patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
756,019 comments in 77,813 posts by 11,069 registered users, 1 online now: YesYNot

new post

Reality's comments

1   Reality   Jun 29, 10:59pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Tall parents tend to give births to tall offsprings, who tend to be advantaged in basketball. Short parents tend to give births to short offsprings, who tend to live longer. Should government ban both tall people and short people for their respective "unfair" advantages? thereby banning everyone?

Likewise, IQ is highly heritable. Higher IQ people tend to make more money and be more successful in their lives, lower IQ people tend to be more easily content with their lives (i.e. subjectively happier, for the same level of material well being; unless they are disturbed by agitators). Should government ban both high IQ people and low IQ people? thereby banning everyone?

What exactly is wrong with children taking after their parents? What would be the point of mate selection if outcome were completely random and not affected by the characteristics of parents at all? We know good-looking people tend to produce good-looking offpsrings; would you want a government that mandates disfiguring all newborns just to make it "fair" for everyone? "Fair" to whom?

Why shouldn't height and good-looks be taxed if earning power is to be taxed? Should the law mandate all good-looking girls to be raped? just like people making more money are raped (the word came from "rapine" or pillage) in their wallets? This may not be an entirely academic question for hard-core Marxists, as it is the logic conclusion to a policy of making everyone equal in a biological world where females are hypergamous (they choose mates based on unequalness, the very basis of mate selection, one of the primary drivers of evolution.)

Capital goods ("means of production" in Marxian lingo) have to be privately owned because the benefit of capital goods is not ownership/consumption but what to do with it. "Public ownership" of capital goods just means conferring such decision power to monopolistic bureaucrats who are not subject to market competition. Private ownership of capital goods means there can be competitive ownership: open transparent bidding on the decision power as well as displacement of existing capital goods by new capital goods embodying better technology. The economic effect of robots is fundamentally no different from mass production lines. Private ownership in the West allowed better and better cars made in the West catering to consumer demands, whereas "public ownership" of manufacturing lines in the Soviet Union meant they continued to make 1940's car models well into the 1980's! making the jobs of bureaucrats easier at the expense of the general population, who had to suffer from the resource misallocation.

Applying absolute "equality" (i.e. "levelers" at the time of American Revolution) to capital goods ownership in a population of unequal IQ's is a stupid idea, as that would just make some people "more equal" than other people in an even more monopolistic way, a la Animal Farm. At any given time, everyone's IQ is never the same. Otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution. IQ is heritable; otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution and human society/species wouldn't improve. People being different from each other, and having different outcomes (both economic and non-economic) due to the differences, are fundamental to progress and improvement.

OTOH, social agitators tend to make things worse by transferring economic decision-making power from higher IQ people to lower IQ people, while making lower-IQ people unhappy by pointing out the notional "unfairness" in their otherwise relatively content lives. It is much easier to decide what's better for oneself than deciding what's better for someone else; the best thing lower/average IQ people can do is selecting which smart phone to buy for himself/herself instead of voting on how to make the next generation of smart phones. Let the high IQ people / geniuses decide how to make the next generation of smart phones, and then let the rest of the population decide which to buy for himself/herself among numerous competing offerings . . . instead of "public ownership" monopoly by a few tyrannical high IQ people mandating which exact model everyone in society is allowed to have.

2   Reality   2016 Apr 21, 12:05am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

There is one major problem with Tubman: helping organizing John Brown's deadly terrorist attack on Federal property.

3   Reality   2016 Apr 20, 5:15am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

tatupu70 says

Abe Lincoln is well known for having large debts in the White House and he turned out OK.

I wouldn't call someone causing more than 600,000 American combat deaths as "turned out ok." Compared to total population of the time, that's equivalent to 7 million deaths today! More than double the total number of people in the entire military now! That 620k military death toll from Civil War did not even count the civilian deaths caused by the war.

Lincoln being a heavy debtor may well have had a lot to do with his preference for heavy handed war mongering and government intervention: to reduce the real purchasing power of his debt. He was also behind the Greenback money printing scheme.

4   Reality   2016 Feb 13, 7:33am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

1. Inflation would help debtors only if the subsequent inflation rate exceeds the existing inflation expectation at the time the debt is incurred. Otherwise, the expected inflation would just work into interest rate. The constant 2% theory would not work in real life, except for cooking up some accounting gains ripe for taxation; in other words detrimental to real economic growth.

2. Post-1913 recession length count is affected by an econometric artifact: it takes time for new money to work through the system and drive up prices. That causes a statistical delay in the GDP deflator, resulting in an over-statement of GDP when the government is goosing the economy. That is on top of the problem of GDP count itself counting the full nominal value of government waste. How does the recovery since 2009 feel? For most people it feels like a continuation of long recession. Started in 2008 if not 2000 (dot-com crash)

3. Declining product price does not necessarily lead to lack of investment in new industry, just witness the computer and telecom equipment industry in the past 3 decades: prices constantly dropped yet the tech industry grew rapidly. In reality, artificially low interest rate and central bank engineered boom actually would divert capital resources towards non-productive and less productive enterprises, such as low interest government loan to bail out obsolete players (say, typewriter makers, union infested carmakers and big banking conglomerate too ponderous to adjust), and the so-called "content businesses" of literature majors when it is the technology that brings the high growth.

4. The late 19th century long recession was the result of government subsidized railroads going bust. In other words, another instance of government induced boom causing bust.

5   Reality   2016 Feb 10, 3:10am     ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

unless of course, they can find someone cheaper.

Exactly, and that's exactly Patrick's point too: if women were indeed paid less than men for doing the same work, employers would replace male employees with female workers en mass.

Incidentally, shopping for less expensive alternative is what everyone does most of the time, including you, Dan. Capitalistic Free Market is the recognition of this red pill reality. Socialism is blue pill endoctrination for the masses while inevitably allowing a few socialpaths rise to the top through government coercion. There were plenty bleeding heart liberals among Russians who participated in the overthrow of the Czarist regime, but once state coercion was expanded, they all became hapless victims of the Bolsheviks, even the more intellectual Bolsheviks became purge victims of Stalin and his secret police. Only the scums rise to the top in socialism / state-slavery / bureaucratic societies.

6   Reality   2016 Feb 7, 9:52pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

bob2356 says

Venezuela is socialist like Somalia is capitalist, with the same results. Even that great socialist rag the WSJ can see the difference. Too bad ironbrain doesn't have a clue. . http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/07/venezuelas-not-suffering-from-socialism-but-from-anti-marketism/#7003a9a42b5348c87cf42b53

Somalian economy and living standards improved much faster under their brief period of anarchy in the 1990's than they ever did under socialism: even under no central government protection, the private enterprises built the wireless network for the country, while its former peers continuing on Somalia's previous socialist trajectory, Cuba and North Korea, saw central government active banning of personal computers and wireless phones.

Tim Worstall's article proves only his own economic illiteracy. Share holding and partnership by private individual choice is not socialism. When Goldman Sachs was a partnership, each partner chose to be part of the partnership . . . quite unlike socialism where everyone is forced into nominal ownership while exercising no management control except the very top 0.001% who garners the real benefit of "state ownership." Worstall utterly fails to realize that when productive capital is not competitively owned by different individuals (or groups of individuals by individual member choice), the myriads of difference uses of a piece of "capital" can not be optimized. Banning competitive market on "capital" (as in "socialism") inevitably lead to waste of capital and resources, just like banning competitive market on consumer goods. There is no clear line between what is "capital" vs. what is "consumer goods." Many "consumer goods" can be turned into productive use and become "capital." A competitive market place is necessary to ensure efficient use. When the revolutionaries took over the French royal library, the revolutionaries had no qualms about burning the books and the furniture to keep themselves warm! That's how state bureaucrats would treat "capital" when they exercise management control while have no ownership.

"Socialism" is just a 19th century new word for serfdom (and slavery) that was rapidly going out of fashion under the pressure of relative free market capitalism practices that became mainstream in the 18th century. "Political mandate" is just another way of saying "The Divine Right of the King" to override individual choices. They even say "crowning" regarding politicians winning elections!

7   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:51pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Two words: Independent Contractor.

8   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 11:17am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. A man does not give up his rights simply for having consensual recreational sex. Your statement is as logical as saying that a person gives up his right to bear arms if he ever orders a happy meal from McDonald's.

He acquires a probabilistic responsibility when he deposits sperm in a fertile woman.

Hell, I could make a far better case that people who have children give up their rights to possess firearms because guns in the home are a danger to children. You want to go there?

Only in your deranged mind.

9   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 11:14am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Whether or not a procedure is safe is not relevant to the fact that it's a human rights violation to force it upon another person, especially a medical procedure that has no medical purpose. Your argument is identical to requiring women to have a transvaginal sonogram before getting an abortion. It is morally abhorrent and illegal, and quite frankly despicable and disturbing.

Nope. Men choosing to have vasectomy undertake the procedure for a very clear medical purpose: avoiding depositing sperm in a woman while enjoying sex. You may want to try that, Dan, considering what a loser you are.

10   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 11:11am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

When talking about the severity of mutilation, you have to have mutilation to begin with. Menstuation, nose-bleeding and all-natural child births do not involve mutilation to begin with, just natural bleeding. Abortion and surgical child birth however do involve mutilation.

Dance monkey, dance!

Live birth involves far more mutilation than having your tubes tied. You've obviously never examined a real woman.

Why am I not surprised by your strawman tactics. I said "all-natural child birth" as opposed to "surgical child birth" whereas you dumb ass wanted to talk about "live birth."

In other words, you already conceded the point! LOL!

11   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:39am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Nope, you are. You measured the amount of harm based on the amount of lost blood. It's YOUR argument. It's YOUR metric. According to your logic, giving birth is EXTREME mutilation.

You should think about these things before you pull arguments out yer ass.

When talking about the severity of mutilation, you have to have mutilation to begin with. Menstuation, nose-bleeding and all-natural child births do not involve mutilation to begin with, just natural bleeding. Abortion and surgical child birth however do involve mutilation.

12   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:37am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

You are clueless. The morning after pill prevents implantation. There is no pregnancy involved.

This event occurs after conception, after the man has already lost control of his life.

Paraphrasing your own argument: God condemns the man into losing control of his life. LOL! Perhaps you should stop depositing sperm inside women if you are incapable of persuading her what to do with it? Conception has no legal standing.

iwog says

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

This occurs before conception.

Conception has no legal standing.

iwog says

The man can litigate to seek custody.

Unless she decides he can't and the courts will always side with her.

Not when she is already giving up custody.

13   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:34am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Reality says

That is certainly a valid measurement.

Exactly!! So since it's a valid measurement, god is mutilating women. You're so smart.

You are the dumb ass who thinks menstuation is mutilation. Menstuation bleeding is just like nose bleeding, no mutilation involved. However, if you want to compare mutilations, bleeding severity is certainly a valid measurement.

iwog says

Abortions usually involve much more bleeding than menstuation.

So does giving birth you twit.

What's your point? Tax is usually more than child support.

14   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:31am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

The woman has to endure the physical aspects of pregnancy.

Or not. She can simply take a morning after pill.

You are clueless. The morning after pill prevents implantation. There is no pregnancy involved.

iwog says

Reality says

Unless she gives up raising the child, she is very much required to raise the child.

You mean unless she decides otherwise, she can do what she wants?

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

iwog says

Reality says

In fact, if the woman gives up the child after birth, and the father usually has the right of first refusal!

Unless of course she has decided to leave his name off the birth certificate.

The man can litigate to seek custody. What's your point? Leaving his name off the BC is just like the man can run off and disappear.

15   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:28am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Reality says

What's your point?

My point is measuring mutilation by the amount of blood involved, which is exactly what you did, is ridiculous and I ridiculed you for it.

That is certainly a valid measurement. Abortions usually involve much more bleeding than menstuation.

16   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:25am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Not when it comes to being assigning responsibility regarding consequences of one's actions.

Unless you're a woman...........

How the fuck can you be so stupid?

What are you talking about? The woman has to endure the physical aspects of pregnancy. Nobody is doing that for her. Unless she gives up raising the child, she is very much required to raise the child. BTW, if your argument is that women should be required to pay surtax just like child support if she gives up the child after giving birth, then I might be inclined to agree with you. In fact, if the woman gives up the child after birth, and the father usually has the right of first refusal! If he takes the child, the mother would indeed be required to pay him child support!

17   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:21am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Reality says

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation.

ROFLOL.............um...............menstruation? GOD IS MUTILATING WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

What's your point? Cutting a woman should be legal if it involves less bleeding than menstuation?

18   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:20am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Reality says

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that pregnancy is taking place _inside_ her?

And a child takes place inside a man's wallet and physical labor.

My body my choice remember?

Not when it comes to being assigning responsibility regarding consequences of one's actions.

19   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:18am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation. Dan, when it comes to feeling vs. rational thinking regarding women vs. men, I'm inclined to classify you on the side of women thinking with feelings instead of rationality.

20   Reality   2016 Feb 5, 10:16am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

He can avoid all of that by having a vasectomy, which is a lot easier to do and less painful/risky than either abortion or female sterilization.

That's bullshit. Abortion is safe, even safer than modern childbirth.

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home