Reality's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 4205 - 4244 of 4,244     Last »

  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 14, 6:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Rin says
But paying for childcare and alimony is what it's about? Isn't it?


Child support is a big deal for the bloke making only average income $5k/mo pre-tax or $3k or so after-tax; when your after-tax income surpasses $20k/mo, child support is no longer a big deal but a worthwhile purchases/entertainment/hobby.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 15, 5:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says

Absolutely not true. Even billionaires may be parted with billions.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/business/2010/12/10/dallas-billionaire-andy-beal_s-divorce-turns-messy
https://nataliegregg.com/2010/andy-beals-divorce-forget-the-pre-nup/

Prenups do not work.


Marriage is not a prerequisite for having children.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 20, 6:57pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The demographic reason should be quite obvious: dumber women are enabled to have more surviving children than they would have had otherwise thanks to welfare, whereas smarter women have been having fewer children than they would have had in the absence of distraction by academic/professional opportunities during their young most fertile child-bearing years (and the brainwashing of prioritizing tax-slavery / wage-slavery in monopoly industries over motherhood).

The decline among brothers born to the same parents is likely due to the mother's aging eggs, as the mothers now start late (on the declining side of the slope) to begin with. The decline between father and son is of course the result of different mothers: in the earlier generation the smarter women (mother candidates) were less distracted and less brain-washed into delaying or not having children, so proportionally more smart women were available for becoming mothers.

IQ score is by definition not a result of education, but genetic factors (and to a lesser degree nutrition, when young).

Early 70's was exactly the time when welfare state mushroomed and women's liberation (ditching the family so they can eventually become cat women on psychotropic pills after being squeezed dry by tax-slavery and wage-slavery) started to take big strides.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 20, 7:13pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Also keep in mind, lead paint and leaded gas (which turned into lead smog in air after combustion) were outlawed in the 1970's! That change on itself should have improved the IQ of the population. Yet welfare-state and luring smart women away from reproducing early have counteracted in a way that have swamped the improvement that should have been expected from reducing lead exposure.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 22, 1:51pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The real issue is government bailout of large corporations (e.g. financial institutions), favoring large corporations when doling out government contracts (bureaucrats spending other people's money sticking to "nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM") and government subsidized services (such as medicine and social working) that result in consolidations among service providers.

That is the real reason why big businesses have bloated "human resources" department hiring people based on paper qualifications. Otherwise, if a real business got so big as having to rely on costly paper requirement when hiring, it would have lost its lunch to more nimble competitors.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 26, 10:29am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Human beings are fundamentally individuals, not eusocial animals like ants or bees. Welfare state will eventually break down society as it promotes a different kind of evolutionary strategy in men (knocking up a bunch of single mothers and let other men pay for them instead of having to support them himself). Having a crowd of ethnically different people around just makes that reality crystal clear faster, lifting the usual mind fog that is foisted upon the usual post-WWII western society.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 28, 10:33pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The term "liberalism" in that particular Hitler quote was referencing the European definition of "liberalism"; i.e. "neo-liberalism"/capitalism/libertarianism in today's lingo.

Both Hitler and Moussolini were socialists (and formerly self-acknowledged and card-carrying socialist party members), as were the overwhelming majority of their core followers. The Nazi vs. Commie feud was in reality similar to the Stalin vs. Trotsky feud and Stalin's directive via Communist International to target socialist parties: internecine feud in order to eliminate the closest competition in the same Darwinian niche.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 29, 2:34pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
Yep the Raj sucking all the wealth out of india while treating indians as sub human and British conquering china ports to sell them massive quantities of opium was great for the education of the people.


Keep in mind, both Indians and Chinese had been conquered and living under foreign domination for hundreds of years when the British arrived (and even when the Portuguese and the Dutch arrived before the British).

Native Indians (of the Asian subcontinent) were living under Mughals (Islamized Mongols), and native Chinese were living under Manchu conquest, both for several hundred years. What the West (British, and Dutch VOC as well as Portuguese merchants before them) offered the native populations of India and China were far superior, modern and dignified terms than what the Mughal rulers and Manchu rulers offered the native population. That's why, in both vast geographical areas, people voted with their feet to migrate / flock to the trading posts / colonies set up by the western merchants, and those waves of migration were not due to any welfare offered by the colonial administrations either, but simply due to better opportunity and fairer trade terms (and individual rights and liberty, relatively speaking) than what had been available to the people living under Mughal rule or Manchu rule, where random execution on the say-so of government officials without trial was the norm.

Please don't take the above paragraph to mean that the West were original inventors of civilization. Indians achieved high levels of commerce and civilization circa 1700BC during the Hrappan period; they had widespread indoor plumbing, which was not evident in Rome until 1500 years later, only to be lost and re-invented another 1500 years later (i.e. those early colonial administrators of Dutch VOC and British East Indian Company actually did not grow up in a society furnished with indoor plumbing, something that Hrappans had 3000+ years earlier!). Likewise, Chinese achieved the peak of their civilization around 400BC, about the same time as the Ancient Greek City States (Athens and Sparta), when China was a geographical entity, not a unified state. Those were the time periods when many schools of original intellectual thoughts emerged from India and China, just like in Ancient Greece and Europe/America after Renaissance (i.e. modern time).

There seems to be a great cycle that all civilizations go through: commerce and division of labor bring forth prosperity, then kids growing up under prosperity become spoiled, and their parents send their kids to schools in order to let them have a leg up on the competition without the vagaries of the market place or battlefield; the kids then become emotionally fragile idealists that expect too much and cost too much to get anything done, They devolve into endless infighting as those "educated" kids don't have the originality from market experience and therefore unable to create real value but can only fight over the existing (and inevitably declining) prosperity. What comes next is invasion and conquest by barbarians at the gate.

We can see that in the well documented ancient Greek history: despite what we think of the great intellectual luminaries Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, what they really brought was catastrophe to their host society: all three and their schools were obviously result of rapidly rising prosperity due to commerce, yet, Socrates' educational effort brought forth Alcibades, who was the lynch-pin in the fall of Athens; Athenian society would have been far better off if Socrates had not diverted Alcibades from wine and sensual pursuits. Plato was an out-right advocate of totalitarianism. Aristotle, despite his rejection of Plato's totalitarian ideals, brought forth Alexander ("the Great") who finally put to death Greek Liberty by creating a large empire and bringing forth a dark age for classical Greece.

Similar historical pattern had taken place in India and China: Vedic invasion and conquest Indian subcontinent, reducing it from commercial success and highly sophisticated urban living (Hrappan) to a dark age under the caste system; "Chin" (another periphery semi-barbaric state, just like Vedic to India, and Macedon to Greece) conquest of "China" (which obviously wasn't known as "China" before the invasion and conquest by "Chin") likewise ushered in thousands of years of bureaucratic totalitarian dark age in that part of the world. Yet the real reason for such invasion/conquest was internal decay and helplessness of the "intellectuals" grown up in prosperity, knowing only in-fighting and submission to external conquerors . . . just like in the twilight years of ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

In the West, the post-Roman dark age was broken first by the commercial Italian city-states, then after the Ottoman blocked off sea-borne trade routes, Portugueses and Spaniads, then the North Sea coast/basin (Dutch and English) carried on the commercial tradition, eventually accumulating enough capital over time to ignite the carbonaceous fuel as source of industrial energy, far surpassing what had been available from the previous draft animal power and wind power (both for mills and for sail ships), eventually spreading this cycle of civilization to all corners of the world.

Politicians in India and China may want to nurse their "wounded pride" for contemporary political aims, but it would be silly to think living under serfdom in India and China were somehow superior to living under serfdom in central or eastern Europe (e.g. the Rumanian count notorious for copying Turkish methods).
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 29, 6:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HeadSet says
There seems to be a great cycle that all civilizations go through

Yes, but they all stopped at a certain level. Rome, Egypt, India, and China all made strides in writing, constructions, arts, and commerce. The Roman Aqueducts, Egyptian Pyramids, and Great Wall are significant achievements. But why the arrest in progress? For example, the Roman Army had the same weapons and infantry tactics for hundreds of years. And why for a millennium of civilization, did China stay about the same level? Compare that to Western European civilization 1600-1900.


Necessity is the mother of all inventions. The arrest in progress/evolution was simply due to lack of competition: the respective state/civilization had developed into a "Universal State," occupying the entire "known world" or logistically reachable world and became a bureaucratic empire. The F-35 fiasco is the first major generation of fighter researched and developed under an environment where the US Air Force has no real peer competitor. The rapid development of Europe between 1600 and 1900 was due to fierce competition among various European states and numerous wars checking the cancerous growth of bureaucratic monopoly. Why did China stay about the same for a millennium? Because their culture embraced "grand unification and orderly peace under heaven" starting in the 11th century instead of advocating competing sovereigns like in Europe; from about 1300 to 1900, it was one unified "universal state" after another in that region of East Asia, with one bureaucratic monopoly after another; state-to-state wars became push-over affairs and mass slaughters of civilians instead of head-to-head competition between armies. When regional self-rule via "warlordism" finally returned to China in the first half of 20th century, its military quickly advanced from 14th century standards to 20th century standards in about 50 years. A similar pattern could be seen in Japanese history: the Sengoku Jidai ("Warring State Period") during early16th century saw Japanese military advance from peasant militia to mounted knights (Taketa Shingen's army) to mass infantry array using fire-arms (Oda Nobunaga's army) in one generation! covering the military technological development that took nearly 1000 years in Europe (from the fall of Western Roman Empire, rise of Knights, to French victory in the Hundred Year War via fire arms); then quickly forgotten after the establishment of Tokugawa Bakufu, followed by 200+ years of idealistic sword play! until they were rudely awakened by Commodore Perry. Just in case anyone thought Japanese people lived an idylic kumbalaya life under the sword-playing pretend-warriors during Tokugawa Bakufu: it was a Samurai's right to kill any commoner who offended him or for the simple purpose of testing his newly forged sword! Commoners of course were not allowed to have swords, and nobody was allowed to have fire-arms, although fire-arm armies had been deployed on a massive scale 200+ years earlier during the Sengoku Jidai ("Warring State Period") wars of unification.

The purpose of the above paragraph is not to glorify the efficiency of war-making technology, but war-making (/ self-preservation) is the fundamental function of a government, any government, so it is there one can find the maximum efficiency a given governmental system can deliver. Technology relating to living standards likewise can be retarded by a centralized state. For example, people in Cuba and North Korea are/were not allowed to have personal computers or cell phones, never mind internet. It is only competition among various states/countries in much of the rest of the world that give people the liberty to enjoy personal computers, cell phones and internet.

The European former serfs (mostly burghers by the eve of industrialization, as grain import had made agricultural serfdom in Western Europe unprofitable) were able to have some resources left over after tax and rent, precisely because they were able to run away to a different jurisdiction nearby if their lords squeezed them too hard. If there is a large unified state, everyone is a serf/slave of the bureaucratic monopoly. The bureaucrats can always have reason and find ways to raise tax/rent. Given half of American adults today can not cobble together $1000 in an emergency, how far do you think the modern tax/welfare state is from serfdom anyway? Industrialization most likely couldn't take place in today's environment.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 29, 7:57pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HeadSet says
If you took the offspring of Korean Scientists or Jewish Physicists, and placed them in an environment where these babies came of age in sub-Sahara with disease, malnutrition, and low mental stimulation, these babies would show low IQ. Likewise, if you took a sample of babies away from those sub-Sahara lands and placed them in Western households, those babies would trend toward higher IQ.


There are major problems with that assumption. Decades and billions of dollars spent in federal government sponsored "Head Start" program has unintentionally proven that IQ and genetics are real to a person's smarts and ultimate achievement potential: "Head Start" may have short-term effect on a student's grades in the first few years of schooling, but has little to no effect in the long run. That experiment went much further than leveling nutrition (although the program usually does deliver breakfast/lunch/dinner when need) but went so far as to leveling educational opportunity! Yet, the help doesn't make up for genetic deficiency.

CBOEtrader says
Are you familiar with the flynn effect?


I have a different interpretation of the Flynn Effect, especially in light of the latest report that the Flynn Effect is in reverse after the generation born around 1975 (i.e. those born later are not having rising IQ, but declining IQ!); i.e. Flynn Effect peaked in the generation born in the early 1970's.

The nutritional explanation of Flynn Effect, while sounds sweet and hopeful, doesn't make sense: the most nutritious food for baby during brain development is mother's milk. If a population is so malnourished that the mother is not producing enough milk, and the population in general is chronically starving, the IQ of the population would actually rise due to the deaths of those less intelligent and unable to gather enough resources for their children! That's precisely how humanity acquired intelligence: not by learning, but by starvation of those didn't have it! As harsh as it sounds, that's just how evolution works: giraffes with short necks starved to death (or couldn't find girlfriends), likewise lions that couldn't fight didn't have offspring, zebras coudn't run became lion food before breeding. In the same way, human ancestors that moved to colder climates developed higher IQ simply because those who were not smart enough to save seeds over winter starved to death! The free-food-all-the-time tropics didn't help IQ development (because in that environment higher IQ is not as important as bigger muscle or being more thuggish or simply having a bigger penis; i.e. becoming r-selected like horses and rodents that have food everywhere free for the taking, instead of K-selected like lions and wolves that have to hunt in order to eat) .

My explanation of Flynn Effect in the first 3/4 of 20th century was Women's Hypergamy (facilitated by mobility technology of the 20th century). Before 20th century, women mostly mated with their neighbors, a much smaller pool of men to choose from. In the first 3/4 of 20th century, trains and then automobile followed by airplane for long-distance relocating, as well as general social mobility, enabled an average woman to meet up and pick from a much larger pool of men. Think what going to college did in the MRS-degree era. The result was much more optimized mating and baby-making (from the woman's perspective). More children were born to men of higher intelligence because the social mobility in a relatively free market place translated the high IQ genotype into a phenotype visible as higher wealth and higher status.

The reverse of Flynn Effect for western population born after 1975 was the result of the welfare state: more children are born to women who (accidentally) get pregnant by losers, and can look forward to being supported by the welfare state. Cue movie Idiocracy intro:


  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 30, 6:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
Under the Mughal's India was a powerhouse. Something like 25% of the worlds GDP if I remember correctly Which doesn't matter because the Marathas had defeated the Mughals centuries the British showed up.


The British East India Company was founded in 1600, and arrived in India shortly after that. That was during the reign of Akbar "the Great," the very prime of Mughal Empire (the claim of Mughal India accounting for 1/4 of world's GDP was precisely regarding the early 17th century; i.e. early 1600's), decades before Shah Jahan commissioned the building of Taj Mahal, which was a huge waste of money and started the decline of Mughal Empire but probably contributed to the meaningless GDP statistic loved by GDP-fetishists. The Maratha Empire didn't even formally exist until 1674. Persian sacking of Mughal capital Delhi (signalling rapid decline of Mughal Empire) didn't take place until 1739, mid 18th century.

bob2356 says
The Manchu weren't foreign either. They were one of the largest ethnic groups in China through out history. The earlier Jin dynasty was Manchu or at least Jurchens who became the Manchu..


The Manchu (formerly known as Jurchens) was a foreign tribe to native Chinese living in China proper, with their tribal place of origin far north of either one of the two Great Walls (built around 200BC and 1400AD respectively). They became conquerors of China the same way as Mongols did; the difference is in subsequent action: they stayed for nearly 300 years (did not integrate during their rule of China, as they lived in segregated cities-within-cities). Manchus integrated and submerged into the general Chinese population only when/after their dynasty fell in the early 20th century and the Manchu population had to escape massacre and revenge for previous Manchu government policy of racial/ethnic persecution.

bob2356 says
Which has nothing to do with TPB believing british conquest brought the concept of education to backward people.


The real contribution of British was not education per se or even civil service exam, but the commercial opportunity and relative freedom brought on by a relatively hands-offish Thalassocracy. What the British trade ports brought to India and China was essentially the equivalent of "Free Cities" like Bremen and Hamburg in medieval central Europe (i.e. surrounded by mostly serfdom everywhere else); or the equivalent of Venice and Genoa (with their own fleets dominating the seas) building colonies (trading posts) all along Mediterranean and Black Seas . . . i.e. the bringer of the Renaissance.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 3, 5:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LOL! Wonder if the new landlord after that experience will start practicing affirmative action when recruiting future tenants, as in affirmative for those who are more likely to pay on time and don't picket the landlord's relatives' homes.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 3, 5:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Right vs Wrong says
Do people have a right to space on planet earth? If every square inch of the planet is already owned and we keep pooping out children, where do we go from here?


Not every inch of the planet is already owned. The overwhelming majority of the planet's surface is dirt cheap: you can buy a house in parts of Detroit for a song.

There are however small parts of the planet, like LA and NYC, that are very desirable. Investors and entrepreneurs are the reasons why those places are desirable, and for now have not yet been turned into another Detroit by the same type of idiots like those engaging in intimidation of the investor's relatives.

BTW, I don't even think those houses in LA are good investments now; those investing there now are handing money to the local economy, making the protest all the more ironic.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 7, 6:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Only private sector employers can create real net jobs. Government spending and welfare spending just destroy more jobs through taxation and inflation than they create. Minimum wage laws destroy beginner jobs, which obviously are not meant to support a whole family as young people usually start working while still supported by their families: that's how young people gain basic working skills/habits before becoming productive enough to earn sufficiently to have their own households.

The immigration problem is at its core a welfare problem too: if not for welfare benefits, only those producing more than they consume would want to come to the US, who would then contribute positively to our economy and our society, instead of being leaches voting for bigger government.

The sad reality is that, after generations of government-school brainwashing creating the god-like omnipotent/zero-cost mental image of government, those on the Left think welfare costs nothing, while those on the Right think enforcement costs nothing. When in reality, both have extremely high cost to the economy and to the society.

As Hayek explained in The Road To Serfdom, negative results from government regulations bring forth more government regulations to "correct" the problems created by previous regulations, then of course result in even more distortions that "need correcting," eventually leading to serfdom. The way to freedom and liberty is via dismantling existing regulations, such as the tax-and-welfare system, so people can carry on division of labor and mutually willing exchanges without the dead-loss cost of regulators/enforcers.

No, government is not a pre-requisite for markets: there are after all markets dealing in illegal goods (like drugs) and illegal service (like prostitution), both of which obviously exist without government enforcement of contracts. Heck, there are even kids' lemonade stands existing in the legally gray zone.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 8, 8:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says
The irony is, commies cannot give a single example where communism resulted in a better standard of living for the working class, compared to what capitalist America has been able to.
It's bizarre how the commie mind works in the face of indisputable facts. It's more a psychiatric problem than anything else.


That's what social promotion through educational merit template (as opposed to market competition) does. The brain in that setting is trained to regurgitate whatever the authority (teachers and books) tells it. That's why cultures that especially respect education tend to produce a very high percentage of communists embracing what in their minds would theoretically work but can't possibly work if one cares to look at market reality or in the habit of putting oneself in another person's shoes (what a market participant has to do every day in order to survive and thrive).

In this cycle of human civilization, the original location of mushrooming free commerce was the North Sea basin, specifically England and Netherlands. By the time French universities (the biggest and most prestigious in the world at the time) switched their course material from theology to the new findings in commerce, they produced the first crop of socialist revolutionaries in the modern world. By the time German universities churned out students copying the economically more advanced England, Netherlands and France, they produced Karl Marx himself. By the time Russian universities churned out students copying England, Netherlands, France and Germany, they produced "Raskolnikovs," Lenin and Stalin.

The market habits make people respect other individuals and discover new knowledge from market reality. The top-down education track on the other hand is by its nature authoritarian and "idealistic"/'theoretical" in the worst possible way. What's more, most educational institutions tend to have fads and churn out students thinking the same way, reducing the market value of each.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 8, 11:43am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

jazz_music says
Reality says
Only private sector employers can create real net jobs.

It happens because people have money to spend other than food, shelter and transportation to work.


No. Even for food, most people buy food because it costs less effort to buy food (using what money they can earn doing what they are good at) than growing food in their own yard, that's why farming jobs exist. Likewise, people buy food at stores instead of traveling to distant farms because the stores deliver a service that costs the buyer less than if they do it themselves, that's why the stores exist. Real jobs exist not because people want to blow money for nothing, but because the goods/service cost the buyers less than if they had to do it themselves. Government subsidies and welfare do the opposite, therefore have to be paid by not only robbing the people but also paying the enforcers on top of the inefficient forced transfers themselves.

Defined benefit pension was a scam to begin with: as a way of paying the workers upfront less. The promise could never be kept as every corporation eventually dies.

When you let government officials regulate more, of course those with more money would buy off the regulators and politicians. Fundamentally, to an investor, investing in political corruption is just another way of seeking return on capital. When was the last time when you spent all your time growing tons of food in your yard and gave it all to your neighbors for free? When was the last time when you cleaned up your home and invited dozens of random homeless people to live with you for free? Why should you expect anyone else to do that? Why would any politician / regulator do that? They too are human beings, and have their own individual self-interest.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 3:14pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says

Capitalism creates such a level of efficiency as to make a large part of humanity useless.
Half the US population couldn't come up with $400 to face an emergency.

It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity. The goal can't be a winner take all system. You need to invest in people.


The general prosperity brought on by Capitalism is the reason why the bottom half of the society is alive instead of having died! Resources, not just material resources but also reproductive resources (i.e. women!) gravitate towards the upper half (more like upper 20%, then upper 4%, then upper 1%, according to Pareto Ratio at each step) due to evolutionary forces. Homo Sapiens would not have emerged if not for the earlier and more primitive life forms and species having died off all along the direct path leading to humanity!

The idea that socialism would take better care of the "weaker" and more retarded is proven false everywhere it's been tried. Instead, the killing-off/die-off takes place much faster, forcing the captive population to evolve faster! Just look at today's Venezuela, the socialist-induced poverty and hunger is killing off the older, weaker, dumber and uglier, whereas the smarter portion of the population is surviving through emigration, exploiting coercion and for the prettier women sleeping their way to food!

There perhaps is a reason behind why prosperity brought on by Capitalistic free market always eventually give way to socialism: too many dumb offspring are kept alive by the prosperity and their parents sending them to useless/counter-productive schools full of unrealistic expectations; the conflict of expectations inevitably lead to real forceful conflict as various socialist schemes are inevitably incompatible with each other under the resource limit. So evolution through die-off's has to return.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 3:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

jazz_music says
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny? Shareholders can be the sole beneficiaries of a fascist tyranny while the rest toil at gunpoint. No?


The bulk of the population toiling at gun point is exactly what every socialist state eventually becomes. Please reference Frederick Hayek's book "Road to Serfdom."

Capitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money. "Free medicine" / "Free housing" / "Free education" literally translates to the consumer not having a choice as he/she is not spending his/her own money. The ante-bellum southern slave plantation also had free housing, free medicine and free education for the slaves! at the discretion of the slave owners.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 3:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
I'm not saying socialism is better. I don't think it is. You are completely missing the point. I'm saying capitalism is dying.


Every episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.

Heraclitusstudent says
Evolution works, but a society is not a Darwinian experiment. Poor people do not die. If starving they eventually rise up and kill rich people.


Society is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution"). Poor people die in droves during social upheaval. Some rich people unwilling to wait on the sidelines for too long will use the poor as canon fodders in order to wrestle power from the segment of rich people who are already in power . . . just like Louise XVI's rich uncle orchestrated the overthrow of Louise XVI in hopes of getting the throne but ending up losing his own head as well. None of the revolutionaries, from Robespirre to Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot, were actually poor uneducated/dumb people.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 4:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
Capitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money.

That worked when most people could play a useful role in a society. This doesn't work when poor people have no useful skills to offer, don't have land to produce food, don't have land to build a shelter, and basically are left out with time stamps, and pooping between cars on the street.


I'm sure you have some household chore that you'd like someone else to do for you if the price is low enough, and how much skill is required for something as simple as mowing your lawn? There is no such thing as "no useful skills to offer" if the price is low enough. What's preventing low-skill people from becoming employed are two factors: minimum-wage laws banning them from working pays that their low productivity can warrant, and welfare rules removing incentive to work. Both the non-working population (unless supported by family or private charity) and over-priced bureaucrats distributing welfare are results by taxes and government-bonds.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 4:42pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
there is always a place for human effort, and automation won’t eliminate that anytime soon. If it did, perhaps more things could be socialized to the point where nobody would need to work to provide basic necessities. But, those who DID choose to work would be rewarded with the first pick of every luxury and status symbol. I’d guess that’s our end point.


Exactly! Even the poorest recipients on welfare today usually have color TVs, internet, cellphones and in many cases personal automobiles that can take them hundreds of miles away from home in a day, all of which were unheard of for Kings and Queens as recently as Queen Victoria.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 4:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
Society is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution").

Evolution of human ideas has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Poor people now reproduce at a much faster rate than rich people.
Thus society is by definition not Darwinian evolution.


Of course it is still Darwinian evolution. Neanderthals had bigger brain and were probably more intelligent than our ancestors; however our ancestors had better trade networks to bring in sharper weapons, and even food in times of famine. Hypatia (the first female president on record of the world's largest university, in late Roman Empire) was most certainly more educated than the early Christian mobs that killed her, but the replacement of demographically collapsing Romans (whose women refused to reproduce thanks to an earlier version of feminism) by early Christians and invading "barbarians" was very much a Darwinian event: the religions and social ideas of early Christians and "barbarians" were simply far more successful at reproducing than those of the late Romans.




And when upheaval happens, more poor people may die but not in the same proportion as rich people. The French or Russian revolution decimated the aristocracy. To say that Robespierre or Lenin were not poor is missing the point. Of course they were smart enough to elevate themselves, but they were not aristocrats, nor rich.


Robespierre was a law student at the world's largest university (Paris) and was a student representative (if not president of the student body) welcoming Louise XVI when the King visited the university a few years before the French Revolution. Massive revolutions are usually the result of cadet/apprentice bureaucrats (i.e. "students") unwilling to wait for their turn to run the bureaucratic monopoly, so they have to come up with a scheme to kill off the incumbent bureaucrats. In Darwinian terms, it's the prosperity having multiplied too many organisms in the environmental niche for bureaucrats (the younger cadet/apprentice bureaucrats realize their paths to advancement are blocked by incumbents), so a brutal round of mutual kill-off have to take place among those with bureaucratic aspirations.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 4:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
Every episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.


Ok, let's not try to engineer anything. Let us let capitalism die and collapse from its own weight in the process I described.
Like I care.


If / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades. Hrappa (a metropolis with municipal-wide indoor plumbing, the likes of which wasn't seen in the modern world until nearly 20th century) was wiped off the map and erased from human memory for over 3000 years until re-discovery in the 20th century.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 13, 5:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
If / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades.


So either we let capitalism die by itself and civilization collapses, or we manage it and socialism destroys civilization.
Sounds like we're fucked either way.


Being alive is the leading cause of death; the correlation is 100%! In fact, every single one of us will die. However, its inevitability is not a reason to accelerate the arrival of death. Likewise, the prosperity and relative freedom/liberty that we enjoy will eventually come to an end, but that eventuality is not a reason why we want a relatively free market place to end sooner.




Don't worry, the power-that-be will put everyone on welfare, and keep for themselves the opulent fruits technocracy.



Welfare is fundamentally little different from plantation slavery: free housing, free medicine, free education, and even free food+clothing! all at the discretion of the slave owner.


But of course Reality will still be preaching capitalism long after capitalists around the world have fled it and it has ceased to exist.


My hope is that the relatively free capitalistic market place will out-live my own individual biological life. Death is inevitable to any organism / system, but it's not a good reason for welcoming its early arrival. Socialism/Communism is in fact a death-cult: the idea that "from each his ability and to each his want" is indeed achieved in death! In death, each person's ability is "nothing," and each person's want is also "nothing." The promise was "real" (in the Faustian Bargain sense) but the followers of Marxism don't seem to understand what was being promised.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 10:09am   ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Welfare is the reason why major expenses in life cost so much to the working class:

Housing subsidy jacks up rent for the working class who pay their own rent, while enriching slumlords;

Medical subsidy jacks cost of medicine and insurance cost for the working class , while enriching the shareholders of hospitals, insurance companies, medical suppliers, medical school administrators and banks financing medical monopolies;

Education subsidy jacks up the cost of education to the working class, while enriching the school administrators and banks financing educational monopolies.

The government is an abstract concept, and it doesn't do anything on its own; the bureaucrats pretend to deliver a service but in reality don't; they have to consume just like everything else, and because they are a monopoly enforced by violence, they always end up consume more than the average consumers. What we end up having is a bunch of pretenders taking up more and more of the slices of a pie that is not growing . . . in fact may well be shrinking because the pie-makers are discouraged by not being able to keep enough of what they make.

For those who are unfortunate, private charity is the most efficient way of helping them. Involuntary schemes beyond that can only create more poverty in the long run. Having paid bureaucrats owning a license to rob from everyone else in the name of helping the poor is essentially a glorified version of mafia collecting donations in the name of widows and orphans but in reality always enriching themselves first. On top of that, such nexus of power always get bought off by the rich and used as a weapon against the working class.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 11:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The army's IQ=85 requirement is mainly due to impulse control / safety of officer consideration and the fact in a pinch even the cooks and car pool have to take weapons and fight under tactical command.

In civilian life, IQ as low as the 60's can find simple jobs such as line cooks. In fact, because people with an IQ that low are certifiably retarded/disabled, the employers are exempt from minimum wage laws when hiring them . . . so it ends up being easier for a person like that to find jobs in the private sector. This phenomenon really proves that "unemployable" in most cases is actually the result of minimum wage laws / welfare rules. Of course, the life-time productivity vs. consumption by a person with IQ in the 60's is likely negative. That's why it is not legal for a normal person to have sex with a person with IQ that low and risk reproducing another generation of retarded.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 3:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
In fact, because people with an IQ that low are certifiably retarded/disabled, the employers are exempt from minimum wage laws when hiring them


Wait. How much does it cost to hire a retard army?


LOL! Apparently, the officers don't like the idea of too many sub-85 IQ semi-retards and sub-65 IQ full retards armed, and potentially easily triggered.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 3:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Do you genuinely feel that post AI there will be enough employment for zero skill laborers? Pretty sure drivers of every kind, dishwashers, veggie choppers, busboys, lawn mowers, pizza delivery drivers, and especially fast food workers... are all being looked at for robot replacement.


When automobiles replaced horse buggies as cabs, people feared that the job of cab drivers was finished because it would take far fewer cabs to deliver the same passenger-miles in a city. What really happened was the exact opposite: far more cab drivers, so many of them that the city had to come up schemes to limit the number of cabs clogging traffic, because automobile cabs became cheaper and more passengers want cab rides; passenger-miles count exploded and the city's commerce taking off creating even more jobs as transportation cost plummeted.

Something similar is bound to happen, as AI-based automation reduces the price of goods and services. More people will buy up more goods and services as their prices come down . . . if the particular good/service doesn't warrant the capital investment of building robots for it, people will be hired to do it (if cheap enough, and because cost of living comes down due to automation, in the absence of minimum wage laws, more people will be able to have their first jobs instead of the current ever shrinking labor participation rate)
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 3:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
To be a good programmer you need a minimum 115 IQ (just my observation). The best programmers are perhaps the most brilliant people you'd ever meet.

Where in that world does the 30% of population below 90 IQ find an opportunity?


People who buy into the faddish scams like AGW usually have sub-120 IQ.

The 30% sub-90 IQ population can work all sorts of jobs not yet replaced by automation. Automation is not going to replace all automatable jobs all at once. Every single job on the Tesla production line today can potentially be automated NOW! but it hasn't been. Human labor happens to have the advantage of being flexible, and laws making that inflexible would only produce unemployment.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 4:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
This phenomenon really proves that "unemployable" in most cases is actually the result of minimum wage laws / welfare rules.

If it wasn't for minimum wages laws, wages would fall to $2/h. As a result the end demand would collapse further, and even more debt would be required. Why do you never consider the effect of low wages on spending when half the population already can't come up with 400 fucking dollars?


$2/hr would still be a lot higher than the $5/day that Henry Ford offered (and even his was more than doubling then prevailing wage).

Why half the population can't come up with $400? They have been sucked dry by debt service, either directly or indirectly through the rent, utilities, medical and educational bills that they pay (all of which have massive components paying towards the service providers' debt service).

More debt "is required" to keep the bankster blood suckers alive! That's why $5/day was considered very very high wage at the time of Henry Ford, but $16/day ($2/hr) is unbearably low today. The massive inflation has been used to keep bad debts alive and allow banksters keep sucking blood out of the real economy. The real people can live fine on $5/day if the dollar's purchasing power is such that a brand new car cost only $250 (like Model T at that time), 50-days labor of the worker buying a brand new car. In fact, since an average new car today cost $40k, that's equivalent to $40,000 / 50 = $800/day now! $200k a year! for a line worker. No union due to pay either. That's what your beloved blood-sucking institutions have done over a century of inflationary blood sucking: reducing the worker from $800/day to less than $100/day, while praising silly political pretend-work like the minimum wage law that keep workers out of starter jobs. Letting the bad debts die (i.e. letting the creditors eat their own credit risk) would have served the society much better.

BTW, it is not minimum wage laws that keep wage above $2/hr today. 96+% of hourly wage earners are paid more than minimum wage, and that's before counting salaried workers and self-employed. It is productivity (not minimum wage) that keep workers' pay up. In fact, if not for minimum wage laws, small businesses like fast food would be able to both hire more entry level workers and pay higher wages for their more experienced workers, instead of the current trend towards losing all experienced workers (due to wage flattening) because the owners have to pay raised minimum wage workers; the current trend is of course leading to replacing overpaid (compared to their low productivity) minimum-wage workers with automation so the money ends up going to technology companies instead of the original experienced fast food workers, exacerbating income inequality. Minimum wage law is actually reducing real end demand: by keeping workers of lower productivity out of work and reducing the purchasing power of those who do work.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 4:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PrivilegedtobeWhite says
CBOEtrader says
Jordan Peterson talks about the 85 IQ lower limit for US army employment. Something like 12% to 15% of the population is lower than that, and therefore not intelligent enough to wash trucks.
So do we prop up that 12-15% and let them create more retards, or do we let them die off as nature intended?


A relatively free market place already provides a clean and humane solution: letting the less productive find work that can keep themselves alive, but at the same time the low earnings making them sexually unattractive so that they are not advantaged in reproduction. The combination of minimum wage laws and welfare on the other hand produces a monster of forcing them stay home and find nothing to do except for having sex and reproducing more offspring of questionable productivity in the next generation, trapping themselves into generational poverty.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 8:56pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
I agree with Reality about subsidies. Subsidies merely raise the cost to everyone eventually. The first people to get the subsidy are indeed ahead, but then prices quickly rise to take advantage of the tax money pouring in to that market, and then everyone is worse off. Prices are higher and taxes are higher too.

Subsidies are politically easy to implement ("Look, I made mortgage interest deductible!") and politically impossible to reverse ("What? You want to take away my mortgage interest subsidy? The value of my house will fall!").


Thanks, and thank you for expanding on the political reality/dynamics.




But I disagree that government does not do anything on its own. It has some essential functions, such as defense, public works like roads, dams, and bridges, and certain services like courts, police, firemen, education, libraries.


Let me clarify what I meant by "government is an artificial concept, and can't do anything on its own": "government" is not a real person, can not think or act. Only real human beings can think on their own and act in the name of "government."

Even for an alleged government service as essential as "defense," let's look at the word "Soldier": the word came from the word "solidus," a Roman gold coin that was specifically paid to military personnel in order to retain their loyalty (whether to the emperor or the commanding general). Unlike the the "denarius" silver coin for civilian trade that was drastically debased over time, the gold solidus was largely not debased; why? because the emperors/generals who tried to debase it quickly lost their power and lives. It can be argued that central banking as we know it today exists precisely because it's an effective system at paying for military. For "defense" or for predation. So what we know is, military for now is a system for creating profit for the favored corporations while transferring the cost (including injuries and veteran care) to taxpayers, eventually at some point it will be hired private armies of generals who can pay the armed men and women in real money.

Libraries obviously can be paid for by private donors (like Andrew Carneigie, who funded most libraries in the US). Education once again was largely private before the public system debased the value of education and degrees. Private fire-fighting teams hired by insurance companies proved to be far more effective during major forest fires threatening residential houses in recent years. Privately funded police and courts were common in the colonial era, and the local people voted by their feed for the private ones in those locations over the government ones neighboring jurisdictions (the mere fact that people were able to vote with their feet was a major improvement over the previous government monopoly). Bridges and roads were privately funded through borrowing against future toll revenue; the builders have to be private individuals working for private companies / sub-contractors; it's not clear how public monopoly inserted into toll collection or handing out contracts really improve things, but it's usually assumed until massive budget over-runs and tolls that were supposed to expire after a certain number of years never do. Just like roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., private companies built dams long before "public"/"government" got involved in building unprofitable dams forcibly transfering tax money into the pockets of politically favored contractors for hiring politically favored workers.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 15, 2:49pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Marketfailures.htm


I will take the first item in that list to illustrate my points:

"Automobile Safety: The auto industry fought for decades to prevent mandatory seat-belts, air-bags and other critical safety features. Why? Because adding such life-saving devices cut into profits. "

Here are a few facts about seat-belts and air-bags:

1. Privately-owned car manufacturers invented both seat-belts and air-bags (credits especially due Volvo and Mercedes-Benz). They invented those devices in order to put them into cars and sell for profit; i.e. consumers want safety and manufacturers cater to that desire for profit! Quite contrary to the assumption quoted from the link.

2. Seat-belts and/or air-bags were installed in the overwhelming majority of new car models before government mandate, even when there was still a debate on whether air-bags saved lives (many manufacturers chose to install automated seat-belts)

3. Government mandated the installation of air-bags before the 2nd-generation two-stage/"reduced-power" air-bags were invented. The result was that many people already seat-belted therefore would derive minimal benefit from 1st-gen air-bags ended up being killed or severely injured by the very forceful airbags (especially short female drivers)

4. The overwhelming majority of cars on the road are not brand-new cars, but cars manufactured in the previous two decades. Newer cars usually incorporate newer and safer engineering features. The added cost of mandatory 1st-gen air-bags not only posed risk to drivers when they deploy but also caused risk to drivers who were deterred by the higher cost from replacing their older cars!

As we can see, the government mandating 1st-generation air-bags before the technology was mature enough to have the safer 2nd-generation airbags literally made automobiles less safe for drivers by removing the choice of studious use of seat-belt by short female drivers, and removing the choice of getting a newer car sooner by poorer drivers. Who benefited? The air-bag manufacturers of course.

So, where did the idea that without government mandate, people would prefer to drive unsafe cars to kill themselves, and manufacturers would cater to such folly come from? When such an idea is clearly counter-factual: IIHS routinely subjects cars to much higher crash testing standards than what the government mandates (due to its own self-interest of reducing payouts in accidents); manufacturers and car buyers pay very close attention to IIHS tests.

I think such fallacious concepts come from the "habit of being schooled" in a typical public school setting modeled after the Prussians (i.e. an education system that would produce the "well educated" German citizens of the Third Reich). Children are raised to worship the always-correct and all-knowing teacher, which essentially is the personification of the Government-God.

A person whose primary life experience is participation in the market place would know that knowledge is never perfect, it is only through the market voting-by-wallet that a society finds better and better solutions and answers. In the case of the 1st generation air-bags, not only was it a factually worse solution than automated seat-belts (that many of the manufacturers were actually using to avoid installing 1st gen air-bags), but also we would have subsequent government-apologists jumping to the fore and praising a government policy that killed people when it mandated policies that over-rode market choices.

The very idea of "market failure" is fallacious: failure compared to what? The concept assumes there is a perfect solution (just like the school teacher always has a known perfect answer to the question in the test). Real world simply doesn't work that way. New knowledge has to be discovered competitively in a market process. Government regulation gets in the way of that.

Backwards economies/countries like Soviet Union in the 1920's copying American industrialists, Nazi Germany copying American industrialists in the 1930's, Japanese copying American industrialists in the 1930's and 1960's/70's may indeed experience "schooling/education advantage" because the better solution was already known from market competition in a different place (what's funny is those educated in foreign language, i.e. English for all those countries, would be the best educational asset, for translating documents from America; i suppose it would just be too silly if the apologists advocated English Major as the best way forward from collating data from overseas!). When central planning by "learned academics" is tried in the US, starting with FDR's "brain trust" dumping milk into the ocean, those "well-educated" government-apologists always proved to be fools! Because we don't have a more advanced Martian Economy to "learn"/copy from, so the government regulators entrusted to point the way forward through coercive regulations would be blind leading the blind.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 16, 1:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The 10% number and IQ>83 requirement are what the military requires. The cost of doing things in the military is a lot higher, e.g. a gallon of gasoline in Iraq for the US military during the 2003 war and subsequent occupation was over $100. In that environment, the IQ requirement for a productive job that burns $100+/gallon gasoline is certainly higher than a civilian job back home where gasoline was only $2/gallon at that time. The cost of commute alone would be drastically different.

Sure, there is a threshold below which no real job can be found, but that is a lot lower in the civilian life than IQ=83. Many people with IQ in the 60's are routinely employed in simple jobs, partly because they are exempt from minimum wages laws. Comes to think of it, minimum wage law works as a barrier just like expensive gasoline or a "negative bridge."
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 16, 1:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Having a job, doesn't just mean you are materially able to do it. It also needs to be productive enough to pay for itself. + It needs to be a better outcome than having someone else do it (someone smarter).


The latter actually justifies a dumber and lower productivity worker. For example, a lawyer who can type 50WPM can certainly do his own secretarial work better than a secretary who can only type 30WPM; however, if the lawyer's time is worth $200/hr, it is in his interest to pay a secretary $20/hr to type up stuff and other secretarial work so he can earn more in the time saved. It's called "comparative advantage," the basis of any trade (not "absolute advantage"). For an IQ140+ genius who can make more money with his time, it certainly makes sense to hire an IQ65 guy to do his lawn; in fact, there may well be an IQ105 lawn contractor between the two and still make two sets of exchanges profitable because it saves time for the IQ105 contractor to deal with the IQ65 worker, so that the IQ140+ customer only have to deal with the IQ105 contractor (who can also manage the lawn-care equipment and workers).

It's the same reason why we buy take-out dinners even if we can cook better than what the take-out restaurants can deliver; the same reason why we had waiters/waitress even when we could pick up food from the chef's kitchen counter ourselves; that is, before the new $15 minimum wage killed both sets of exchanges in some cities recently. Too high taxes and too high minimum wages (banning low-wage/low-productivity jobs/workers) are what prevent numerous small divisions of labor from taking place.



Fyi there are 95 millions working age people that are not in the labor force in the US.
In spite of that, we still produce everything we need - including for the 95 millions.
If we can do everything we need without 1/3 of the population, what reasons do you have to think we could find jobs for everyone?


That is a logical fallacy. There are plenty human wants that are not being fulfilled. For example, even Rin could use more hookers, booze and faster development of sex robots. If more people can be working, instead of living off welfare (which has to be distributed by very very expensive bureaucrats who eat up more resources than the intended welfare recipients), Rin's desires would be better fulfilled. I'm just citing Rin as an example of someone who you'd think already has everything else in his life, therefore only interested in entertainment; most of us have much more rudimentary needs in life that can be better fulfilled.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 16, 8:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

US median home price mid-2017 was only around $200k. That translated to $800/mo on 30yr mortgage at then prevailing interest rate, about $1200/mo on 15-yr mortgage. That's well within the affordability of two adults making median income; in fact, within reach of one-income for adult male median.

The real question is, why do so many people want to live in where housing is expensive? The progressive income tax system makes it quite obvious that it doesn't pay to chase high income jobs in high living-cost locations unless one is willing to do long commute or rent cheaply.

My answer is: women's hypergamy. Young women want to move to high cost-of-living locations in order to find high-income men who can make it there. Men follow them there in order to get laid. If we look at the population ratio, the major expensive cities are severely imbalanced in gender ratio (far more women than men in NYC, for example), and imbalanced the other way in podunks. Turns out, this perceived inequality is nothing more than the continuation of human evolution via sexual selection. It's just like peacocks have to carry the high cost of a heavy tail in order to get laid, because peahens like to see the extravagant display of fitness (and of course, women likewise have to carry those back-breaking mellons catering to men's visual interest, not functional value).

Housing cost in high-demand area during high-demand time of course is high. Otherwise, we'd have to have run-away construction/bust cycles laying off enormous numbers of construction workers instead of price cycles (busting unwary speculators) in order to hold price steady.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 8:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

If the original poster was sending his post from a desktop/laptop computer, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $10,000 command-line business machine that all the best known industrial leaders at the time "knew" nobody would ever want one for home, down to a sub-$500 device that he could post from.

If the original poster was sending his post from a smart phone, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $5000 brief-case phone that only the C-level executives could afford (and could only make phone calls) down to a handy multi-functional device found in the pockets of even the poorest members of society today.

The point of money is not money per se, but what you can buy with it. Private entrepreneurs are far better at offering up goods for purchase by individuals than governments central planners are able to deliver. Would you rather prefer the same wages but better/more products to buy for the same money over time (because of entrepreneurs competing to make improvements), or would you rather prefer rapidly increasing nominal wages but can't even buy toilet paper with the wages like in Venezuela after a couple decades of socialism?

Tax-cut is not giving money to the rich, but letting millions of competent entrepreneurs use their own resources to compete against each other in offering different choices for consumers, instead of letting a few thousand central planners colluding to confiscate the resources and forcing consumers/citizens into "government"-mandated "free shit." Do you prefer to be a free customer able to choose from which farm/store you'd like to buy your food, or do you prefer to become a plantation slave and get your free food, along with free education, free housing, and free clothing, all at the discretion of the slave owner?

Funny the guy should mention Steve Jobs when pushing his agenda of wasting more confiscated money on worthless liberal arts education (the type that needs government support because the market won't pay for it): does he even know that Steve Jobs was a college dropout?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 9:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

jazz_music says

Liberals, on the other hand want to drive their government to SIGNIFICANT solve problems that MOST people are facing under the tyranny of these overgrown corporations and banks.


The tyranny of these overgrown corporations and banks can only exist because of government-granted monopolies. Otherwise, what's preventing competition from emerging?

Do you prefer to have a monopoly forced upon you (as in both government bureaucrats and government-granted monopoly benefiting "private" corporation), or do you prefer having more freedom/liberty to choose? Do you think the service-provider will treat you better because they have a monopoly over you or do you think they will treat you better if you have a choice ?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 9:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MAGAbrush says
Labor unions fought for defined benefit pensions.


Defined benefit pension plan was a scam tying employees to a sinking ship. Every corporation eventually dies (when its market position is no longer profitable), usually after the executives raid the pension funds. Employers liked pension plans because they didn't have to pay up-front; labor bosses liked pension plans because they could pretend they won something and therefore could take a cut up front without waiting for the life-long vestment period on the commission.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 22, 6:12pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

This thing is a long slow-moving bus. The main innovation seems to be the legislative approach to give the special vehicle the right of way on its dotted lane, so the self-driving part is a lot easier. I hope the city where this is taking place doesn't snow on the ground in winter., or they would have to have special transponders buried under the ground to guide the vehicle in winter.

Buffet is buying the railway for its right of way and monopoly potential. Operating real tracked rail lines may or may not be more costly than trucks, but the barrier-to-entry factor is guaranteed to result in very high price and very high labor cost in the long run. It's the same reason why road-based trading systems historically collapsed much faster than sea-based trading systems: the lack of flexibility allowed rent-seekers all along the way. Think of a road as a sea lane with choke points all along the way susceptible to pirates. Tracks are even more so than roads, due to even higher barrier to entry building alternative tracks than building alternative roads. Competition is what keeps price down. An Asprin in a hospital can cost hundreds of dollars.



The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions