‘making a better world’
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to justify within myself my evil actions of limited self-interest with the thought that ‘eventually all the stuff/wealth will trickle down to the poor and then they will also be better off!’
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to be honest with myself as I know that ‘it will trickle down to the less fortunate’ is a big fat lie – but as long as there are enough of us portraying it to be the truth and teaching it to our children, we can maintain the lie and keep avoiding self-responsibility – and if we put it into pretty sophisticated words in textbooks then it almost sounds true too!
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a world economic system where there can never be full employment – and then at the same time create the system in such a way that everyone is dependent on employment to earn their living, and so not everyone can live
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that we can just as easily create a system where people don’t have to depend on employment to be able to sustain themselves and where we scale down our industries of entertainment which are only here to benefit the minority – so that there are less jobs to be done and so not everyone has to work all the time for the sake of profit and economic growth – and so we will have more time available to actually live and enjoy ourselves
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value only those things which relate to the preservation of the current economic system – and so there are no real goals , as all we are doing is timelooping on the same point, which is our current economic system which is Not Best for All
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to place ‘equitable distribution of income’ as one of the objectives of marcoeconomics, but it is really just to appease people, where we pretend that we are giving inequality attention – while we don’t, and then justify our non-consideration on the base that it is a ‘normative’/’subjective’ issue – and that it is not the economist’s place to say anything about this issue, as they are not politicians or sociologists – which is a real easy way out of not taking responsibility – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that our very economic system as what it currently exists as, is ONLY based on the subjectiveness and normativity – as it is a VALUE SYSTEM which currently only values the HAPPINESS OF A FEW – and so when economists say that they rather do not comment on such a ‘controversial issue’ as ‘unequal income distribution’ – it’s really just the same as saying I LIKE THIS INEQUALITY JUST THE WAY IT IS
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that it is not about being a ‘politician’ or a ‘sociologist’ or whatever other qualification – as the only thing you require to comment on the current status of inequality within the world is YOU as a HUMAN BEING and the realisation that OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, which are JUST LIKE YOU, are mostly in positions which you would NOT WANT to be in – and within that you either decide to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or NOT – and as we have seen, the mainstream economists have decided to NOT do ANYTHING about it as they value their own Life as more valuable than others
Make Your Man Happy With Sushi!
Hello junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists of the female persuasion!
This weekend I shall shamelessly shill sushi! Specifically two items that I believe would be helpful in wooing and keeping that special man of yours fat and happy...or maybe not so fat because sushi isn't terribly fattening:
A sushi making device that I thought was kind of cool...and
"Sushi for Dummies" which actually I'm kicking around getting myself
Remember, if you love the Captain and his daily patented Super Awesome Economic Genius, show your love and buy stuff from the Amazon link to the right. I get a 6% commish and you get something in return (not just donating money to me and getting warm donation fuzzies).
This weekend I shall shamelessly shill sushi! Specifically two items that I believe would be helpful in wooing and keeping that special man of yours fat and happy...or maybe not so fat because sushi isn't terribly fattening:
A sushi making device that I thought was kind of cool...and
"Sushi for Dummies" which actually I'm kicking around getting myself
Remember, if you love the Captain and his daily patented Super Awesome Economic Genius, show your love and buy stuff from the Amazon link to the right. I get a 6% commish and you get something in return (not just donating money to me and getting warm donation fuzzies).
60 Seconds to Exposed Flawed Logic
I'll tell you another story.
Went out last night to kill time before I'd inevitably get sleepy and could entertain falling asleep. Chose to go to "the" bar in town where most of the socializing occurs. UPon my arrival I see another middle aged woman who is a friend (does this story sound familiar?) with her younger 21 year old daughter. She introduces me to her daughter and then goes on ad infinitum to tell her about how great my girlfriend is (my girlfriend made a HUGE impression upon this lady). I show her daughter a picture and the young lady is quite impressed.
So time goes on and a tall, built, affable young man (21 years old or so) comes up and puts his arms around the mother and the daughter. He's inebriated, but a happy inebriated. He says in a loud happy tone, "Hello! How are you doing girls!?"
The girls are very happy to see him, "Oh hi Steve!!!"
The mother then continues on to explain to me, "Oh, Steve and my daughter dated in the 8th grade. He's the sweetest nicest guy there ever was."
Steve went on to say in a somewhat joking manner, "Yeah, until your daughter broke my heart."
The daughter smiled, still underneath his arm, "Yes, but I love him just the same, he's the sweetest, nicest guy." she reiterated.
The guy then looks at me, and point blank says, "Yeah, but that doesn't get me anywhere. I'm always nice and kind and I still don't get any of the girls."
I looked at him and said, "So what do you think that tells you?"
He sat there a second or two and inevitably said, "I shouldn't be nice or kind?"
I said, "Right! You have to be the bad boy. YOu have to be unreliable. You have to lift weights, maybe get a tattoo, do your own thing and put girls about 3rd or 4th on your list."
Naturally the women disagreed. And what transpired was the most outstanding visual display of hypocrisy I've ever seen.
The girl who dumped him and "still loves him" because he's a "nice guy" and her mother who also really likes him because he was a "nice guy" immediately turned to him and said, "No!!! No!!! Don't listen to him! You just keep being a nice guy! Girls like nice guys, not the bad boys he's describing!"
I couldn't help but laugh a bit. Right there in front of me was a poor 21 year old kid who OBSERVED being a good guy did nothing to help him get the girls. AND underneath his arm was the empirical proof. AND then when I merely confirm that his observation was correct, that he should not be the nice boy, the EMPIRICAL PROOF (and her mother) immediately tells him I'm wrong. It was hilarious.
I didn't want to point out the obvious, that the dame that broke his heart several years ago was dating somebody-not-him. So I went another route.
"Wait, wait, wait!" I said to the mother. "If I'm so wrong, then how come I got a great girlfriend that you're so fond of? How could I land a girl like that if I was a bad boy?"
The look in the mother's eye knew I had in about 60 seconds just exposed their flawed logic. I looked at the kid,
"Look, kid. They've never tried to date girls. They're women. Whatever advice they give you isn't going to work. You've already realized being a nice guy doesn't work and here I am, telling you to be the bad boy and I'm the one with a girlfriend THAT THE MOTHER CAN'T SPEAK HIGHLY ENOUGH OF. I didn't get this girl or any of the other girls by being a sappy, reliable, nice guy. I did it by driving a motorcycle, excelling in several fields and talents, doing my own thing and being indifferent, aloof, confidence and NOT NICE."
They still tried to fight for the "Nice Status Quo." Still had to keep this poor boy in The Matrix.
"No, don't listen to him! Motorcycles are alright, but you HAVE to be nice. Girls don't like..."
They continued on, but I pulled out a picture of my girlfriend and shoved it in his face.
His inebriated eyes opened, obviously liking what he saw.
I then said, "Yes, whatever you do DON'T listen to me. I DON'T know what I'm talking about."
I think the mother knew the battle was lost. She couldn't have sung my girlfriend's praises and then claim I didn't know what I was doing. Additionally the empirical proof under his other arm being a nice guy didn't work, didn't help their cause either. In the end, yes he may have only been 21, and, yes, he may have been drunk, but I do believe he took the red pill.
And thus we can add one more to our ranks.
Went out last night to kill time before I'd inevitably get sleepy and could entertain falling asleep. Chose to go to "the" bar in town where most of the socializing occurs. UPon my arrival I see another middle aged woman who is a friend (does this story sound familiar?) with her younger 21 year old daughter. She introduces me to her daughter and then goes on ad infinitum to tell her about how great my girlfriend is (my girlfriend made a HUGE impression upon this lady). I show her daughter a picture and the young lady is quite impressed.
So time goes on and a tall, built, affable young man (21 years old or so) comes up and puts his arms around the mother and the daughter. He's inebriated, but a happy inebriated. He says in a loud happy tone, "Hello! How are you doing girls!?"
The girls are very happy to see him, "Oh hi Steve!!!"
The mother then continues on to explain to me, "Oh, Steve and my daughter dated in the 8th grade. He's the sweetest nicest guy there ever was."
Steve went on to say in a somewhat joking manner, "Yeah, until your daughter broke my heart."
The daughter smiled, still underneath his arm, "Yes, but I love him just the same, he's the sweetest, nicest guy." she reiterated.
The guy then looks at me, and point blank says, "Yeah, but that doesn't get me anywhere. I'm always nice and kind and I still don't get any of the girls."
I looked at him and said, "So what do you think that tells you?"
He sat there a second or two and inevitably said, "I shouldn't be nice or kind?"
I said, "Right! You have to be the bad boy. YOu have to be unreliable. You have to lift weights, maybe get a tattoo, do your own thing and put girls about 3rd or 4th on your list."
Naturally the women disagreed. And what transpired was the most outstanding visual display of hypocrisy I've ever seen.
The girl who dumped him and "still loves him" because he's a "nice guy" and her mother who also really likes him because he was a "nice guy" immediately turned to him and said, "No!!! No!!! Don't listen to him! You just keep being a nice guy! Girls like nice guys, not the bad boys he's describing!"
I couldn't help but laugh a bit. Right there in front of me was a poor 21 year old kid who OBSERVED being a good guy did nothing to help him get the girls. AND underneath his arm was the empirical proof. AND then when I merely confirm that his observation was correct, that he should not be the nice boy, the EMPIRICAL PROOF (and her mother) immediately tells him I'm wrong. It was hilarious.
I didn't want to point out the obvious, that the dame that broke his heart several years ago was dating somebody-not-him. So I went another route.
"Wait, wait, wait!" I said to the mother. "If I'm so wrong, then how come I got a great girlfriend that you're so fond of? How could I land a girl like that if I was a bad boy?"
The look in the mother's eye knew I had in about 60 seconds just exposed their flawed logic. I looked at the kid,
"Look, kid. They've never tried to date girls. They're women. Whatever advice they give you isn't going to work. You've already realized being a nice guy doesn't work and here I am, telling you to be the bad boy and I'm the one with a girlfriend THAT THE MOTHER CAN'T SPEAK HIGHLY ENOUGH OF. I didn't get this girl or any of the other girls by being a sappy, reliable, nice guy. I did it by driving a motorcycle, excelling in several fields and talents, doing my own thing and being indifferent, aloof, confidence and NOT NICE."
They still tried to fight for the "Nice Status Quo." Still had to keep this poor boy in The Matrix.
"No, don't listen to him! Motorcycles are alright, but you HAVE to be nice. Girls don't like..."
They continued on, but I pulled out a picture of my girlfriend and shoved it in his face.
His inebriated eyes opened, obviously liking what he saw.
I then said, "Yes, whatever you do DON'T listen to me. I DON'T know what I'm talking about."
I think the mother knew the battle was lost. She couldn't have sung my girlfriend's praises and then claim I didn't know what I was doing. Additionally the empirical proof under his other arm being a nice guy didn't work, didn't help their cause either. In the end, yes he may have only been 21, and, yes, he may have been drunk, but I do believe he took the red pill.
And thus we can add one more to our ranks.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
$1.3 Trillion in New GDP
My sweet perfectly sculpted Irish ass.
Was there a "unicorn economics" class I missed in college that leads idiots to come up with pie in the sky crap like this?
Was there a "unicorn economics" class I missed in college that leads idiots to come up with pie in the sky crap like this?
Day 55: Measuring the Performance of the Economy: Macroeconomic Objectives
There are about 5 objectives which are regularly listed when looking at macroeconomic objectives:
1) Economic growth
2) Full employment
3) Price stability
4) Balance of payments stability ( / external stability)
5) Equitable distribution of income
1. Economic Growth
Economic growth is considered to be the most important criterion, and is the one criterion which will be given the most weight when evaluating and comparing economies.
Economic growth sounds like a very big concept, but it really just refers to an increase in the total production of goods and services from one period to the next – usually one year.
So this is quite a ‘vague’ and ‘undefined’ goal – as all it stipulates is that there must be some sort of increase in the total production of goods and services – no matter what these goods or services are, or whether they are beneficial to the whole of society or not. A conventional economist might tell you that the goods and services produced will obviously be that which is required to be produced for the good of society, as what is produced and how much is dependent on supply and demand. And so – if someone were to produce something which is of “no value”, no-one would demand it and the person would soon be going out of business – and within this manner the economy eliminates any and all apparently unnecessary goods and services, and justifies what and the quantities which are being produced: it’s demanded! If people are willing to spend money on it, it means they value it, if they value it, it means it brings them happiness --- so, if we produce what is demanded then we are increasing everyone’s happiness and being a good person!
But now obviously, since the majority of the wealth (= money votes) lies in the hands of the minority, then we are really just producing/providing/catering for a handful of people, and only producing/creating things which they think are important, and so all the needs and wants of the remaining majority aren’t catered for because they do not form part of the ‘demand’. And then we go and measure the ‘performance’ of the economy in terms of how much ‘stuff’ is produced – and the more the better. Measuring the performance of the economy this way, gives you no indication whatsoever in terms of how the whole of society is faring – isn’t that what realperformance should be about?
2. Full Employment
Ideally, a country wants all its factors of productions, and in particular ‘labour’ to be fully employed. In practice however, there’s always unemployment. The main concern with high unemployment rates are political and social stability – as high unemployment might disrupt social and political cohesion which then affects the economy as well. Can’t let that happen! These are considered the ‘social costs’ of unemployment. Personal material and psychological suffering is only a personal cost, and is obviously not that big of a deal – otherwise the economy would not be standing on the principles of supply and demand and the starting point of self-interest.
Full employment should really not be such a ‘major deal’ – the only reason why we are making employment so important is because we’ve accepted and allowed ourselves to create a system which requires you to earn your living. And so, if you do not have a job, you are unable to support yourself, and you are rejected by the system. We then have people working multiple jobs getting barely any sleep just to get by, while others live a life of extravagance, having other people employed to do all the work while they do nothing at all. So you see, there are two extreme polarities – and we can easily balance this out so we can have a world where we do not have to work all the time for the majority of our lives. We will then not have full employment, but it wouldn’t be necessary either. Because you’d for instance go to school while you’re still very young, then you work for a few years – and then after that, it’s up to you whether you want to work or do something else. Doesn’t that sound nice?
3. Price Stability
Price stability as an objective refers to keeping inflation as low as possible. So prices will still change according to the interaction with supply and demand. To check the movement of prices, the Consumer Price Index is used – which will be explained at a later stage. Inflation is unwanted for distributional, economic and socio-political reason, which we’ll explain when we get to inflation (but simply put, inflation is harmful to the economic status quo – as it creates unrest and the system stops working the way it should be, where those who are supposed to lose now win and vice versa).
4. Balance of Payments
This concept of ‘Balance of Payments’ refers to the money going in and out of a particular country – within the movement of imports and exports, over a particular amount of time. The Balance of Payments is usually calculated every quarter and every calendar year. In theory, the Balance of Payments should be zero, meaning that what goes out (‘debits’) is balanced by what comes in (‘credits’). In practice however, this barely happens – and so the Balance of Payments can be used so show whether there is a surplus or a deficit and from which area in the economy these unbalances are coming from.
Now we actually get to a worthwhile objective, and then this objective is something economists do not like to discuss because it involves subjective/normative issues – and so they rather not say anything about it, expect that it is ‘controversial’ and then move on to the next topic. Very sad.
When looking at the distribution of income, there’s no mention about ‘everyone deserves access to basic resources’ or things like that, no, no – instead they look at how ‘income inequality’ is a means of stimulating saving and investment which apparently would eventually also benefit the poor (but I mean, if you just give everyone a basic income, then you don’t have poor people in the first place – I mean, it’s really that simple). But then they say, on the other side, inequitable distribution of income, can lead to feelings of injustice and unfairness, which may stir up unrest and then affect the structure and development of the economy. So here you have a ‘pro’ and a ‘contra’ for income equality/inequality – but what is fascinating, is that in each of these statements, it is always the interest of the ‘economy’ as some holy spirit/entity which gets to take center stage, where the preserving of the ‘economy’ is the number one priority – and all the unfairness and suffering is secondary. But what is the point of keeping an economy alive which is not Best for All?
The only reason we currently have middle-class, is so they can be the ‘buffer’ between the rich and the poor which keep everything stable and prevent any ‘unrest’ and ‘instability’ for the sake of the Preservation of the Economy. This concept does way back, all the way to Aristotle who saw just the same.
But this basically implies that, if we as humanity could have gone without the middle-class and have an even wider separation between the rich and the poor without it causing ‘unrest’ – we would have done so.
IQ By Major
Who are your government leaders?
Who works in government?
Who works for non-profits and the UN?
Who teachers your children?
AND
How successful have they been at doing what they claimed they were going to do?
How successful have they been at solving the problems they claimed they were going to?
Answer?
Morons.
I'll say it again for the cheap seats - the liberal arts are the single biggest problem with the US and western civilization.
Who works in government?
Who works for non-profits and the UN?
Who teachers your children?
AND
How successful have they been at doing what they claimed they were going to do?
How successful have they been at solving the problems they claimed they were going to?
Answer?
Morons.
I'll say it again for the cheap seats - the liberal arts are the single biggest problem with the US and western civilization.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"Help My Daughter"
I was at "the" bar in town last night. I've been here long enough that I've established a rapport with different folks and one of them (a middle aged woman who I recognize the face, but don't know the name) was at the bar and beckoned me over. Nice lady, we chit chatted and discussed, nice gal.
However, as the conversation continued (and I don't know how it happened) it came to the topic of her daughter who was 24 and was having trouble "finding a good guy." She was quite animated about the topic so I could tell this was important to her as she pulled a picture of her daughter out of her pocket shoving it in my face,
"Here, here! You see her! What's wrong with her!? She's beautiful! Why can't she find a good guy!? They're all boys, they all play games! Why can't she find a guy!?"
The girl was, admittedly, very cute, I'd say almost old enough to approach "beautiful." So it certainly wasn't her looks. So I asked,
"Well, what type of gal is she?"
The mother said, "Well she's very sweet and very kind."
I interrupted, "Yes, every mother says that about her daughter. Truthfully, is she a flake? Is she arrogant? Does she string guys along? I'm asking not to be insulting, but to find out what's really going on."
The mom responded truthfully, "No, she's actually a straight shooter. I told her not to play games. I told her to be herself. She's the type of girl that wants to go mountain biking and can't find a guy who isn't hung over from the night before."
It was here I let some of my prejudice and guard down and was willing to give this lady and her daughter the benefit of the doubt. Most 24 year old babes are arrogant drama queens, full of themselves and completely unaware of other people. But when I heard "mountain biking," the fact her mother told her not to play games and be a straight shooter and her complaint was finding a sober mountain biking partner, I decided to accept as a premise this was indeed one of the rare "good girls."
I said, "well if that's the case, then what she's probably running into is that she's a victim of her own gender. You have to understand that most girls aren't like that and when men are going to approach women IN GENERAL they have to employ a strategy that is based off of the majority of women, not the rare girl that is different like your daughter."
"But that's so wrong!!!" she said.
And it was here the lesson in truth vs. emotion began.
I said, "Well it's not right or wrong. It is what it is. I could be wrong, but if your daughter is all that and then some and she's having trouble finding guys, it's likely most guys are advancing and learning game. If anything, they were treated poorly, or at least, psychotically by girls ever since they hit puberty, and since being nice and kind didn't work, now they're standing your daughter up, showing up drunk, or whatever other tactics they've found works on other girls."
"Well men shouldn't do that!"
"I know, but it isn't an issue of whether they should or not. It is what it is. Your daughter has to abide by that fact."
The emotion or human desire to ignore reality continued,
"But why can't men just be..."
I interrupted again.
"Ah, ah, ah! Again, do you want me to lie to you so you feel better? Do you want me to tell you to tell your daughter that she "just hasn't found the right one?" Or that "the right man will come along someday?" "The lord will provide?" "Follow your heart and the money will follow?" Or do you want me to tell you the truth."
She had an interesting response. One that showed she was digesting the point I was trying to make. One that made me happy to see that some women are capable of setting aside emotion or "how things should be" and appreciating that if anything is going to get done or if there's going to be any progress, truth, no matter how unpleasant, must be acknowledged and incorporated into whatever strategy is to be developed.
Also greatly increasing my appreciation for this woman was her ability to discern between me being "nice" vs. me being "helpful." (though I will always contend being helpful is being nice and being "nice" is really just being cowardly). She genuinely wanted to help her daughter and cared about her daughter enough that not only did she listen to a blowhard like me, but she even accepted passing on links to Roosh V and Roissy to her daughter.
"She won't like these links" I said, "but they will help her understand the psychology of men her age."
"Why won't she like these links?" she asked.
"Because they're truthful and what real guys really think."
She gladly accepted them.
The point of the story is that while we here in the Manosphere like to highlight cognitive dissonance, delusion, and other forms of denial, it is nice to see and highlight the occasional instance where a person is capable of genuine intellectual honesty and capable of taking emotion out of it in order to focus instead on reality, thereby increasing the chances for genuine success. And when I see somebody with that level of character I merely wish to point it out and salute them.
However, as the conversation continued (and I don't know how it happened) it came to the topic of her daughter who was 24 and was having trouble "finding a good guy." She was quite animated about the topic so I could tell this was important to her as she pulled a picture of her daughter out of her pocket shoving it in my face,
"Here, here! You see her! What's wrong with her!? She's beautiful! Why can't she find a good guy!? They're all boys, they all play games! Why can't she find a guy!?"
The girl was, admittedly, very cute, I'd say almost old enough to approach "beautiful." So it certainly wasn't her looks. So I asked,
"Well, what type of gal is she?"
The mother said, "Well she's very sweet and very kind."
I interrupted, "Yes, every mother says that about her daughter. Truthfully, is she a flake? Is she arrogant? Does she string guys along? I'm asking not to be insulting, but to find out what's really going on."
The mom responded truthfully, "No, she's actually a straight shooter. I told her not to play games. I told her to be herself. She's the type of girl that wants to go mountain biking and can't find a guy who isn't hung over from the night before."
It was here I let some of my prejudice and guard down and was willing to give this lady and her daughter the benefit of the doubt. Most 24 year old babes are arrogant drama queens, full of themselves and completely unaware of other people. But when I heard "mountain biking," the fact her mother told her not to play games and be a straight shooter and her complaint was finding a sober mountain biking partner, I decided to accept as a premise this was indeed one of the rare "good girls."
I said, "well if that's the case, then what she's probably running into is that she's a victim of her own gender. You have to understand that most girls aren't like that and when men are going to approach women IN GENERAL they have to employ a strategy that is based off of the majority of women, not the rare girl that is different like your daughter."
"But that's so wrong!!!" she said.
And it was here the lesson in truth vs. emotion began.
I said, "Well it's not right or wrong. It is what it is. I could be wrong, but if your daughter is all that and then some and she's having trouble finding guys, it's likely most guys are advancing and learning game. If anything, they were treated poorly, or at least, psychotically by girls ever since they hit puberty, and since being nice and kind didn't work, now they're standing your daughter up, showing up drunk, or whatever other tactics they've found works on other girls."
"Well men shouldn't do that!"
"I know, but it isn't an issue of whether they should or not. It is what it is. Your daughter has to abide by that fact."
The emotion or human desire to ignore reality continued,
"But why can't men just be..."
I interrupted again.
"Ah, ah, ah! Again, do you want me to lie to you so you feel better? Do you want me to tell you to tell your daughter that she "just hasn't found the right one?" Or that "the right man will come along someday?" "The lord will provide?" "Follow your heart and the money will follow?" Or do you want me to tell you the truth."
She had an interesting response. One that showed she was digesting the point I was trying to make. One that made me happy to see that some women are capable of setting aside emotion or "how things should be" and appreciating that if anything is going to get done or if there's going to be any progress, truth, no matter how unpleasant, must be acknowledged and incorporated into whatever strategy is to be developed.
Also greatly increasing my appreciation for this woman was her ability to discern between me being "nice" vs. me being "helpful." (though I will always contend being helpful is being nice and being "nice" is really just being cowardly). She genuinely wanted to help her daughter and cared about her daughter enough that not only did she listen to a blowhard like me, but she even accepted passing on links to Roosh V and Roissy to her daughter.
"She won't like these links" I said, "but they will help her understand the psychology of men her age."
"Why won't she like these links?" she asked.
"Because they're truthful and what real guys really think."
She gladly accepted them.
The point of the story is that while we here in the Manosphere like to highlight cognitive dissonance, delusion, and other forms of denial, it is nice to see and highlight the occasional instance where a person is capable of genuine intellectual honesty and capable of taking emotion out of it in order to focus instead on reality, thereby increasing the chances for genuine success. And when I see somebody with that level of character I merely wish to point it out and salute them.
From Our Muslim Agent in the Field
a VERY long way to go about saying, "it's best to have one person working and another staying home."
Or what we economists have been calling for (ohhhh, I don't know, 300 years) the "division of labor."
I would be curious to see what the updated data looks like. Seems the report was a bit dated.
Or what we economists have been calling for (ohhhh, I don't know, 300 years) the "division of labor."
I would be curious to see what the updated data looks like. Seems the report was a bit dated.
Cleanliness Is Not a Sign of Superiority
In the never-ending battle of the sexes you will hear cries and tears that men never do their "fair share" of the house work. Normally at this point the easily-predicted retort that men do the majority of the work outside of the household OR fixes "manly" things at the household (cars, oil change, lawn mowing, etc) is delivered. However, I'm going to ignore these arguments and instead focus on a different angle altogether. I'm going to question the premise what constitutes "fair share."
Understand in saying "fair share" we are implying there is a certain tangible, measurable amount of house work that needs to be done in the first place. Therefore when a man (or woman) completes "their fair share" of the work they have met their obligations and get a reprieve from nagging and lecturing (until the house is in need again of some cleaning). But what is that "tangible, measurable" amount? What are the standards? And who gets to decide what those standards are?
Of course it's women.
And of course, they're wrong.
The reason I say so factually "they're wrong" is because there is no "right" or "wrong" way as to determining what is the appropriate level of cleanliness in a house. Bachelors for millions of years have been living in veritable man caves with no major medical or health complications. A shoe turned upside down, a shirt hanging on the chair, an open bottle of beer from the night before has never killed, injured, maimed or slightly peeve one man. But women will claim it not only is the end of the world, but it is "wrong." That that shoe CAN'T be turned upside down. That that shirt CAN'T be hanging on the chair.
When men have decades of experience that proves, "actually, yes, yes it can."
Regardless, the empirical evidence that the world does not end because an apartment has a minimal bachelor level of cleanliness proves that there is no "standard" or "measurement" for what is ultimately going to be "their fair share." And what it further proves is that women are the ones who have a PREFERENCE for a much cleaner place than men.
Therefore...
(anybody see where I'm going with this?)
(I'll give you a couple seconds)
(make your guesses)
(OK, here we go)
men's "fair share" should be the amount of housework needed to get it up to their standards. Anything beyond that is a PREFERENCE of the women AND (dare I say) up to them to do it.
Ladies, we have cleaned our places in the past and survived this long. We maintained our bachelor pads so we could go out and do things in life. If you want to scrub behind toilets, vacuum underneath couches, scrub the floors and on a weekly basis, by all means go ahead. We're not doing it because it's not only unnecessary, it takes away from more important things in life, namely life itself. Additionally, our dumpy bachelor pads or CHOOSING (not our incapability to) not to achieve the same level of cleanliness does not mean we are somehow "inferior" or "less hygienic" than you are. We aren't "helpless, sad, pathetic boys whose mothers didn't bring up right" we just prefer to knock out some more work (or in the case of Enjoying the Decliners) we prefer to go out and play and live life.
So, by all means ladies, clean the place up till your heart's content. And men, if you're one of those anally retentive clean freaks, YOU get to do the majority of the housework while she sits outside and joins the rest of us guys enjoying the decline. In the meantime I strongly suggest people start asking what's really important in life - a perfectly, spotlessly clean house OR 3 additional years saved not wasting your time cleaning to an anal retentive level and instead spent living life.
I'm glad I have resolved the "fair share of housework" issue forever for everybody. You may make a donation to the Rumpleminze fund as a show of your appreciation.
Understand in saying "fair share" we are implying there is a certain tangible, measurable amount of house work that needs to be done in the first place. Therefore when a man (or woman) completes "their fair share" of the work they have met their obligations and get a reprieve from nagging and lecturing (until the house is in need again of some cleaning). But what is that "tangible, measurable" amount? What are the standards? And who gets to decide what those standards are?
Of course it's women.
And of course, they're wrong.
The reason I say so factually "they're wrong" is because there is no "right" or "wrong" way as to determining what is the appropriate level of cleanliness in a house. Bachelors for millions of years have been living in veritable man caves with no major medical or health complications. A shoe turned upside down, a shirt hanging on the chair, an open bottle of beer from the night before has never killed, injured, maimed or slightly peeve one man. But women will claim it not only is the end of the world, but it is "wrong." That that shoe CAN'T be turned upside down. That that shirt CAN'T be hanging on the chair.
When men have decades of experience that proves, "actually, yes, yes it can."
Regardless, the empirical evidence that the world does not end because an apartment has a minimal bachelor level of cleanliness proves that there is no "standard" or "measurement" for what is ultimately going to be "their fair share." And what it further proves is that women are the ones who have a PREFERENCE for a much cleaner place than men.
Therefore...
(anybody see where I'm going with this?)
(I'll give you a couple seconds)
(make your guesses)
(OK, here we go)
men's "fair share" should be the amount of housework needed to get it up to their standards. Anything beyond that is a PREFERENCE of the women AND (dare I say) up to them to do it.
Ladies, we have cleaned our places in the past and survived this long. We maintained our bachelor pads so we could go out and do things in life. If you want to scrub behind toilets, vacuum underneath couches, scrub the floors and on a weekly basis, by all means go ahead. We're not doing it because it's not only unnecessary, it takes away from more important things in life, namely life itself. Additionally, our dumpy bachelor pads or CHOOSING (not our incapability to) not to achieve the same level of cleanliness does not mean we are somehow "inferior" or "less hygienic" than you are. We aren't "helpless, sad, pathetic boys whose mothers didn't bring up right" we just prefer to knock out some more work (or in the case of Enjoying the Decliners) we prefer to go out and play and live life.
So, by all means ladies, clean the place up till your heart's content. And men, if you're one of those anally retentive clean freaks, YOU get to do the majority of the housework while she sits outside and joins the rest of us guys enjoying the decline. In the meantime I strongly suggest people start asking what's really important in life - a perfectly, spotlessly clean house OR 3 additional years saved not wasting your time cleaning to an anal retentive level and instead spent living life.
I'm glad I have resolved the "fair share of housework" issue forever for everybody. You may make a donation to the Rumpleminze fund as a show of your appreciation.
Day 54: Government Intervention - Part 3
I commit myself to show that the problem with economics is the very root, as the starting point of economics and the specific character role which has been assigned to humanity – where the starting point is to distribute limited resources in such a way as to attempt and satisfy unlimited wants of humans – where money is the deciding factor as to who gets to satisfy their wants/needs and who doesn’t – and where the human has taken on the role of the self-interested character who is allowed to do whatever it takes in the name of profit
I commit myself to expose that an economic system with the above equation and variables as its starting point can only result in disaster as it is based on unsustainable goals and the reckless/unreliable/irresponsible nature of the human being – having left out all and any consideration regarding any other beings but itself
I commit myself to expose that any action concerning change within the system for the betterment of Life on Earth is not in fact altruistic – as any change within the system is rendered useless by the overpowering authority which has been given to self-interest and the pursuit of happiness and so the only altruistic act, the only act of unconditional love would be the abolishment of the current world system and replace it with a system which is Best for All Life as the Equal Money System which Values Life, that which is real as the physical reality over Mind Delusions as Money
I commit myself to show that standing / support a cause which does not cause the replacement of the current world system is useless and will most likely only bring more suffering as the workings of the current world system as the reflection of the mind is not understood
I commit myself to the education of the human being so all may see/realise/understand how this reality actually operates as it is merely reflecting / mimicking the workings of the Mind
I commit myself to expose that we cannot sustain our current world system as it was not designed with sustainability in Mind and thus the best thing we can do is release ourselves from the current world system as it is a parasite sucking the Life out of Planet Earth and all the living beings as plants, animals and humans – and so I commit myself to remove the parasite and replace it with a system of Support as the Equal Money System where NONE are left behind
I commit myself to the redefinition of economics – where the starting point of economics is no longer that of the limited anthropocentric view of life, but a starting point of Biocentrism* where Life is put as the centre cause and where the Human no longer plays the role of Self-Interested Agent looking out to satisfy his own desires, but is placed in a position of Stewardship*/Custodianship – here to support other Life forms as itself within an Equal and One consideration and respect
*Biocentrism: Biocentrism states that nature does not exist simply to be used or consumed by humans, but that humans are simply one species amongst many,[4]and that because we are part of an ecosystem, any actions which negatively affect the living systems of which we are a part, adversely affect us as well,[4][5]whether or not we maintain a biocentric worldview.[4]Biocentrists believe that all species have inherent value, and that humans are not "superior" in a moral or ethical sense
*Stewardship is an ethic that embodies responsible planning and management of resources.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Tuesday Night Linkage, Brought to You In Part By....
Stupidity. Yes, it costs us productive members of society more in taxes to pay for the stupid, but it gives us cart-blanche to mock and ridicule them. Stupidity, what western civilization strove to purge.
Herd Mentality. Do you have it? Good for you! Now go claim you're independent, don't need other people, live off the government while we mock and ridicule you because you're just as much of a conformist and supremely ordinary like OWS protestors and hipsters. Herd Mentality, what western civilization strove to purge.
Entrepreneurship. Sick of working for people who are sick of working for other people who are sick of working for other people? Forget being a corporate man, become an entrepreneur. Chicks dig it more than you being the "assistant vice president" of some lame ass company. Entrepreneurship, what western civilization strove to promote.
Herd Mentality. Do you have it? Good for you! Now go claim you're independent, don't need other people, live off the government while we mock and ridicule you because you're just as much of a conformist and supremely ordinary like OWS protestors and hipsters. Herd Mentality, what western civilization strove to purge.
Entrepreneurship. Sick of working for people who are sick of working for other people who are sick of working for other people? Forget being a corporate man, become an entrepreneur. Chicks dig it more than you being the "assistant vice president" of some lame ass company. Entrepreneurship, what western civilization strove to promote.
Why Laura Fritz Owes Me Money
Ok junior, aspiring, deputy, official and otherwise economists!
Test time!
What are the mistakes Laura and her boyfriend made that makes it so you and I and every other person who works hard get to pay higher taxes to pay for their mistakes?
Bueller?
Bueller?
I just love how the media portrays them as victims.
Test time!
What are the mistakes Laura and her boyfriend made that makes it so you and I and every other person who works hard get to pay higher taxes to pay for their mistakes?
Bueller?
Bueller?
I just love how the media portrays them as victims.
Day 53: Government Intervention - Part 2
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that we can try and change/manipulate whatever we want – but as long as we do not change the starting point of our current economic system as justified self-interest – we’ll simply play the same game under a different picture
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that there is a solution within the system – not seeing and realising that the system is the problem – and within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to fear losing / giving up the current economic system because I fear losing / giving up my self interest
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to rather want and go change bits and pieces here and there to make things more ‘equitable’ for those less fortunate – but never take on the system as a whole because I secretly want to hold on to the problem as self-interest because I do not want to give up my hopes and dreams of wealth and living a care free life while others slave away their existence to make my care free life possible
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself advocate particular points such as for instance ‘minimum wage’ and ‘banning child labour’ – without taking into consideration what the consequences/effects/results would be of such actions as I have failed to investigate this reality for real
I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a political system where leaders and decision makers are placed in positions of power based on a popularity contest which is based on money – as whoever gets the must funding for their campaign will win the contest – where we end up with leaders who were not trained to be leaders and which lack the skill and understanding of how the world actually operates – and then end up implementing policies to “do good” but end up doing “bad” within not having investigate the nature and dynamics of the current world system
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that there is no solution possible within the system – as it will only create side-effects / consequences which result in a world worse off instead of better off – since we’ve accepted and allowed self-interest to be the guiding principle for all our actions and within that we’ve accepted and justified abuse – so as long as we safeguard and protect self-interest – it will always be the dominating variable in any equation which will overpower and determine the outcome
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that no ‘altruism’, ‘goodness’ or ‘love’ can exist as long as we live in and accept the current world system, as it can only result in more evil, hate and self interest
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to admit that which I know needs to be done – which is the implementation of an Equal Money System so all may finally be equal in accessibility of life sustaining resources
I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that we cannot go on like this forever – so we might as well stop now, as it has to be done sooner or later – and the sooner the better
Monday, July 23, 2012
Who Wants to Hire Sarah Jaffe?
Now, now Mr. Bezos, don't rush to hire her!
She not only has that wonderful sense of entitlement, but also a complete lack of how economics and the real world works!
I'll be brief because I'm finishing up season 3 of The Man from UNCLE.
1. Amazon doesn't have to pay tuition PERIOD. Leave it to spoiled brat American leftists to bitch about a company's decision to pay for "some" of their tuition and not "all." Let alone, I'd like to know how many jobs Ms. Jaffe has created compared to Mr. Bezos.
2. Amazon is doing its employees a favor DENYING THEM the ability to major in Fluffy El Crapo Liberal Arts studies. So instead of wasting not only Amazon's money, BUT THEIR YOUTH AND TIME on a worthless degree, they will instead be MUCH MORE LIKELY TO GET OUT OF THE WAREHOUSE WITH BETTER EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS.
3. You don't have to work there.
4. Don't you just LOVE her sense of entitlement? Which leads me to ...
5. Don't you big corporations know that no good deed goes unpunished and placating your enemies does not turn them into friends? Just ask BP and Exxon how their how CSR "green" thing is going.
Alas, perhaps Mr. Bezos could buy Ms. Jaffe a copy of "Worthless?" No doubt she went to "J school" because she couldn't handle calculus and was afraid of an academic discipline that required rigor..errr...I mean "she wanted to change the world."
She not only has that wonderful sense of entitlement, but also a complete lack of how economics and the real world works!
I'll be brief because I'm finishing up season 3 of The Man from UNCLE.
1. Amazon doesn't have to pay tuition PERIOD. Leave it to spoiled brat American leftists to bitch about a company's decision to pay for "some" of their tuition and not "all." Let alone, I'd like to know how many jobs Ms. Jaffe has created compared to Mr. Bezos.
2. Amazon is doing its employees a favor DENYING THEM the ability to major in Fluffy El Crapo Liberal Arts studies. So instead of wasting not only Amazon's money, BUT THEIR YOUTH AND TIME on a worthless degree, they will instead be MUCH MORE LIKELY TO GET OUT OF THE WAREHOUSE WITH BETTER EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS.
3. You don't have to work there.
4. Don't you just LOVE her sense of entitlement? Which leads me to ...
5. Don't you big corporations know that no good deed goes unpunished and placating your enemies does not turn them into friends? Just ask BP and Exxon how their how CSR "green" thing is going.
Alas, perhaps Mr. Bezos could buy Ms. Jaffe a copy of "Worthless?" No doubt she went to "J school" because she couldn't handle calculus and was afraid of an academic discipline that required rigor..errr...I mean "she wanted to change the world."
Boy, Indoctrination Sure Starts Early
You know how in true intellectual honesty I worry time to time that the advice we give young boys may no longer be pertinent? That girls have changed since we were boys and that our advice today may actually hurt them?
Then I see this and realize today boys need the Manosphere more than ever.
You poor, young boys are going to war whether you like it or not. And sadly at the age of 8. God I hope they play with frogs and turtles for a long time in childhood ignorant bliss.
ht
Then I see this and realize today boys need the Manosphere more than ever.
You poor, young boys are going to war whether you like it or not. And sadly at the age of 8. God I hope they play with frogs and turtles for a long time in childhood ignorant bliss.
ht
Good Thing Guns Were Banned
at the movie theater according to Colorado law.
Otherwise some crazy person might have come in and shot the place up! But thankfully some really intelligent people with liberal arts degrees, no real world experience, and a lot of their parent's money ran for public office in Colorado and enacted legislation that would prevent people from carrying guns into theaters.
Otherwise some crazy person might have come in and shot the place up! But thankfully some really intelligent people with liberal arts degrees, no real world experience, and a lot of their parent's money ran for public office in Colorado and enacted legislation that would prevent people from carrying guns into theaters.
Day 52: Government Intervention
However, due to the free market principle – some people are excluded from being able to access (basic) resources because of insufficient financial means. The government might find it necessary to intervene in the economy to allow for more people to be able to access these goods and services.
Price Ceiling
A ‘price ceiling’ is a legal upper limit on the price of a good or service. Once this price ceiling is imposed by the government; it becomes illegal for suppliers to sell the particular good or service at a higher rate than the set ceiling price. This is done to protect consumers from conditions that could possibly make basic commodities inaccessible.
Let us now have a look at the ‘ripple effect’ that comes about when a price ceiling is imposed.
We know that consumers like low prices and that suppliers enjoy high prices. Within the free market an equilibrium price is reached [See Day 49: Resource Distribution: Supply & Demand for a refresher on 'equilibrium price] where both demand and supply meet each other. For a price ceiling to be effective [a maximum price], the government has to set the ceiling below the equilibrium price. If for instance, the equilibrium price of bread is set at $3 a loaf – the government would set a price ceiling at let’s say $1,50 a loaf – to make the bread accessible for a wider range of people. This will initially make the consumer temporarily pleased as he or she can now buy bread or buy more bread with his or her available funds. Though, as we have seen before, the interest of the supplier lies at the opposite side of the equation. The supplier is now not making as much money as he could have been making at the equilibrium price, and considers being at loss with the new price rate. Producing the same amount of bread loaves at the new price is not (as) profitable anymore and the supplier starts producing less. The bread will still be available at $1,50 a loaf – but less bread will be offered. In the end, we have the exact same problem as before the price ceiling was imposed: some will be able to buy bread, and others won’t. The price ceiling has as a side-effect created a shortage in supply and no actual solution has been put in place.
Price Floor
A ‘price floor’ on the other hand, is an imposed minimum price that may be charged for a particular good or service. It becomes illegal to sell the particular good or service at a lower rate than the set floor price. Price floors are imposed by the government to prevent prices from being too low. The most common known price floor is the minimum wage for labour. Price floors are also often used in the agricultural sector in an attempt to protect farmers.
As you can guess, a price floor is not without consequence.
What happens when the price of a product or service increases? Potential buyers are more likely to refrain from buying the product or service as it is considered to be less lucrative to buy the product or service at the floor price. The quantity demanded of the particular good or service decreases.
On the other hand, there will be in an increase of supply, as more people are willing to supply this particular good or service since they can get more money for than at the equilibrium price – for the exact same amount.
If we now have to translate this into a real life practical example such as the minimum-wage, we get the following scenario:
Because of the increased in price for labour, companies are less likely to hire as many people as they would have done at the equilibrium price – because it became more expensive to do so.
Thus some people will be able to get jobs and have a minimum wage that they can live off. But at the same time there will now be people who will not be able to get a job at all, due to the decrease in available job positions. There is a surplus in supply. In the end the people who were supposed to benefit from the government intervention, are the ones who are worse off in the long run.
Another example of the inefficiency of price floors within our current economic system plays out within the agricultural sector. To provide farmers with a decent income (and thus to keep them motivated to produce food for consumption), the government can introduce a price floor on certain types of food. The farmer will start producing and supplying more of that particular food, as he or she knows that a greater profit is being made. At the same time, a lesser quantity is being demanded as the particular food just became more expensive in the eye of the consumer. A surplus of food is thus created. This can cause massive amount of food to go to waste or lead governments to dump the surplus of food in other countries, which disrupts the local market there – where the farmers there end up not being able to sell their produce as they have been bombarded with cheap surplus food / food-aid from overseas.
Often politicians themselves are not even aware of the side-effects / consequences of making such decisions -- as they are playing a popularity game and are only concerned with doing that which 'looks good' and have no background in economics, or where they will know what the actual effect of their decisions is, but still do it anyway, as the voters are fooled within believing that the politician is being 'altruistic', while nothing really changes.
This again highlights that there is no solution possible within the system – since self-interest is at the base point of everything – and so no matter how you try and ‘manipulate’ the game – self-interest will always bite you in the ass and get what it wants. If you try and change some of the rules, self-interest will simply adapt and do what self-interest does = only care about self, and others will still be hurt in the process. And so no matter what you do, you’ll still end up with a broken system, because the very foundation, the very starting point is unsound. Whatever move you make to “try and make things better” will simply be matched by a counter movement which keeps the entire game / construct in place.
This dynamic is important to keep in mind, as some people will for instance advocate ‘minimum wage’ without seeing/realizing what the consequences/side-effects are. This doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t have a basic income – it just means that it won’t work in our current system.
That’s why we cannot just ‘edit’ or ‘adjust’ the system – we have to completely and irrevocably replace it with a whole new value system – a value system as the Equal Money System which values Life over all, and works for the whole of Earth and its inhabitants.
Sinfest Prediction
I don't know if any of you have been keeping up with Sinfest (which is now the second best web comic next to "Least I Could Do,") but he's taken a really femmy approach recently.
Or has "he?"
I will go out on a limb here and predict he's let a girl write the past 2 months of comics and has simply illustrated them. The change is too abrupt, too quick, and frankly, has gone against his historical style.
Love ya Tatsuya baby! Keep up the feminist line! Soon "Control Alt D" will become #2 (remember that comic...until he got all sappy with the child and marriage thing? Oh yeah, that's right, I don't. I stopped reading after the child and marriage thing along with pretty much every one guy that was his fan base).
Oh, and didn't "Scrubs" end shortly after it got all femmy?
Bah! What does the "market" know!? Men will just eat whatever garbage we feed them.
Swear to god the Manosphere is about the only cove out there for men. Thankfully it's growing.
Or has "he?"
I will go out on a limb here and predict he's let a girl write the past 2 months of comics and has simply illustrated them. The change is too abrupt, too quick, and frankly, has gone against his historical style.
Love ya Tatsuya baby! Keep up the feminist line! Soon "Control Alt D" will become #2 (remember that comic...until he got all sappy with the child and marriage thing? Oh yeah, that's right, I don't. I stopped reading after the child and marriage thing along with pretty much every one guy that was his fan base).
Oh, and didn't "Scrubs" end shortly after it got all femmy?
Bah! What does the "market" know!? Men will just eat whatever garbage we feed them.
Swear to god the Manosphere is about the only cove out there for men. Thankfully it's growing.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Peter Schiff and Craig Kamman Walk Into a Bar...
Not to put Mr. Kamman on par with Peter Schiff, but does anybody in the real estate world of economists consider property taxes or am I the only one?
The recovery in housing prices and the housing market (if you can even call it that-"recovery" i mean) is going to be moot unless people are allowed to own said houses without a punishing tax bill at the end. Currently I am renting out a place for 200% the property taxes on my old place back in Minneapolis. In short I pay only twice what my property taxes were per month to rent out a similar size swelling. ie- I believe landlords are subsidizing renters (for a whole host of reasons I don't care to explain now). So tell me, if you pay to own an asset every year, is that really an asset? Or is it a liability?
Because I'm no economic genius (well, actually, I am, and a good looking one to boot), but unless the rents you generate exceed the cash flows you're paying out OR the money you'd save on renting is more than the property taxes you pay, then that piece of land with a structure on top of it is NOT an asset, it's a liability. ie- homeowners are really nothing more than voluntary donors to the local and state governments.
I guess my larger point is that unless there are some laws passed that will limit how much local governments can extort from property owners, in the end I doubt ANY property in the US will have ANY value...a dream most marxists and communists would love.
Oh well, you voted for these communist f*cks.
Enjoy the decline!
The recovery in housing prices and the housing market (if you can even call it that-"recovery" i mean) is going to be moot unless people are allowed to own said houses without a punishing tax bill at the end. Currently I am renting out a place for 200% the property taxes on my old place back in Minneapolis. In short I pay only twice what my property taxes were per month to rent out a similar size swelling. ie- I believe landlords are subsidizing renters (for a whole host of reasons I don't care to explain now). So tell me, if you pay to own an asset every year, is that really an asset? Or is it a liability?
Because I'm no economic genius (well, actually, I am, and a good looking one to boot), but unless the rents you generate exceed the cash flows you're paying out OR the money you'd save on renting is more than the property taxes you pay, then that piece of land with a structure on top of it is NOT an asset, it's a liability. ie- homeowners are really nothing more than voluntary donors to the local and state governments.
I guess my larger point is that unless there are some laws passed that will limit how much local governments can extort from property owners, in the end I doubt ANY property in the US will have ANY value...a dream most marxists and communists would love.
Oh well, you voted for these communist f*cks.
Enjoy the decline!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)