Reality's comments

« First    « Previous    Comments 4433 - 4472 of 4472    Last »

  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 14, 5:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Kakistocracy says
The top one per cent of fortunes holds two-fifths of the total wealth. Just one rich family, the six heirs of the brothers Sam and James Walton, founders of Walmart, are worth more than the bottom 40 per cent of the American population combined ($115 billion in 2012).

The 2nd sentence is extremely anti-human. It is morally wrong to equate people's financial net-worth with their worth.

As for money, would you rather park your money with the Walmart company, or with one of the bottom 40% who IIRC allegedly each can't put together $500 in an emergency? Of course the former. Why should that be a surprise? Would you trust people who have a track record of generating return on capital or would you trust people who have a record not only spending all their money but also going into debt for spending? That's all capital allocation is: where would people (including you) want to park their/your money. That preference has little to do with whether the bottom 40% should be respected and/or cared for for myriads of other qualities and individual rights. In fact, so many capitalists having invested in Walmart, a leader in retail efficiency, is the reason why many poor people can enjoy what they have despite relatively low income.

In fact, given that numerous people were willing to pay half a million dollars or more to become US citizens, the citizenship alone (with associated rights) has a market price of over half a million dollars over the citizenship rights of those countries where those wannabe-immigrants came from . . . and their starting point in their own country is not exactly zero. How much are they willing to pay to stay alive in their own countries as opposed to being executed? According to many cases where such a bargain was offered, the right to stay alive even in those countries were worth millions of dollars. Let's try some really low estimates: $1M for staying alive over being dead in those shitty countries, then half a million for difference for becoming US citizen . . . so that's $1.5M for the value of every US citizen. 40% of US population is 140million, times $1.5mil each, is 210,000,000,000,000; 210 Trillion dollars! That's assuming every one of those 40% (140 million people) is willing to die for $1.5 million. The number is obviously an under-estimate.

How much are you willing to die for? Most would demand more than $1.5 million price. $210 Trillion dollars is more than the entire sum total of all stocks traded in the US; i.e. the value of all public traded companies combined.

BTW, the primary reason why asset prices are so high is because the FED artificially kept the interest rate low. Low interest rates lead to high present value of future cash flows. In other words, the alleged high degree of inequality is largely due to government policies.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 15, 8:15am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Most of IQ differences could perhaps be explained away by upbringing, family access to food and education, etc. However, I have not seen a good investigation which takes all of that into account.

There have been an unintentional experiment with enormous sampling size: the federal Head Start program. After billions of dollars and decades, it's now recognized that the Head Start program of giving children born into poor neighborhoods nutritious meals and early childhood education (all funded by taxpayers and supervised by the best available bureaucratic standards, as the bureaucracy was relatively new) has no effect on the child's later long term outcome as adult. In the short term, there was indeed positive influence on the child's performance in the first few years of schooling; then the effect diminishes as the child gets to junior high and high school . . . then in the person's long term, college and beyond, there is no statistically noticeable effect. His/her genetic makeup (i.e. IQ) takes over.

That result shouldn't be surprising. It's just like height: everyone is born with a genetic coding on how tall he/she can be; malnutrition can indeed get in the way of the person reaching his/her genetic potential, but no amount of nutrition is going to make a person into a tall NBA player without the genetics to begin with.

For population genetics, the decisive factors are reproductive opportunity and massive culling. Peacocks evolved the giant "useless" tail due to Sexual Selection by peahens in an environment where food was plenty and predators/diseases were so overwhelming that the species had no chance of defending against. Humanity evolved intelligence because our ancestors didn't have particularly sharp teeth or claws and didn't run particularly fast, but had the rudimentary ability to coordinate to fight off predators and/or neighbors. Some of them moving out of Africa encountering 4 seasons in new territories certainly made planning for annual seasonable cycles advantageous to genetic survival.

Looking at that IQ map of the world, we can address some of the likely reasons for the high IQ populations through historical reproductive opportunities and culling:

We have enough historical records to show how England's IQ improved rapidly in the few centuries leading up to Industrial Revolution: the homicide rate per 100,000 was down by more than 90% over those centuries, indicating a dramatic change in population genetics; so what was happening? the county records (of birth/death records, wills and estates divisions) indicate that the relatively better off men were having far more surviving children in each generation than the poor men did. The implication was obviously that lower-IQ population was being genetically displaced by higher IQ population, in sittu, largely due to commerce. Similarly, the Black Death on the continental Europe wiping out 1/2 of the population disproportionately wiped out the poor stuck in cities, instead of those relatively better off living in or could retire to country estates with better sanitation conditions and/or lower population density. The real reason for Europe to have had better societies after Black Death may not have been the peasant-to-land ratio as often cited by mainstream historians (which I always suspected, as lost population is usually made up quickly in subsequent generations), but the genetic / IQ makeup of the resulting population.

The IQ improvement in England also explains some of the major big green blocks such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, as England (in the latter stages of that genetic transformation) supplied the colonizing population. The frontier societies in the colonies also created a situation of genetic polygamy (while still practicing dejure monogamy): the wives often died in child births, allowing the relatively well off widowers to take new wives. Slave owners mating with slaves, then the female blacks' hypergamy (preferentially selecting those with some of the former slave owners' blood) over the generations likely explain why African American population IQ is 20+ points higher than sub-Saharan Africans; when the abductions took place back in Africa, obviously it would be smarter ones abducting the less smart ones into slavery, so the initial population in the slave ships was likely to have had lower IQ's than today's sub-Saharan average.

The high IQ of Japan can also be explained by internal commerce; among all the Eastern Asian nations, Japan was the most commercial one for the past thousand+ years. Japanese culture also allow/promote successful men having side pieces in addition to their wives, thereby giving the higher IQ men more reproductive opportunities.

The high IQ of China is often attributed to its history of imperial / civil-service exams giving equal opportunity to everyone. I don't believe that's the case. To do well in those exams required decades of academic preparation, so not exactly something the poor could afford. More importantly, the ones succeeding in those exams and thereby attaining high official status had a high probability of getting caught up in court intrigues and ending up having their entire families and extended families executed! So in a lot of ways, those bureaucratic civil-service exam promotion systems not only mucked up the commerce and intellectual pursuits, but also were dysgenic. What did help improve IQ there historically was polygamy enabling the more successful men to reproduce with multiple females, as we saw in writings of 19th century European visitors to that country many young men "coolie" (laborer) did not have marriage as expectation . . . just like today's "herbivoir"/"grass-eating men" in Japan. The shame/hierarchy -based cultures seem to have reconciled the poor into accepting that they are unfit for reproduction, therefore leaving more females available to the more successful men. A shitty life for the lower status men, no doubt (or not, if having a wife was as shitty a proposition for the average men as it is in today's post-modern societies, as Rin observed). In continental East Asia, there was the additional evolutionary pressure of culling by steppes nomads. The Mongol invasion/conquest was alleged to have killed off nearly 80% of the population. Such population calamity would of course put enormous selective pressure on the gene pool: only the relatively smart could hide effectively and survive . . . a scenario similar to the stereotypical scene of Nazi thugs sweeping through the town/city rounding up hapless victims.

One significant population of high IQ that doesn't show on that map is Jewish population, which is widely recognized to have very high IQ. Jewish culture historically was also known for commerce, polygamy, female-hypergamy and periodic culling. Historical Rabbis often had multiple wives, one in the Talmud had 300 wives during a famine, a genetic-bottleneck event.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 15, 12:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

d6rB says
I have not seen non-biased investigations - accounting for family income, education level, etc.

The very concept of G (General Intelligence), which can be measured by IQ, is that higher G (numerically measured by IQ) leads to higher competence in all intellectual endeavors, therefore would result in higher income in a competitive market economy, and succeed in education where higher education admission is based on some sort of meritocratic template (the very concept of Testing throughout history is in a way based on implicitly assuming the validity of G: students doing well on the specific test problems would also do well in general). G is highly genetic (otherwise it would be pointless for girls to pick smart guys). So "normalizing for family income" and "education level" would be normalizing for G and IQ, a little like saying color spectrum doesn't exist if we normalize for wavelength.

We do however have a massive unintentional experiment, with sample size running into millions, normalizing for children's nutrition levels and early childhood education: the federal Head Start program. After several decades and billions of dollars on the program, now it's generally recognized that normalizing for nutrition and early childhood education opportunities does not remove the genetic difference in intelligence.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 15, 1:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

d6rB says
It is very well known that in Europe IQ's have been rising in last few centuries, even in places with little war. it is also fairly well known that poor nutrition in childhood decreases IQ.

"In the last few centuries," most of Europe (outside Britain and Netherlands) were largely starving miserable dumps. Turkish empire owned large chunks of Europe until about a century ago. Irish Potato Famine took place only about 1.5 centuries ago. It's quite probable that most Europeans did not have the nutrition to reach their genetic potential until about 70 years ago.

Starvation has not been the general condition in the world for the last 30+ years.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 16, 11:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

National Geographic must have been taken over by the city-dwelling moronic offspring of the earlier generation establishment. At 25micron in size and flourescence under 400nm UV light, that would be clumps of air-borne bacteria! Of course you'd see plenty of that outdoors in non-arid locations of nature. On warm days, they (airborne bacteria) even cause microscopic weather conditions (local fogging) under trees.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 20, 11:28am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Georgism sounds appealing on paper, but in reality has multiple problems that guarantee its inoperability / detrimental outcome for the masses in real life:

1. Land under houses/buildings do not transact in market place independently of the house/building, so the theoretical separation of land value is just that: theoretical, having almost zero basis in real life. If government bureaucrats have to be relied upon to calculate the value of land, then corruption/bribery is guaranteed. One of the buildings that I bought during the last crash came with a Section-8 family, and it took only a few years of inspection cycle for the inspector to come looking for bribes. That's when I recognized time to get the Section-8 tenant moved out, lest myself getting caught up in some kind of bribery scandal.

2. Real estate prices fluctuate. If say the average house price in the town is $600k, and on average 1/2 of that is structure value and the other land value; since structure is unchanged, a price down draft of 25% to $450k would keep structure value at $300k while leaving only $150k for land value. How are the town bureaucrats (and their "services") going to survive on a 50% cut in tax revenue?

3. Land under the overwhelming majority of houses/buildings today are not raw land, but significantly improved land (grading, retaining walls, etc. before we consider utility connections and roads that actually make land worth much of anything and "produce" land by making formerly unbuildable land buildable). In hilly places like SF, the cumulative spending on grading and building retaining walls may well exceed the current value of the house itself. If "land value" is to be arrived at by market value minus past construction expenses, then many lots in SF may well have negative land value. If implemented, it would only elicit fraudulently high priced new retaining wall construction and kickbacks from contractors.

4. "Land value" is really an intellectual invention trying to bridge the gap between market price (subjectively decided by two parties engaged in transaction) vs. "effort." It's actually very similar to the Marxian / Ricardian concept of price of any item being the cumulative labor cost (and everything above that they would consider "exploitation.") The idea has special appeal to the bookwormish mind that assumes some kind of steady equilibrium state, without recognizing that market is an information distribution process (through price discovery): if market were steady state, the market wouldn't exist simply because there wouldn't be enough difference between the buyer's and the seller's subjective valuations to pay for commission cost and other transaction costs. The biggest downside of formal education is that devaluation of entrepreneurship: assuming there is a "correct" price instead of realizing price changes according to entrepreneurial expectations (someone coming up with a new idea of how to use the same land more productively, either by modifying the land or even just modifying the use).

5. The "sitting on land waiting for it to appreciate" argument seems to be neglecting the fact that the owner would be passing up all the opportunity cost during those years when he sits on land. If government bureaucrats are paid salaries to stop people from developing (zoning rule enforcement, urban planning, etc.), and government bureaucrats and their corporate allies are paid even more money to "create space" and "reduce density" in the cities by building parks or conservation land . . . why should private individuals be penalized when they achieve the same result for the community at the cost of their own forfeited opportunity cost? The fact that nobody has offered the owner enough money to buy him out seems to indicate that the development potential of the plot is not worthwhile until there are changes in technology and/or zoning law changes.

6. Departing from individual responsibility on land tenure (aka "private property") to bureaucratic land ownership/management, regardless whether "all land belongs to the people/soviet" or "tax away all their unearned gains" would only result in land mismanagement and corruption . . . just like either approach would do to industrial capital. Competitive entrepreneurial decision making is what brings vitality to the economy and corrects human errors. Entrepreneurial decision making is work and the most productive work: just like designing a pair of good shoes is far more important and far more productive than a newbie laborer turning a good piece of leather into shreds regardless how much "effort" the newbie puts into making his alleged "shoe"; or for that matter the old very experienced soviet factory churning out Lada's worth less than the steel and leather going into them. The idea that labor / "effort" deserves more pay than entrepreneurial decision making is very SJW, and bears the hallmark of having spent too much time in the academia and not enough time in real life market place. Both Karl Marx and Henry George belong to that category.

7. Taxing a 10-story apartment building and a two-story single-family the same because they both sit on 1/2 acre of land each . . . would obviously benefit the big corporate landlords at the expense of the average American families. The long-term result may well be similar to what happened to Hong Kong (a place that actually implemented a form of Georgism for over half a century): enormously expensive tiny condos for the masses. The high cost of land (due to taxation) creates drastic market concentration on the supply side of housing units.

8. Sure, Karl Marx may not have liked Henry George, but that's not much different from Stalin disliked Trotsky (and vice versa) so much that he had him killed, or Hitler and Stalin not liking each other. All of them have terrible ideas. Ideas that often had tremendous appeals to the residents of academic ivory towers (especially the uncreative ones not living up to the expectations of their academic careers) . . . just like Plato's original Academy held sway over generations of intellectuals for hundreds years with his totalitarian ideas about the "Philosopher King." The over-educated mind seems to have a penchant for worshiping selfless saints in bureaucratic costumes . . . whereas in reality, everyone has self-interest, and those pursue bureaucratic careers tend to be the most uncreative and mendacious, hence guaranteed to be extremely corrupt over time as they try to keep up with the Joneses.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 20, 11:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

IMHO, feminized socialism is a result of academia churning out tons of over-educated youths with no marketable skills. The large volume of graduates guarantee that none of them can fetch the market price that they had hoped for when entering higher education. Coddling by parents and schools further convince them that they deserve rewards just for their effort.

That's why all SJW's put so much emphasis on "effort" and "labor" instead of product/service quality itself or market pricing due to supply/demand.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 20, 3:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

except, say, for people who attempt to farm in Manhattan or San Francisco.

That's exactly what governments do with the tax money. Check out the government-subsidized urban farming in Tokyo and Hong Kong, as well as the Clinton and Obama presidential libraries.

That's what we get after transferring decision-making from individual profit/loss responsibility to bureaucratic (mis)management. The general population is good at voting with their own wallets and voting with their feet, but terrible at voting inside the ballot booths regarding someone else' resources. After warehousing the masses in stacked bird-cages for a few decades, they will vote for government-subsidized urban farming.

The way to affordable housing is sprawl (so more land is "produced" / brought into market by connecting utility lines and roads), not higher taxation on land. The more you tax something, the less you get of it. Georgism in practice is the quickest way to oligopoly on housing, as evidenced by places like Hong Kong: a few billionaire mega developers, and masses of extremely expensive tiny condos.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 20, 8:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
Consumption taxes are the worst form of base taxation there is. Precisely when needed, they fail, such as in a War or Depression.

Wars are not funded by taxation in countries that have central banks. That's precisely why / the advantage of Bank of England was established in 1694: as a way of funding government war effort by lending to the government during war time.

Keynesian government spending during Depression is not funded by tax revenue either: that's the whole point of Keynesianism: justifying government deficit spending during Depression (as a sort of war by choice; hence one of the biggest Keynesians of our time, Paul Krugman, advocated war on imaginary Space Aliens as a way of getting out of the last depression.)

Taxes on a fair return for labor are also bad, since your wages/salary is really just an even (poor, really) exchange of irreplaceable lifetime and labor for money. Naturally, people with lots of land and capital prefer taxing labor.

Income from labor is not an even exchange, just like no mutually willing exchange is an even exchange but every such exchange is a pair of inequalities: the buyer thinking the goods/service being worth more than the money he is paying, and the seller thinking the opposite. Otherwise, Nobody would want to go to work after commute cost and taxes.

Typical landlords in 1913 had nothing to do with the imposition of Income Tax; after all, tenants coming home with less after-tax pay would have less money available to pay rent. Income tax was put in place as a way of making the other 1913 creation the Federal Reserve printing of paper money worthwhile: so that there is a general market demand for the paper, as eventually everyone working would have to pay the tax. Prior to that, the primary federal revenue was import duties. As you can see, the most convenient way of collecting taxes has always been on the money flow; therefore Income Tax was chosen because it's a tax on the money flow in the economy and something that could be levied against a burgeoning sheep population created by modern industries. Landlords have to pay income tax on rental income, just like everyone else; if there is an additional federal tax on capital (on land or house) then capital would shift away from the housing sector to some other sector that does not tax capital itself in addition to taxing the income generated by capital.

Especially since they can recycle some of the wages they pay via their money back to themselves. Government Office Rent, Office Supplies, big standing Armies, benefit money holders since they own the land and businesses supplying those. Even HUD benefits Slumlords as it sets a floor for basic housing and HUD never misses or is late with a payment; YUM! Brands loves Food Stamps, as does 7-11 (7&I Holdings), all of which are paid via WIC and EBT programs.

Good points, but they have little to do with why income tax was imposed. The various welfare programs listed came about in the late 1960's, more than half a century after the imposition of federal income tax.

BTW, not all landlords like Section-8. I tolerated the Section-8 tenant that came with a building purchase at the bottom of the last collapse only because it would be against the law to evict them. Eventually I had to pay them to leave, and make money back in the subsequent year from higher rent in the normal market place so that I could avoid the bribe-seeking bureaucrats. The government bureaucrats are the real economic rent-seekers.

Density is even better. We don't say the main solution to aggregate computing power is to build one million more 386 machines from the 1995, but to replace existing 386s with new "dense" Modern Architecture CPUs.

Cities are where birth rates collapse. Big city life brings out the worst in female hypergamy and narcissism. Population density may help commerce (e.g. Silicon Valley firms locating close to each other) but drastically increase monopolistic power of local suppliers of basic necessities (e.g. convenient stores and neighborhood grocery stores have much higher prices than big box stores such as Costco and Walmart SuperCenter do). Density is the reason why landlords can collect much higher rent in cities than in the country side for comparable housing; transferring that local monopoly/oligopoly power to government bureaucrats (via either nationalization of housing stock or Georgist high taxation) would only further concentrate that power. Instead of just paying high rent, you might end up literally having to bend over and let the local government housing office boss fuck you or your daughter/son, just to have roof over your head, just like in some former soviet block countries at the height of their socialist experiments.

The articles states that the Expansive Welfare State makes degrees like Social Work and Grievance Studies plausible, along with the huge expanse of Government Workers. But an expansive welfare state can not subsist on a Georgist Tax Base.

The welfare state is not subsisting on any tax base. It subsists on money printing. Government workers vote too, as do welfare recipients.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 20, 8:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Well, if the rent is $2500/mo, and the 30yr mortgage PITI payment is $5000/mo, then it of course makes sense to rent unless massive inflation is coming.

BTW, these two numbers indicate that the landlords are in effect subsidizing the tenants by digging into their hoped-for future capital gains and giving some of that money to the tenant. The Principle portion of a 30yr mortgage in the first couple decades is far less than 50% of PITI total, less than 20% at the beginning, so the landlord is literally losing thousands of dollars every month on accounting (unrealized capital gain is not an income).
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 22, 2:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

But what about unregulated Free Market Capitalism which is without flaws?

Excellent question. Unlike Communism and Socialism promising Heaven on Earth, Free Market Capitalism doesn't promise such perfection.

Fundamentally, it is the people who make mistakes: so long as there are people, there are bound to be mistakes; Free Market Capitalism is only an error correction mechanism allowing other people the freedom to make better choices than what the political "leaders" want. In Communism and Socialism, in order to maintain the cult of perfection, the leaders' mistakes have to be covered up, and corrections rejected by force.

I do see two systematic "flaws" common to Free Market Capitalism and the prosperity that it brings:

1. As the society becomes more wealthy under relatively free market conditions, parents want to give their own kids a leg up on other kids by sending them to schools for formal education (mistakenly observing that in an earlier time, when only a small minority could afford formal higher education the high IQ of students back then made the graduates into high achievers, to be a correlation between higher education and later achievement mistakenly assuming equal IQ among all students and non-students). Consequently there is an over-supply of over-educated mediocre IQ people similarly "educated" therefore commanding no pricing power for their alleged "skills."

2. If at the same time, the successful are into amassing easily transferrable wealth for wealth's sake, then there is a highly volatile situation of high reward for robbery through "revolution." It's a little like piling up tinder waiting for fire. Once in a few generations, the intensity of fueled fire / revolutionary zeal can be so severe as to quickly burning down the society as a whole.

In a way Marx was correct in observing that Capitalism breeds its own tomb diggers; however, the tomb diggers are not the working class, but the "over-educated," unmarketable and severely disappointed intellectuals, who might just be pissed off enough to join the religious death cult of building Heaven on Earth (through robbery then quickly followed by mutual killing among comrades).
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 22, 7:08pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LOL! It's amusing to see how the fiction author jumped from 1935 "Labor Party" seizing power . . . immediately to 2008, skipping all the fun about how the country of Norway was run by "National Socialist . . . Workers' Party" and its local Quislings from 1940 to 1945, which introduced national healthcare, national pension, national education and a whole bunch of other socialist programs to that country.

And the propagandists call their critics Nazis!
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 29, 10:00am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
When you are in an era when the example the President of the United States sets for children is that being amoral and dishonest is supposedly the way to be,

Are you talking about Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton? Didn't he teach school children in the US that oral sex is not sex? It's amazing those who voted for a real rapist and his covering-up wife (i.e. not just dishonest but also obstruction of justice, threatening and bashing rape victims) to be President on 3 (or was that 4) separate occasions would profess moral outrage against Trump.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 29, 1:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Any serious attempt to enforce the alleged "option 1" would result in the top 0.001% owning 99+% of resources, including the lives of the rest of the population. e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim, etc., because the enforcers would have to be given privileges to carry out the enforcement, and that privilege attracts the worst abusers.

In human history, there likely have never been a time when the top 20% only owning 33% of total societal resources. That's going back to a time before even agriculture: leaders of hunter-gatherer bands ate much more than 65% percent more than the rest per person (for one thing, the caloric output of the top hunters would require much more than1.65x the ones staying in the cave waiting to be fed); women are attracted to the top 20% of men, therefore the top 20% men got far more than half of the fundamental resource for human species: human eggs and uterus space, before there was any other resources. That's how evolution works, and why most species more advanced than fish (including most fish) engage in sexual reproduction.

It's not possible to design a societal system to optimize "equal result"; only optimizing "equal opportunity" / "equal treatment in front of law" are marginally possible.

BTW, the current alleged wealth disparity is largely the result of FED artificially holding down interest rate; a million-dollar house at 4% interest rate would be less than half that amount at 8% interest rate.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 29, 9:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

According to a poll, 92% of Americans said option #1 is preferable.

Proves how ill informed people are on "public matters" that are not part of their own daily lives' decision making.

That's before they were told that option #1 describes Sweden and option #2 describes the US.

Proves how gullible some allegedly "well educated" people are. Much of Swedish wealth is hidden in "non-profits" and "charities," instead of personal holdings, due to their tax structure, and/or non-public in corporate structure. For example, the largest Swedish company, IKEA, is not a publicly traded company, therefore there is no market valuation for the tightly held company, therefore its enterprise value is hidden from the books accounting for the alleged wealth distribution statistic . . . guess who own IKEA? Not the bottom 80%. The silly statistic goes to show just how gullible the allegedly "well-educated" and alleged "intellectuals" are.

The lack of market transparency of course hurts the average people. The tightly held corporations are not subject to shareholder oversight; the super-wealthy in Sweden are essentially living as feudal lords.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 May 10, 6:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dear Rin,

What proof do you have that when you were in Montreal having sex with the hooker, you didn't over-ride her objection after she said "no"?


The girl's lawyer
with her psychiatrist here telling me disturbing reconstructed memories about you
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 May 11, 10:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

No, you should have shot him, as would have been done in the jungles of Africa . . . thereby undoing all the mistakes along that thief's genetic line in the past few hundred years moving him and his ancestors out of Africa and giving them opportunitites, as well as saving the next black girl from being impregnated by a criminal thug.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 May 12, 7:25pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

LOL! Flint water contamination was the result of the city bureaucrats changing water source and not applying sufficient anti-corrosion chemical to the pipes (i.e. bureaucratic maintenance failure/cost-cutting comparable to Venezuela and Cuba as well as the former soviet block) . . . and medical services being so expensive is once again due to government bureaucracy banning the free practice of medicine.

Monopolists are monopolists even if they wear the costume of government bureaucrats. Their first priority is always themselves, and the rest of the population suffer due to that forced transfer from the average people to the monopolists. Yet somehow the allegedly well-educated leftists believe monopolists are the solution to every problem (usually created by government enforced monopolies to begin with!)
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 May 24, 2:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
"The results show that large positive and negative trends in cohort IQ operate within as well as across families. This implies that the trends are not due to a changing composition of families, and that there is at most a minor role for explanations involving genes (e.g., immigration and dysgenic fertility) and environmental factors largely fixed within families (e.g., parental education, socialization effects of low-ability parents, and family size). While such factors may be present, their influence is negligible
compared with other environmental factors"

The methodology of that study is entirely wrong. Most genes relating to IQ are located on the X-chromosome, and fathers don't pass X-chromosome to sons (even if the alleged fathers are the actual biological fathers). Sons only get X-chromosomes from mothers. Think about that for a moment.

The decline of IQ average in the West since the 1970's is entirely the result of public policies and post-modern culture:

1. The Tax-and-Welfare-State transfers resources from the rich and the middle class (i.e. numerically mostly the middle class due to the rich being numerically rare) to the poor, with no stipulation attached as far as limiting the reproduction of later. IQ is very much correlated to income (and general level of success in society). So the result of the Tax-and-Welfare state is removing resources from the higher IQ and giving that to the lower-IQ population, so the former (mostly middle class in numbers) feel unable to afford children of their own, whereas the latter (the poor) reproduce more. The policy is literally dysgenic: encouraging poverty to reproduce itself, resulting in more and more misery.

2. The policy of encouraging young women to pursue longer higher education and professional careers before they have children means raising the opportunity cost of higher IQ women to become mothers. Mothers account for 3/4 of X-chromosomes passed to the next generation, whereas Fathers only account for 1/4 (they don't pass to sons). When the young women of reproductive age who have higher IQ potential X-chromosomes reproduce later in their lives, of course the overall population would have lower IQ: because the lower IQ X-chromosomes reproduce faster than X-chromosomes carrying higher IQ potentials in that case.

Food/nutrition, (useful) education and mental exercise all have some effect on a given' person's intelligence (i.e. bringing that person up to his/her potential) but let's not adopt Lemarkian Evolution: Giraffe didn't get a long neck due to each generation stretching their necks then passing that stretching effect to offspring. Giraffe evolved long necks due to the advantage of getting at food supply at tree tops when ground level food is exhausted (i.e. starvation or unable to reproduce for those with short necks) and female giraffes sexually selecting males with longer necks.

The Flynn Effect in the West from 1932 to the first half 1970's can be explained by the harshness of war selecting the smarter for survival/reproduction, and the post-WWII market economy once again selecting the smarter men to have more mating opportunities while women mostly had equal opportunities to become mothers among themselves (i.e. societies encouraged young women to become mothers first, so didn't disadvantage smart women as far as reproduction was concerned). The west mostly solved the food problem by the beginning of the 20th century; however, the policy-driven starvation during the Great Depression may also have affected the strict numerical 1932-1972 case study due to some nutritional problems in 1932 that didn't exist in 1928.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 May 24, 2:47pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Ok so smart women have less offsprings. i.e. dysgenic fertility.
I didn't get how this explains a loss of IQ within the same family from parents (mother) to kids.

Check out the link in your post above. The "same family" was based on father to son comparison (that's why I said the methodology was entirely wrong, as most genes relating to IQ/intelligence are located on the X-chromosome). Fathers don't pass X-chromosome to Sons. Sons only get X-chromosome from mothers. Y-chromosome has less than 80 genes, contrasting with about 1200 genes on the X-chromosome, so Y-chromosome is mostly just a stub exposing the single X-chromosome to protein synthesis in boys for corresponding phenotype selection by females. X-chromosome is the most highly selected chromosome among all sexually reproducing species. The post-modern culture of encouraging women to put in their best biological years for the boss and the taxman is making less smart women available for choosing by fathers, and the sons only get X-chromosomes from mothers.

Extremely smart parents, e.g. both parents with IQ > 140 (both in the top 1%) would indeed statistically have kids average slightly lower than themselves due to random mutations more likely fall in the 99% than in the 1% making the kids even smarter. However, those kids are still statistically far more likely to be smarter than kids of two parents averaging IQ 80 or IQ 100 or even IQ 120.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 May 24, 3:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says

Single Mothers, the #1 Social and now Genetic Disease effecting the nation.

Single mother by thugs in the hood and living on welfare, yes. That's why welfare has to come with mandatory contraception; there are now implanted types (one shot in the arm, very little pain) that can last 3-5 years; everyone is allowed to make mistake once, but not a repeat at taxpayer expense (and the children's misery). Perhaps this should also apply to women having abortion.

OTOH, single mother in co-parenting arrangement/sponsorship with successful men may well be a solution to the problem of post-modern dysgenics. For example, if paying child support for a biological child can deduct tax burden by 20% (then 20% of the remaining 80% for a 2nd child, and so on), someone like Rin having a tax bill over $120k per year may well consider sponsoring a child of his own genetic stock without taking on the risk of marriage. We need more children born to smart people in order to have a functional society. The current laws regarding marriage constitute a massive progressive tax burden penalizing successful men, discouraging successful and smart men like Rin from reproducing.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 May 28, 4:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

A small point of detail: IIRC, the Zulus in South Africa are actually politically more aligned with the Afrikaaners (Whites and mixed race minority) because blacks account for 76% of South African population. Prior to the all-race national election, the Zulu leaders actually advocated dividing that country into regions of self-rule, which would have benefited all the different ethnic groups in South Africa (there were regions where Zulus were majority, as were small regions whites were majority), in opposition to the communistic idea of national election simple majority over the whole country. ANC political activists mostly from the other Bantu tribes, the largest group being Xhosa tribe, were/are the ones robbing and killing (white) farmers; they also committed atrocities against Zulus for the latter's political alliance with white farmers.

The vast majority of black people in South Africa are descendants of migrants / invaders that came after the Dutch settled the Cape Colony. Bantu tribes like Xhosa had been located much further north (in the Lake Victoria region north of even Zimbabwe) before they moved south and killed off the original blacks / mixed race people that had lived in today's South Africa when the Dutch VOC arrived.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 3, 5:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
No, everybody knows the key to wealth is you fork over all tax money to the wealthiest people

Here is a list of ways to fork over all tax money to the wealthiest people:

1. Section-8 housing voucher paying landlords who can't otherwise find tenants paying that much;

2. Government subsidized healthcare paying medicine at prices that consumers wouldn't pay;

3. Government subsidized education, so that deans and superintendents are paid half a million dollars or more in annual salary!

4. Building public roads, public schools and public buildings at ridiculously high prices. e.g. $100 mil for a high school! Of course the construction companies, union bosses, big banks financing those bonds, and politicians make out like bandits! Well, they are bandits! as tax collection is essentially armed robbery.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 3, 5:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

All Republicans in Congress have a minimum wage, $174,000/year + benefits & their voters don't make them punch a time clock.
How much does Trump's base make? I'm sure they have 0 copay under Trumpcare benefits. Somebody's stupid!

All politicians in office should be required to follow Trump's example of collecting only $1 for salary.

All politicians who get richer in office or get richer within 10 years after leaving office than they were before entering office (by a margin larger than S&P500 gain during that time) should forfeit those gains/difference; those experiencing 100x or more gain during the same time frame should face the death penalty! Holding a public office should be public service, not an opportunity to make oneself filthy rich! If you want to get rich, do it in the competitive market place itself!
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 3, 7:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
Trust me, when they get done destroying the government of the people, you WILL NOT like it.

You are kidding right? The man who coined the term "government of the people" literally committed genocidal war crimes on the people (ordering Sherman's March burning a wide swath from Atlanta to the Atlantic) . . . in stark contrast to King George III and Prime Minister North's decision in granting independence to the 13 Colonies without prosecuting a war to its bitter end.

When you hear "government of the people," you should be translating that into: you are being drafted into killing your fellow peons!
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 6:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
Why would chinese and japanese complain they were not occupied and looted by europeans of both materials and knowledge. Africa and India did.

LOL! Japan is currently under American military occupation. General MacArthur and his staff directed the writing of the Japanese Constitution after WWII . . . and the Japanese people benefited tremendously from the process compared to the constitutional fiascos of the 1920's. Hong Kong was a British crown colony; despite some silly Hong Kong youths craving for the territory's "return" to China in the 80's and early 90's, the smart people there scrambled to follow British in departing Hong Kong, and after two decades of Communist Chinese rule, most people in Hong Kong wish the British never left.

70 years of native African rule has made most former British colonies in Africa much less happy and less developed (when normalizing for the rest of the world and technological gains simply due to time passing; in some cases, like Zimbabwe, such statistical normalization may not even be necessary). Likewise for India.

What tangible result did British rule give India? How about "India" itself as a political entity? "India" was only a geographical concept before the British cobbled the dozens of city states into a nation using English as official and common language for the intelligentsia across the country. Not that unification is a good thing, but British rule (or more precisely, commerce under British laws) brought modernity to India.

It's silly to talk about the British looting any country. Such talk only shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the economy works and how wealth comes about as explained by Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (hint: division of labor enabled by exchange, not looting). British Empire was successful because it could protect and sustain global trade far more efficiently than all the petty rulers and "Great" rulers in India, China and Japan (never mind African chieftains). The local merchants and people in India, China and Japan by and large wanted to trade with the British (who offered more favorable terms to individual merchants and local consumers), despite the barriers set up by their local rulers. That's why India, China and Japan became wealthier after the British (and American) arrived on their shores and (sometimes forcibly) opened their doors by limiting and removing the local corrupt and inefficient government monopolies.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 7, 6:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
None of the facts you listed are wrong. But all I am saying is your small brain can think of only 500yrs. Where as the history out there is much-much older.

That's actually a very good question. As far as we know, the Hrappan Civilization of the Indus Valley was the earliest civilization (in the currently available records, or current Shiva cycle of total destruction/renewal) that managed to build a city of net-worked indoor plumbing, more than 3500 years ago! That was 2000 years before Romans had it, and a fundamental aspect of human living condition that was unknown to humanity for nearly 1500 years after the fall of Rome in the 5th century. It was a tremendously succeful commercial civilization. My guess is that the Hrappans were driven out by the inland Indians and nomadic invaders from the north, moved to the Persian Gulf (especially Bahrain) then moved on to Tyre then became what Ancient Greeks called "Phoenecians." Hrappans' most important commerce was the same very expensive purple dye (made from Murex mullusk) also known as "Tyrian Purple," which was used like a type of currency by both Hrappans and "Phoenecians." Carthage became the primary Phoenecian city after Alexander destroyed Tyre (which was in competition to Greek city states). Rome destroyed Carthage after that.

After the totalitarian state of late Roman empire burned itself out, commerce recovered in Europe around the 10th century, the concentration of commercial interests first aggregated in Italian city states, then moved to the Dutch Republic, then after the invasion of that country by Louise XIV, moved on to England. History has a way of rhyming. Perhaps the worst aspects of British colonization of India was Lord Karma visiting the benighted inland Indians that had driven out the Hrappans some 3500 years earlier . . . or more precisely showing the inland Indians what India could be if not for the political take-over by the benighted inland anti-commerce totalitarian/fascist invaders that had driven out the Hrappans . . . and guess what the inland Indian mobs did about 350 years after the founding of the British East India Company? Driving them out again, of course! So the mob can turn everything back into sh*t all over again.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 9, 5:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Indian Subcontinent has an area that is comparable to the entire Western Europe, and for most of human history likely had a larger population than all of Western Europe (due to more solar energy hitting the landmass enabling more crop production). It's silly to talk about "India" as if it were some kind of country or entity (instead of a general direction, like "Orient" or "West Indies") prior to the British rule.

Prior to the Railroads, it was likely cheaper to ship 100 tons or 10 tons of goods from Goa or Bombay to Europe (several thousands of miles) than it would be to ship the same goods inland for a few hundred miles. Likewise, before the arrival of horse-drawn carts or even the wheel, it was likely less expensive to ship 1 ton of goods from the banks of Indus River to the Persian Gulf and to Egypt (Red Sea shore) than it would be to move the same ton of goods in land more than a few dozen miles. The coast was more economically related to the other shores hundreds if not thousands of miles away than it was integrated with the continental interior.

Hrappans may or may not have invented the wheel on their own. In any case, shortly after the perfection of the multi-spoke wheeled cart drawn by horses, inland logistics took such an enormous leap forward (a one-time jump, but later would be choked off by land route tolls in a few decades) that the nomads from the north and the inland mobs quickly drove out the coastal commercial settlements of the Indus Valley. The situation was rather similar to the Railroads enabling the rise of Prussia (in its war against Austrian and French Empires) in the late 19th century and Russia as a threat to the entire Western Europe in the 20th century.

It's a little anachronistic to call the Hrappans "Indians" or even Dravidian. Hrappan bullfighting / bull-jumping culture was spread to both the Dravidians of Tamil (southeastern India today) and the Levant, ancient Minoans as well as today's Spain (all of which traced the spread of "Phoenecians").

Trade usually goes both ways, but In the pre-industrial world invasion and conquest on a continental land mass usually went one-way: the less prosperous and more barbaric invading and conquering the more prosperous and less barbaric. The entire recorded Eurasian history consisted of the civilized people on the continental peripheries getting their clock cleaned periodically by the barbarians coming out of the continental heart-land:

1. In ancient Greece, it was the most barbaric state among them, the Macedonians (to the north, towards continental heartland), that conquered all of ancient Greece;

2. Germanic/Frankish tribes/barbarians dismantling Rome were once again coming from the continental heartland, dismantling the high civilization built on the periphery;

3. Napoleon, Hitler, and Karl XII (of Sweden) before them, all invaded Russia and lost their armies . . . yet it was the Mongols who had conquered Russia, by invading from even further deeper in the continental heartland and waging campaign in the dead of winter.

4. Likewise for Indian Subcontinent and Far East Subcontinent ("China"). Both the Vedic homeland in Bactria (today's Afghanistan) and the State of Chin (the northwest corner, the poorest part, of "China proper") were the most barbaric and least prosperous regions of their respective sub-continents . . . and they further benefited from coming from the high ground part of dry highlands.

5. In the case of Roman Empire and Far East, the relatively more prosperous people building their civilizations actually successfully resisted their nomadic continental interior neighbors in their earlier centuries, then fell to massive invasion later as their own civilizations developed into high civilizations

There are several reasons for such civilization-reversion cycles on a large continental land mass:

1. Wars usually took place due to economic hardship, usually caused by global cooling in the agrarian societies, so people living in the continental interior accustomed to colder winters could do better during massive total wars;

2. Logistic became easier when an advancing army could pillage the land. So it was easier for an army from a resource-poor region to invade a resource-rich region, instead of reverse; especially if the two populations have different daily water consumption requirements due to difference in native environment. An army on the march requires enormous amount of food and water, both for the men and the horses.

3. The poor were just more motivated to rape and pillage than the rich were.

4. High level of economic development often led to demographic collapse: women refusing to reproduce (making the cost of reproduction too high) and men preferring paying prostitutes instead of having wives and children.

A side note on why land transportation technology did not bring long-lasting prosperity or economic development compared to sea-borne transportation routes:

1. Major breakthroughs in land transportation, such as the horse-drawn carts and the Roman roads, could bring one-time major profit proposition, enabling military conquest, territory expansion, etc., but could not last long. Examples include the Roman roads (paved roads), Vedic conquest of India (horse drawn chariots and horse-back riding), "Silk Road" historically linking Far East to Central Asia then onto Europe.

2. Unlike sea routes that could easily switch destination ports to a nearby port if the more established port's authorities decide to raise taxes, land routes are much more inflexible and beholden to local rulers' whim. Since they are all local monopolies all along the land routes, over time, the appetite of the rulers and their offspring quickly surpass what the land trade routes could deliver . . . not to mention profit attracts competition; in the case of land routes, competition meant very expensive warfare fighting for the control of the routes.

3. That's why civilization advancements usually take place on islands and coastal peripheries of continents, where people get to enjoy the fruit of a longer period of sustained economic growth (due to lower effective taxes for longer time period) . . . until the barbarians coming knocking on the door of course! OTOH, getting "invaded" and liberated by island powers was the best thing that could happen to continental peripheries living under the yoke of inland barbarians . . . but of course, the advocates of post-modern nationalism have to embrace the national flag like the proverbial scoundrels that they are. Little do they realize that life as a mongol sucked even as the Mongol army built the largest land empire. The recording of history is a self-selective process in itself: when the more prosperous civilization manage to defend itself against the barbarians and the barbarians wallowing in their own shit holes, such "norm" didn't warrant much of an entry in recorded history, but major cataclysmic invasions and sacking by continental interior barbarians did have their own entries in history records . . . just like the stock market crashes make history records whereas the long-term rise usually doesn't.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 12, 8:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

IMHO, the real problem with India (and China and Russia) is that they don't have enough regionalism. If Europe had not been regionalistic, either Napoleon or Hitler would have "united" Europe . . . then European history in the past couple centuries would have been just as dark and benighted as that of 19th century India and China.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 12, 8:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
British have been teaching people in south that they are different from north for 100+ years. And these differences still drive people today.

When the British arrived, the south and the north of the sub-continent had different countries. The people living on the sub-continent obviously saw themselves as different from each other. It's a good thing the British did not try to wipe out that regional difference like Chinese and Russians did in their respective imperial expansion. Britain itself is better off to have retained the identity to leave EU, and the Scots to have retained the identity to secede from the UK. Regional self-government makes for more responsive government than imperial rule. If you think Indira Ghandi was corrupt for causing conflict to win votes, what do you think of Modi bombing Pakistan on the eve of the most recent election to win votes?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 12, 10:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Believe it or not, Dominican Republic is actually the better half of that island, by far! At $7k or so a year per capita GDP, the average resident of Dominican Republic makes 8x per year as much as that of Haiti next door.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 12:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
Do you have any proof that south and north were 2 different countries or kingdoms? I just posted India's 1760 map on other thread did you even bother to check it? why is that important because that is when british started to visit india and start foothold in bengal.

I'm not the least bit interested in any map provided by "epic"-worshiping nationalistic liars like you. There are plenty reliable historical maps of the sub-continent on the internet. Maps of all countries change over time. The British East India Company was formed on December 31st, 1600. There were far more than two countries on the Indian sub-continent in 1601 and in 1760.

What do you mean indira gandhi caused conflict. Are you a pakistani talking about 1971 war?

No. I was talking about the conflict that you said she caused within India itself. And no, I'm not from the sub-continent at all, just quite familiar with the history of many parts of the world.

Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorists. They sent out a terrorist and killed 44 soldiers with a car bomb.. Modi decided to retaliate and kill terrorists in their training camps so that they will not dare to attack again.
USA kills terrorists half way around the world. India should not defends its own borders.
Dont worry Modi will find a solution for Kashmir by clearing pakis out of gilgit baltistan.

Why don't you go fight and die for that cause and stop pestering us here with your nonsense. Modi's election eve bombing exercise was transparent political theater, and the execution was terrible (losing a war plane and almost a pilot).
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 12:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
You want proof that India is same race and culture: You ask me about it.
There are 12 rivers in India from north to south. Every year 1 river is celebrated in 12 year cycle. If the cultures are different why would one region respect others?
There was a religious reformer atleast in 500 BC. He setup religious places of knowledge in 4 corners of present day India. And other smaller religious places called peeta in 26 places some of them are in present day pakistan and bangladesh.

Such revanchism is proof that most of the world's brown countries, even their alleged intellectuals, are living in the pre-1648Westphalian world (i.e. intellectually pre-modern, literally atavistic). Obviously, the manufactured claim you are copying is essentially laying territorial claims to all of Pakistan and Bangladesh (either that, or the prophets thousands of years ago already foresaw precisely the map of British division of the subcontinent in 1948! so you might as shut up). The number happen to be 12 because the editor of that collection redundantly counted major rivers and their tributaries selectively, therefore goal-seeking 12 (perhaps they worked for the government statistics bureau of a prehistorical "India"; LOL!) .

By such silly logic, because Celtics used to occupy all the land in Western Europe, Central Europe and Balkan frontiers of the Roman Republic, should Ireland today lay claim to all of Western and Central Europe north of the Alps (perhaps even the Po Valley south of the Alps)? Kicking out all the French and Germans?

What you have there is even worse: pure myth and superstition of relatively recent invention trying to rewrite history. The South-Asia subcontinent population consisting of one race and culture? Are you kidding me? What the heck happened to the invasion corridor from the north? When are you going to lay territorial claims to Indochina after you are done with taking over Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 7:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
So you are another of those "shit brained" liberals who dont have any logic. Did you hold placards outside white house asking US govt not to kill osama?
Liberals in India are worst They held placards and asked govt to not to kill terrorists arrested in India.

Osama who? Why would someone who died in a cave of likely kidney failure in 2001-2002 matter at all a decade later?

India is no ones bitch anymore.
Around 900AD ghazwa-e-hind was declared and india was attacked troops 4 different kingdom came together and beat the troops so bad that caliphate disintegrated.
Which is not taught in any history book, not even in India.

hmm, India was no one's bitch anymore because of some story from 900AD? Have you heard of the British India Company founded in 1600 and the British Raj after that? I suppose it is easy to fool the average IQ=82 population when the native politicians ran the economy to the ground after the British left.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 8:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
Another comment with no logic or pure lies. What do you mean recent invention.

It's a recent invention by recently selectively picking and choosing a few pieces from a sea of myths. It's just like when you start with 2000 stock pickers, after 5 years, you are likely to find one of them to be a "consistently high performing" stock picker in the previous 5 years . . . then in the 6th year he is likely to fail: because he was a lottery winner through the picking-and-choosing process, not his own competence.

The celebrations were happening atleast for 5000 yrs with recorded history. Celtics can claim if they were still doing that even today. They ran away because of other tribes. Indians did it even under muslim and british rule.

You can't even keep track of something that happened less than 20 years ago (the death of Osama), what makes you a reliable examiner of alleged "5000 yrs with recorded history"? Did a few Nazi leaders' worship of Odin and Ocult make entire Europe the land of the Celts today?

pakistan, bangladesh were carved out of "british india".

There was no "India" as a state (as opposed to a geographic concept/genera-direction like "Europa," "Orient," "West Indies") before "British India."

Nepal and tibet had treaties with british India.

The post-1948 state of India is not the sole sucessor state to "British India." Pakistan, (Bangladesh), Nepal, Sikkim and Burma were all successor states to British India. India already took over Sikkim, and is in the process of taking over Nepal, along with declared intention of over-running the 1948 cease-fire line in Kashmire, which became a quagmire because India would not allow regional/national self-determination in Kashmir through open public voting on the issue. Why do you think there is a constant armed rebellion/resistance in Indian occupied Kashmir for the last 70+ years, but no such rebellion/resistance in the other half? Just like Chinese should have allowed Tibetan self-determination, perhaps India should have likewise allowed Kashmiri self-determination?

After british left India did not occupy nepal. But China occupied tibet.
Its high time that people outside India stop tell it how to behave.
No one calls tiammen square massacre conflict it is pure oppression of ones citizens.

Where have you been? Have you been hiding under a piece of rock for the past 30yrs? Your own nationalistic claims to the entire South-Asian sub-continent is even more ridiculous than the Communist Chinese claim to Tibet. The Communist Chinese are making claim to Tibet based on itself being the successor state to the Manchu Empire some 120-150 years ago, instead of allowing post Westphalian and post-WWI national self-determination; you are making your claim based on alleged history before British arrival 400 years ago, and likely nothing more than myths and "epics" thousands of years ago. The Manchus at least had well kept court records as well as external treaties with the British, among others . . . whereas the "epics" and myths that you are talking about are little more than oral traditions that are re-interpreted and reinvented every generation as they are currently being done.

Is europe considered 1 race? They are all caucasoids I think.
No one will say all of India is one race.

Yet, that's exactly what you said when you stated "You want proof that India is same race and culture: You ask me about it.
There are 12 rivers in India from north to south. Every year 1 river is celebrated in 12 year cycle. If the cultures are different why would one region respect others?" You were claiming the south asian sub-continent was not only one race but also one culture ("India is same racee and culture")
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 2:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
Only if you tell it its history. If someone else tells it, its a story?
That his-story I was explaining to Rin because he says India was always conquered by outsider. And I wanted to point out the lies in that narrative.
You talk about low IQ and point out that EIC formed in 1600 and immediately started occupying the world...
British became a political power in 1757 when they defeated the bengal kings.

The stories you were telling were simply fantastic and not believable, not surprising considering that you are more into "epic" (i.e. fantasy stories) instead of real history. When the British EIC arrived in India (i.e. when British arrived in India), the sub-continent was fragmented into numerous independent states. In 1760, the subcontinent still had several independent states . . . entirely in contradiction to your claim that the sub-continent was a united people before the British arrived or took power.

If osama was dead in 2002, why were 6trillion $ of tax-payer money mine and your spent hunting him. And only before obama was done with his presidency he was killed miraculously.

What are you talking about? The money was spent on building military bases all over the world in anticipation of future wars against possibly Russia, China and/or India . . . along with the acquisition of equipment and training of personnel. It's the cost of maintaining a Thalassocracy (and breaking up or preventing the rise of big land-based monopolies). Obama wheeled out Osama for his re-election; too bad the body didn't preserve well in deep freeze for over a decade, so some body had to be dumped at sea instead of being offered up for public display.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 2:29pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
I never deny open defacation is a problem. But you cannot provide proper toilets to everyone, and the corrupt governments never do it.
The present prime minister is much better he helped build 40million toilets. It will take sometime and push from government to fix the problem. Then people like Reality come in and say you hindu nationalist party war mongerer why dont you have a status quo of a slave as before.

After the British left the sub-continent, the Hindustanis and the Pakistanis have turned the sub-continent into sh*t under the banners of socialism and nationalism. When Hindustan finally started economic reforms in the 1990's, it's a replay of Da Gama and British EIC arriving at the seaports, and the native Hindustanis flocking to trade with the foreign sea-borne merchants, breaking free from the continental land-based monopolists (aka the Hindustani government bureaucrats this time, just like the various Muslim and Hindu princely rulers the last time). What the BJP and Modi have been doing is rather similar to what Hitler did a century ago: even as German people moved from the east side of Germany to the west side in pursuit of commercial opportunities (even Hitler's own parents and grandparents moving from the east side Austro-Hungarian Empire to Linz located on the west side of Austro-Hungarian Empire), his advocacy of Lebensraum / "living space" in the east served as a political platform for catching the idiot votes. What Hindustani today would want to move to Kashmir? instead of the coastal cities to get higher paying jobs? Yet, the nationalistic Lebensraum political ploy gets the idiot votes in the streets. The idiots in the streets just want to vote themselves into being slaves of the land-based monopolists (aka, the government of Hindustan), even as their daily economic choice shifts towards trade on the coast.

As for building toilets, how does wasting money running a police state and occupying Kashmir help build toilets in Hindustan? How many Hindustanis want to use toilets in Kashmir and get their asses shot up in the crossfire between "freedom-fighters"/"terrorists" vs. "security"/"enslavers"/"occupiers"?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 2:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
So a State can choose EC delegates randomly from a phone book, for example. Likewise, other States can agree to collectively do in a compact as per the above.

There is US Constitution Article I Section 10 ban against compacts between states without Congressional approval:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 13, 7:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
All your comments are lies or half truths but I am bored with replying to each one of them. So here is a video

I'm not going to contribute to view count of videos that you send when you are too lazy to present your arguments.

indc says
Here is its map durig 2 different but important kingdoms.

260BC and 400AD maps? What the heck do they have anything to do with the reality on the ground circa 1600-1900AD? For all we know, Mongols and their Timurid successor state armies could have killed off entire populations on that piece of land around 1200-1500AD. In case it's not obvious on that 1000AD map, the turks were still thousands of miles away from Asia-Minor Peninsular (modern Turkey) . . . so those ancient maps don't prove anything: different time, different people, different culture.

A little comment on those map masturbation exercise: education and especially map fantasy can be one of the most disturbing destroyers of previously prosperous civilizations . . . because maps give the false impression that the ruler "owns" every human being on that piece of land when in reality every single human being is capable of making his/her own calculations. Greek city states had prosperous commerce, then Plato's Academy eventually led to Aristotle's student Alexander, who "united" all of ancient Greece and put an end to the prosperity of Greek city states (refocusing societal effort to mindless imperial warfare). Other civilizations like those of the Mesopotamia, Nile Valley, Persia and Far East had similar experience of education and cartography turning city states' prosperity into endless imperial warfare and totalitarianism. What the supposedly "educated"/brainwashed men show in their fervent map-worship is in reality their own slavishness in imperial bureaucracy. The implied message in a political map ("coloring the map") is actually state-slavery similar to Sparta's Helot system.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 14, 7:25pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

indc says
Ok lets make a deal you watch the video and make a comment on what you think of it. I promise I will reply to everyone of your comments?

No deal. As I already explained in my previous post, I'm not interested in adding to the view count of a youtube video that you bring. If you have a counter-point to what I wrote, make the point here in your own words.

I too dont care about maps but how do you explain that to people who dont even know abcs of other civilization. We need to debunk their narratives through their own lenses.

You are the one who brought 260BC map and 400AD map in an attempt to prove India was a united country in 1600AD and 1760AD. Either you are utterly clueless or you are a nationalistic propagandist accustomed to lying.

Indian "culture" spread all the way from west asia to southeast-asia and far-east asia. And there is no record of anyone forcing it on them.

Many cultures spread across a wide area and inter-space with other cultures. The Vendic culture very much came from outside of modern day Hindustan and was imposed on the natives by force.

But people like Rin say India is always a bitch. People of sword only understand the meaning of sword. And think whole world will respect and listen to only it.

Governments throughout history were almost always imposed by "the sword" . . . that is not to say people fighting each other to have their turn at manipulating the government machinery necessarily lead a happier life than those who try to stay away from tyrannic governments. Large land-based political monopolies tend to become corrupt and inefficient very quickly (within a handful of generations), therefore frequently had to be replaced by a more efficient "new bureaucracy" (i.e. dumping the old existing bureaucrats / monopolists), especially given the general antipathy of the ruled harbor towards their own rulers after a few decades of monopolistic exploitation; that's why big continental countries tend to have frequent invasions, conquests by foreigners, internal revolutions and fragmentation/unification cycles.
about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions