Reality's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 5264 - 5303 of 5,303     Last »

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:18am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

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

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

My body my choice remember?

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation. GOD IS MUTILATING WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

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

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

How the fuck can you be so stupid?

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

What's your point?

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

The woman has to endure the physical aspects of pregnancy.

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

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

iwog says

Reality says

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

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

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

iwog says

Reality says

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

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

That is certainly a valid measurement.

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

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

iwog says

Abortions usually involve much more bleeding than menstuation.

So does giving birth you twit.

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

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

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

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

iwog says

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

This occurs before conception.

Conception has no legal standing.

iwog says

The man can litigate to seek custody.

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

Not when she is already giving up custody.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

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

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 11:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

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

Dance monkey, dance!

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

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 11:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

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

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

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

Only in your deranged mind.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Two words: Independent Contractor.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 7, 9:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says

Venezuela is socialist like Somalia is capitalist, with the same results. Even that great socialist rag the WSJ can see the difference. Too bad ironbrain doesn't have a clue. .

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

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

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

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

Dan8267 says

unless of course, they can find someone cheaper.

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 13, 7:33am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

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

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

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Apr 20, 5:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

tatupu70 says

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

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Apr 21, 12:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Jun 29, 10:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Sep 21, 10:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

"Communism" is only a euphemism for Monarchy. Nothing more than that. Marx simply substituted "divine right of king" with "dictatorship of the proletariat," which means a tyrant dictator ruling in the name of the "proletariat" too dumb to realize what's going on or too cowered to speak up.

What Marx called "Capitalism" was actually a relatively free market place (much less centralized than today's "Western Democracies"), where/when people (in the 19th century) had sound money and exercised much more control over their own lives than most of us do today.

What we have today is similar to plantation slavery back then: free education, free food (EBT cards), free medicine, free housing, etc. etc. for the slaves, all at the discretion of slave masters running the plantation via a plantation scrip that the plantation owner could devalue at will. "Free" means you don't get to decide priorities (by deciding where to put your own money) but your slave masters do. Out of the 10 planks in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto of 1848, 8 of them are already implemented in today's western society.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Sep 21, 11:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says
If you're talking about a higher and healthier standard of living, I'd argue that every American be limited to one child from now on and couples who have zero children should be rewarded. Children are a PERSONAL enrichment. They are by no measure a societal enrichment.

If not for the young people of the next generation, who would be working to generate returns for your invested capital? Or, who would be taking care of you in a nursing home if not for younger people?

The problem with too many people/children dragging down standards of living is due to too many dumb people and too many ill-raised people who are not productive enough to generate more output than what they consume.

Raising children is a material cost in the short-run (20yrs if done right) but emotionally rewarding (due to human biological programming thanks to evolution). Children are a disaster to people who can not afford them, but a "blessing" to those who can afford them (without resorting to government subsidies). Parents also gain more experience after raising first kids . . . at the same time, kids helping (in small doses) raising younger siblings also help build up more considerate and more mature personality in the older kids. That's why it actually makes sense to raise economy of scale on child raising into the hands of parents who can afford raising several kids, while absolving those who can not afford from the duty (perhaps giving them "virtual kids" that they can "raise" on their smart phones). A combination of fixed cash incentive for self-sterilization and proportional tax reduction (say 10% reduction in total income tax due for each dependent under 22yo) will go a long way towards raising smarter and more productive next generation.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Sep 21, 11:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      


In case it's not obvious, practically every country that embraced communism led to a "Paramount Leader" . . . in other words, an autocratic monarch. Russians leaders died too young, but where the leaders lived long enough and had somewhat competent children tended to groom their children as successors. That includes not only the formal communist countries but also many of the fellow-traveler 3rd world former colonies that embraced / inspired-by Russian Communist/socialist revolution; e.g. North Korea, Libya, Arab Baathist states, etc. etc. Marx' "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept served the same ideological function as "divine right of the king" in giving the autocrat unlimited power against his subjects.

It was not a co-incidence that communist/socialist revolutions took place primarily in 3rd world countries where the populations were accustomed to old style autocratic monarchies, instead of western countries with traditions in either constitutional monarchies or constitutional republics.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 16, 5:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Reagan's Trickle-Down brought Personal Computers to every American household; Trickle-Downs of the 1990's and 2000's brought Internet and Cellphone to every American household. All three were banned or un-affordable in Cuba and North Korea.

Having a few dozen to a few hundred to a few thousands to a few million 1%er rich competing against each other is far better for the middle class and even the poor, than having "equality" under the Castro Family or Kim Family, or whatever socialist dictatorship and its attendant corps of bureaucrats that might control the resources and capital in the name of "the people" (but of course for the bureaucrats' own benefit).

What's impoverishing the American middle class and the poor has little to do with the typical rich that people can see in their own lives but mainly due to terrible government policies. For example, what makes rent so high in the few big coastal cities is not due to greedy landlords (who have to compete against other landlords) but due to the combination of government restrictions on building houses where a lot of people want to live and government housing subsidies taking existing units off the market.

Those on the left with only academic experience but little market experience seem to think someone 1000x richer means he eats 3000 hamburgers a day instead of your own 3 hamburgers a day (and all those hamburgs fall from the sky, so if he eats more, you eat less). On the contrary, the 1000x richer guy in the beef economy is the one owning the cattle ranch and producing the hamburgers more efficiently than alternative owners! and the current low interest rate making the current discount cash value of daily hamburger production especially high on paper. What jacks up your hamburger price is the government subsidy enabling someone just a little less rich than you to bid that hamburger out of your hand! If we take those hamburger ranches into government bureaucratic operation, like Zimbabwe did under Mugabe, the result would not be more hamburgers for you but far less hamburgers! perhaps even mass starvation, just like in Zimbabwe, North Korea, and historically every place that ever tried the brain dead ideas of over-educated socialists with little understanding of how market and economy work.

Those hamburgers do not fall from the sky. Someone has to be producing those hamburgs. Major increases in production need entrepreneurial risk-taking. Bureaucrats collecting fixed salaries and afraid of change can not deliver that, and will always fall behind people's ever rising expectations, especially aided by the ever-increasing laziness of fellow bureaucratic job holders. Only the incentive of getting rich, very rich!, can incentivize people to work 80+ hours a week in a smart way to deliver innovations like personal computers and smart phones and billions of internet sites that you can use today. Them getting rich is simply the market's way of giving working capital into the hands of those with a good track record of getting results. No, they do not eat 1000 times more hamburgers than you do; they are the ones raising cattles to make hamburgers and steaks, so perhaps someday the steak price can drop so much that you too can afford to eat steak!

Leaving money in the hands of those who know how to make money by catering to consumer demand is far better for consumers than taking that money away from the entrepreneurs and giving it to bureaucrats or even to consumers who would then jack up price for other consumers.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 16, 9:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_3b28c says
Joking aside, what the smart academics realize is that someone 1000x richer eats 3 hamburgers a day and hoards the rest of the cash, whereas if that 1000X wealth were spread over the entire population, there would actually be 3000 hamburgers or more eaten leading to more demand for beef and more jobs in the restaurant, more jobs on the farm, more jobs at the beef processers, etc. That's why high inequality is bad and leads to job losses and a crappy economy.

I'm afraid the academics doing those Keynesian aggregates are being dumb or deliberately dumb:

1. Those 1000x richer eating 3 steaks a day, by paying the farmers more for those steak cuts, are allowing the farmers to sell the hamburger meat for less per pound! They are not in the market competing for the hamburger eater's lower quality cuts of meat, but in effect helping to lower the price of those lower quality cuts by giving farmers more money for the higher quality cuts, so the farmers' break-even point for the entire cattle can involve a lower price point for the hamburger meat. Restaurants would cease to exist if there is no wealth inequality; in fact, high taxation and/or raising minimum wage too high would literally cause restaurants to shutter their doors, as we have seen in Seattle in the last year or two. Wealth inequality (and low taxation/regulation) is the reason why some people can afford to go to restaurant and some others are willing to make food for them.

2. If the government steps in, and take the 1000x richer's money and give it to 1000 bean eaters who previously couldn't afford hamburgers, the immediate effect is not more hamburgers, but hamburger prices shooting through the roof! That's precisely what has happened in housing, medicine and education, where government subsidies are the heaviest and running up against government imposed limitation on supply: zoning rules and licensing. The result is not easy access or affordability but impoverishing the middle class who previous could afford those services and goods on their own. What the dumb academics call "hoarding" is in effect keeping the cattle alive and keeping the ranch in operation so that there can be hamburgers and steaks tomorrow.

3. All those bureaucrats doing the taxation and redistribution do not work for free. They need to eat too, and they usually demand higher benefits than the alleged recipients of those government benefits. It has been proven over and over again that government can not grow the economy faster than entrepreneurs can. Not just in Soviet Russia/Ukraine or Zimbabwe or East Germany, but also in this very country: when the entrepreneurs handle technology we have ever broader access to computer/internet/cellphone technology; when the government gets involved heavily in technology as in medicine we have sky-rocketing cost and utter impoverishment of the middle class if they ever need medical care. If the government had been in charge to make computer and internet accessible to everyone in 1990, you'd be bankrupt just for just watching a video online.

As for the relationship between high inequality vs. economic growth, it depends on how you measure equality in society/countries/economies like those of Cuba and North Korea: the average worker makes less than $20/mo while the leaders own private yachts/mansions/beaches/islands and free access to hordes of women. If you want to quote clueless numbers like Gini Index that ignore such lack of transparency, then low nominal inequality absolutely correlates with shitty economy, like Cuba and North Korea. If we confine our discussion to relatively transparent economies like the US over time, then rising inequality absolutely leads to economic growth and falling inequality leads to economic stagnation: simply because the stock market precedes the economy by about 6-18 months! The wealthy has more exposure to the stock market.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 17, 9:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The government is not just retarded (IQ < 80); the IQ of government is Zero! Only individual human beings can think. "Government" is a made-up concept. There are individuals wearing costumes and claim to work on behalf of government, just like there are individuals wearing costumes and claim to speak on behalf of God. Most sheeple worship at the altar of one or the other. Just like the primary beneficial function of a government is keeping away other more despotic governments, the primary beneficial function of most religion is reducing the sheeple's worshiping of the government-god as default.

Tax on businesses may be able to rob business owners in the short run, but in the long run the cost gets passed onto the consumers . . . just like literal robbing of a corner store may in the short-run hit the bottom-line / cash register of the owner/operator, but in the long run that cost works into every item sold in the store. Fundamentally, it's the natural human beings that have to live. The businesses don't have to continue or stay in the hostile environment; they can pack up or close down if continuing business is not profitable.

Think about it, if a store gets robbed once every 3 months just like quarterly property tax collection, be it a robber wearing ski mask or a mafia owning the turf/neighborhood or a guy claiming to be the town tax-collector . . . if the robbing is that regular, you don't think the cost of the regular robbery gets worked into the price of goods sold at the store? especially if every competitor is robbed the same way every quarter hence having the same level of cost for doing business?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 17, 10:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Japanese are indeed quite homogeneous, except for the aborginal Ainu living in northern Hokaido. The Chinese OTOH are an entirely different story. The Chinese government may prefer to promote the misconception of homogeneous "Han" as a race or ethnic group. In reality, the "Han"/Chinese are composed of at least 2-3 different groupings. The coastal Chinese are genetically and linguistically more closely related to Japanese and Vietnamese than to interior continental Chinese. The "Mandarin" Chinese language the world knows today is not even a language of Chinese origin, but that of the Manchu/Mongo/Turkic/Altaic origin, especially in pronounciations. The Chinese revolutionaries in the early 20th century narrowly voted to keep Mandarin as official language (instead of adopting a Vietnamese-like dialect/language as official language) after Manchus imposed that language on Chinese bureaucracy for 300 years. It's just like the founding fathers decided by a narrow margin to keep English instead of adopting German as official language despite most (white) Americans before 20th century were of German origin not English. Then radio and TV reinforced the dominance of Mandarin in China in the 20th century, just like internet reinforced the dominance of English worldwide since the 1990's. Most people with internet access can read English now, but that doesn't make the entire world ethnically English or American.

People in particular locales in the old world often look similar to outsiders, simply because many generations have lived in the same region resulting in most people there becoming genetically related to each other. We see that even when visiting Britain.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 19, 1:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The real issue is not diversity vs. mono-culture, but market freedom vs. government intervention. Both government-imposed diversity and government-imposed mono-culture are bad.

Diversity in the market place facilitates trade, and diversity in gene pool helps fend off diseases. However, the word "diversity" in these two context means having dissimilar participants, not necessarily ethnic diversity as defined by governments.

Switzerland is a very diverse country, with German-, French- and Italian- speaking cantons . . . and it is a model of good governance. Likewise, the tiny city-state of Singapore cramming numerous different ethnic groups (mainly Muslim Malays, Chinese and Hindus, but also numerous smaller groups from the former British Empire) into a tiny area less than 1/3 of Rhode Island, yet people there don't run around killing each other or burning down neighborhoods due to "racism."

Institutional efficiency usually decline when scaling up in size. In fact, it can be argued that the primary beneficiary of building a big empire are those who can benefit from corruption and lack of transparency; it is little wonder that they are fond of stirring the pot in hopes of benefiting from the resulting chaos and government imposition.

The efficiency of Northern European states is not due to mono-culture, just like the efficiency of Switzerland and Singapore is not due to diversity. They all benefit from being small and readily answerable to the people living there.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 19, 1:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I agree with you that Diversity =/= Strength (Diversity != Strength), especially government-imposed diversity policies, which are often little more than government-imposed racism against specific groups.

OTOH, government-imposed Mono-Culture doesn't equate to strength (as in prosperity) either; if strength means military strength, then there might be an argument for that, as proven in WWI (the birth of nation state as an efficient infantry recruitment tool), but then WWII quickly proved that racially-based militarism doesn't stay "strong" for long either as it would take on too many enemies.

As for the specifics of the Lee clan in Singapore, they were historically necessary for fending off Communism (just like Pinochet in Chile), but in the long run if they don't fade into the background over the next generation or become ceremonial head of state like the British Royal Family, they would in the long run hold their country back. The irony is that the leftist intellectual agitations both made such somewhat right-wing dictatorships lesser-of-two-evils and making their retirement difficult (such as the ill treatment of Pinochet in his retirement after bringing economic prosperity to Chile and peacefully handing over power to newly elected government will of course make the next dictator reluctant to retire).
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 19, 2:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Malaysia and Singapore are two different countries. The racist/discriminatory policies of Malaysia upon its independence after WWII was the reason why Singapore in turn demanded and won its independence from Malaysia. The separation cost Malaysian economy dearly.

Immigrants who believe "Sharia is more important than the Constitution" should obviously have their citizenship and voting rights stripped due to violation of their naturalization oath. In practice, selection on having a more productive immigrant demographic (and a more productive domestic demographic) can be done by reducing the welfare state.

BTW, I'm not hostile to Islam per se. The civic religion experiment in the US (and in much of post-modern West Europe) does seem to have a defect in its post-Modern form: drastically declining birth rate (after giving women equal opportunity, making the opportunity cost of raising babies too high). Perhaps we have to limit voting rights to property owners and net tax payers. Due to biological difference, women have much shorter time preference than men do. Populations embracing civic religion and gender equality eventually get replaced by populations emphasizing men's leadership over women (which actually meshes with women's instinctive hypergamy; a woman would be very reluctant to mate with a man who is not her leader); e.g. Romans replaced by Christians. Traditional religions became traditional religions precisely because they deliver that reproductive advantage in giving men the nominally advantageous position and fool the women's hypergamy into believing she is mating with her superior. It's entirely possible that Islam might take over the world in a few hundred years . . . unless we figure out a way to encourage girls to have babies before they waste their best years on social media and being corporate "wage slaves."
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 19, 9:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The year was 415AD. The location was outside the world's top university. The lead character was the female president of the university. She was being carved to pieces by a fanatical religious mob on her way back from advising the governor and her military escort provided by the governor had been chased away by the religious mob. Her name was Hypatia, President of the University of Alexandria, which at the time was the world's largest university. The religious mob were early Christians.

Post-Modernists tend to portray Hypatia as a martyr of science. That she may have been. OTOH, her and her fellow intelligent Roman women's refusal to have children doomed themselves: the Christians rapidly out-reproduced the non-Christians in those first 3 centuries after Christianity was introduced to gentiles. Meanwhile, the rapidly rising cost of running a bureaucratic Empire was squeezing efficiency and vitality out of Rome.

We are not sure how Hypatia became the president of the largest university in the Roman world. She didn't seem to have accomplished anything in math or science or philosophy beyond regurgitating those came generations before her. It wouldn't be surprising if she had climbed up the academic social ladder via affirmative-action and feminine wile, just like what we are familiar with in today's academia. She and other relatively smart women like her simply squander their youth and intelligence on social networking and virtual signaling by reciting old knowledge, and selectively wiped out the intelligent genes on the female side of the population, leaving themselves vulnerable to mob lynching by the sons and grandsons of the relative more idiotic but far more reproductive women.

The arrival of benighted religious fanatics was not the only reason behind the fall of Rome and the onset of the Dark Age. The rapidly increasing tax and regulatory burden of the bureaucratic empire and the self-sterilization of the intellectual class (both in terms of their ideas and their genetic vitality) made the arrival of dark age only a matter of time. We are doing essentially the same thing today when encouraging girls to spend their most fertile 20's on pursuing PhD's in nonsense like global warming "science" while racking up student debt and making them unmarriageable.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 21, 3:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Western Europe has/had so many borders and states/nations because of:

1. Geography. With the Alps in the middle of Western Europe and major rivers radiating from there to seas all around, it was easier for defenders to supply their troops (often in casles built at narrow choke points on the fragmented landscape) than for invaders that had to transport food supply forward with advancing army. The vast central plains and major long riverine "highways" of East Europe (mostly inside the state/empire Russia now), Middle East, India and China made military/political unification by a power sitting on a plain upstream (like Moscow region in Russia, Northwest India and Northwest China) conquering the rest of the regions by floating transport boats downstream much more easily than in Western Europe. Roman Empire could have absorbed Germania if the Rhine River flowed west-east from Belgic plains to German plains, instead of north-south from the Swiss Alps to North Sea.

2. Another aspect of Geography: England being a big island off-shore but very close to major commercial centers on the continent, so England could play balance of power, without which the Habsburg Austria/Spain, Bourbons (Louise XIV), Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin each could have united Western Europe. The islands of Ceylon and Formosa were too small and too far away from their nearby continental commercial centers to play balance of power role. Japan was even farther away from Asian continent to influence matters on the continent before 20th century, at which point the culture of unification (and corruption benefiting scholar administrators at the expense of the free market, essentially paternalistic communism/totalitarianism) had advanced to such a degree that Japanese attempted to unify the continent instead of playing balance of power to keep the continental powers from unifying.

3. Lessons from Roman Empire. Compared to the vibrant scientific and economic progress during Classical Greek City States (Phoenecian city states being contemporaries), the unification by Alexander then later Roman Empire on an even larger scale were slow-motion disasters that eventually made the Dark Age inevitable. By the time of Odocer (5th centuiry), after half a dozen emperors being replaced and murdered in less number of years, it finally became amply clear that being an Emperor was not beneficial to the individual. Odocer killed the sitting emperor, but refused to become emperor himself thereby avoiding death within a year or less. That was the start of Feudalism in Western Europe. Each military commander would have his own little fief to govern, so as to have more efficient and responsible local government than the bloated imperial government. Towards the end of Roman Empire, the citizens were literally selling their own freedom (so as to avoid exhorbitantly high taxes) to become serfs to big estates, which were essentially the smallest units of feudal fiefs ("Manor"). It would take almost 1500 years for the follies of re-uniting Europe into an empire to be taken seriously again: Napoleon, Hitler and the current EU project; even then, England got in the way every time.

There were always significant migration in Western Europe. Many residents in Britain trace their ancestry to continental forebearers that arrived on the island long after William the Conqueror. Many residents in France had Germanic ancestors, as do many residents in Germany having Frankish ancestors. It's the political entities (essentially feudal lords for most of the 1500 years) that jealously guarded their own political independence while trying to attract high productivity serfs and free artisans and merchants from each other's domains. People could move around throughout Western and Central Europe without passport until WWI. The concept of nation-state has been around for only about 150 years, essentially as a result of infantry conscripts defeating mounted aristocrats in the rifle age, so the idea of nation-state became a useful tool for recruiting a lot of infantry cheaply via conscription.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Dec 21, 3:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Both ethnic diversity and ethnic mono-culture can work. However, neither government-imposed diversity, nor government-imposed mono-culture would work. Why? Because the bureaucrats don't work for free. They will insist on being paid and paid pension for many many decades even after there's no one left to deport.

That's why a far more efficient way to slow down and reverse the unproductive part of immigrantion is reducing/removing welfare benefits.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 2, 9:08pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist, you are not alone in your thinking. The most important effect of H1B is brain drain on the potential peer-competitors; i.e. Russia, China and India losing their smartest engineers to the US. If we don't get another way of importing IQ>120 brains, capital will go overseas to fund companies in those countries . . . and people in the US will be much less secure as those smart people stay in their home countries and work for their governments/militaries. While we here are recently gradually drifting away from the spirit of 1776 (the year when both Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and Jefferson's Declaration of Independence were published), most of those old-world countries are fundamentally pre-Smithian mercantilistic socialistic central planners and war-mongers.

The real problem with taxpayers being drafted into subsidizing particular industries is two fold: the forcible tax collection (robbery under another name) and the subsidy (corruption under another name). Do government subsidies ever bring better result in any industry? Hardly: government subsidies in the form of public education produce illiteracy and innumeracy; government subsidies on higher education send millions IQ<120 kids into taking on debt slavery "studying" religions like AGW and SJW; government subsidies on big science wasted a generation of scientists on political projects like the moon shot.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 3, 8:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says
Ha! As of lately, the Chinese come, learn, and go back to China. Even worse, the Chinese have set these centers where they invite foreign scientists to work for periods of time (sometimes a few months, sometimes years). The foreigners pass on to the Chinese all the expertise they have + help them set up their labs. In a few years when they are no longer needed, they will be gone. I have a few colleagues and friends earning second salaries during the summers this way.

I doubt that "Industrial Strategy and Planning" by Chinese would be any more successful than those of Japanese in the 1980s-90's or of the Soviets half a century before the Japanese. In case anyone missed the history lesson: the Japanese spent $billions (real money back then) on their enormous zaibatsu to develop mainframe computers while missing internet and biotech entirely; soviets churned out tens of thousands of biplanes and tanks but missed the importance of radio and motor transport, rendering their tank formation combat effectiveness only 10-20% of table value, probably would have been conquered by the Nazi's if not for the massive transfer of American radio and Jeeps/trucks.

A central-planning socialist regime/economy can't figured out where to allocate resources, at least when they don't have clear models/examples to copy from.

What makes the US efficient in new discoveries is the relatively more free-wheeling economy and the market place, with relatively less intervention by the political class and their cronies. When those copy economies overseas implode (and they probably will in the next year or two as the next financial crisis hits), those human talents will want to stay here. We shouldn't have a policy of kicking out those talents as they would then work for the militaries overseas. Military and waging war (for short-term war aims) is one field where centralized planning can work (if one is not concerned about massive attrition of incompetents, like Stalin did in the first year of WWII eastern front). Immigration of the smart (not by educational credentials but factually competent as proven in market place) is actually a type of immigration that makes sense, as opposed to the importation of the masses of semi-retards that the Democrats are so fond of; the ones derive their livelihood from the market place also tend to vote for pro-market policies after they become citizens. . . after all, that's precisely how America became America before the (re)invention of welfare state.

The problem with US STEM majors is that the high cost of education, and lack of education in entrepreneurship. What the students should be taught in the US is not how to be staff engineers at big companies, but how to hire cheaper engineers from whatever trees they fall from in order to develop new goods/services that can cater to consumers.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 3, 8:22am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
If you're saying what I think you're saying: Give foreigners professional jobs that were created by spending on Defense and R&D.
But it's great because then the people save money when their kid becomes a lifetime shelf stocker at Walmart, not needing any education.

Shelf stockers are being replaced by robots, either the brick+motar companies do that in the stores or Amazon does it for them by taking away the sales revenue. I don't think any of us would argue for the banning of robots, so that some kids can keep their restocking jobs instead of being pressured by reality into finding other jobs.

Likewise, if staff engineers can be had cheap somewhere (can be from Mars or falling from a tree / the sky, for our discussion), perhaps someday even computers themselves can replace 3nd-rate programmers, do we really want to create an artificial market place where kids are encouraged to take on more debt in the hopes of getting and keeping one of those artificially protected jobs?

What really needs to be done is eliminating the conditions attaching the H1B personnel to the big corporations sponsoring the visa. That feudalistic attachment create a non-level playing field between big corporations (which are net job destroyers) vs. small/new businesses (which are net job creators) that don't have the political connections to import what amounts to bonded labor. The removal of attachment would also reduce incentive for the big corporations to import entirely for the low labor cost created by that bondage, as the imported worker would then be free to move to a different company, thereby reducing the profit margin in trafficking low-cost labor, hence making it necessary to import higher quality and less number of foreign labor, as the talent-based visa program was meant to be. It is this conditional attachment that is reducing the quality of imported labor; an outright ban of H1B would further reduce the quality of imported labor mix: as smart engineers would be much less likely to trek through deserts to come illegally, unlike the destitute with nothing to lose or even the outlaw desperadoes.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Feb 5, 5:58pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

That story belongs to the Apocrypha . . . just like the Mulan story from the same culture and Amazonia from ancient Greeks. Please don't go looking for women who chop off one of their breasts in order to work the bow and arrow more efficiently, or a girl who eats, sleeps and pisses next to other guys for a decade without being noticed to have breasts instead of a penis. Don't try it at home, kids.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Feb 6, 7:50pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
You have a single provider for water and electricity, right? Do you ever get water and electricity?
You have a single road network, right? it's a miracle you can get anywhere.

Have you seen your water bill lately? If your house is on a public water system. Almost all Americans used to have private water systems, called "well" and "septic tank." Even today, the majority of American houses are still on those private water systems. Half a century or so ago, more and more cities and towns decided to have public water systems; the reason cited at that time was for lower cost, and initially the public systems did deliver economy of scale. However, today, the typical house on public water systems has a quarterly water bill of $800! Compared to private wells and septic tanks that cost no more than $30/mo. Why such drastic price increase after water provision went "single-payer"? Because:

1. It's a monopoly;

2. When the public water systems were set up, they had a small number of mostly young blue collar workers; after 3 decades, not only the current workers at the water departments have to be paid but also retired workers have to be paid; more positions have to be added in order to manage more people and more retirement benefit accounts. Bureaucracy tend to grow exponentially when there is no market force to instill discipline; degree requirement for those positions also increase (along with educational expense to get those degrees), so there is an ever widening gap between what the rate payers pay vs. what the workers receive.

3. The monopoly creates nexus of power for capture by rent seekers, such as new regulations that require tens of millions of dollars of new equipment that would have to be financed by banksters . . . essentially introducing an opportunity for banksters to rip off people for having water and staying alive.

That's why city-wide indoor plumbing water works show up in human history once every 1700 years or so, lasting 200-300 years each time, then disappear! Before city-wide water works showed up in the late 19th century in North America and Western Europe, humanity had to go back to Roman time to see city-wide single-payer water works. Before the Romans had theirs between about 1 century to 4th century, the Hrappans of Indus Valley had theirs around 1700BC. Between those brief spans, people used out houses for about 1500 years each time.

That's for a system that has clear economy of scale. For medicine, while the operating rooms and expensive equipment offer some opportunity for economy of scale, the most costly part of solving medical problems is one-on-one care, which has very little economy of scale. That is, unless the solution is machine-gunning and gassing people to death . . . a solution that the socialist experiments in the 20th century were notoriously efficient at.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Feb 6, 8:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says
An insurance is a socialist systems whereby the people who are healthy pay for the rest - until they are sick.

Not at all. Insurance is a free market phenomenon, just like one would buy home insurance, life insurance and portfolio insurance.

Medical insurance mandated by government to include events that are guaranteed to happen (such as contraceptive pills) is indeed socialism, just like welfare paying out to allegedly intended recipients 13 cents for every dollar forcibly collected for that purpose; the other 87 cents of every dollar are lost in the bureaucracy. Obamacare, single-payer and the government enforced supply restriction on who can deliver medical service are all ways of sky-rocketing the medical bill.

If the government mandated "Meal Insurance," that each person has to buy into a government (single-payer) meal plan, we'd all be starving, just like everywhere it was tried: in the first year after Mayflower landing in Plymouth Colony (more than half the initial population starved to death in the first year as a result of that communist experiment), and in numerous socialist countries in the 20th century with a total starvation death toll of over 100 million!
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Feb 7, 8:30pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

1. Think of all the "resources" that you have used today, aside from air (which is free), is there a single thing that is not the fruit of someone else' labor or ingenuity? "Planet's natural resources" is a dumb religious idea that contradicts our every day real life experience. Before people figured out a way to refine petroleum, what we today consider a quintessential "natural resource" -- petroleum/oil -- was just something that oozed out of the ground and made a mess of the farm land in Pennsylvania, while people hunted whales to near extinction in order to get oil to light lamps at night; when petroleum was first refined to produce kerosene (thereby saving the whales), the manufacturers dumped gasoline! because it was too dangerous for use as lighting fuel. The commercial value of gasoline had to wait for the invention of gasoline engine! Almost all resources of consequence are produced by someone else, not "natural." Have some respect for the productive members of our species. The "natural world" would gladly eat you for lunch! in a big gulp by a lion/croc or in many little bites like by army-ants/bot-flies.

2. We don't have a fixed standard of living. What constitutes satisfactory living standards is dependent on expectations. Queen Victoria did not have TV, internet, cellphone or even automobile, but she was living a happy life with high living standards. Every loser on welfare today has TV, internet, cellphone and most likely automobile or at least access to one when needed. The angst and discontent among the poor is the result of misplaced expectations vs. their skills to earn a living that meet those expectations.

3. Indians, Chinese and Africans largely skipped over the land-line phone experience, and jumped on the mobile data phone directly. Likewise, much of the world's population will jump over the driving experience and enjoy self-driving taxis taking them to their desired destinations. The level of pollution will likely be much lower, as will the per-head cost of individual mobility, compared to the cost today.

4. Giving everyone what he/she wants will not be sustainable, for a very different reason: genetic degeneracy. We have already witnessed what happens in cities where a large section of the population live off welfare: under such circumstances, the girls choose to mate with thugs; instead of honing skills to be productive or manifest genes that show intelligence, the boys would be induced to exhibit thug traits in order to stay in the gene pool. It's just like, when food is plenty year-around, peahens picked peacocks with large useless tails. Will idiots thus produced in the following generations be able to sustain a modern complex human society with all the technology necessary to maintain such standard of living? Of course not. Some people having more and some people having less is the reason why men built civilization in order to seduce women (just like male birds build nests in order to attract female birds). What we call Civilization is actually a by-product of male-female mating sexual strategy. If everything were free for the taking, there wouldn't be a genetic drive to be productive or building/enhancing a civilization at all; that's why a city living on welfare quickly degenerates into primitivism within a few generations.

A planet sustainable for human beings who wish for rising standards of living needs people who can produce more than they consume themselves; the surplus is what enables capital formation and rising standards of living. Without the "rising" part of "rising standards of living," everyone would be disappointed and society quickly degenerate into fighting over the fixed/shrinking pie. The "planet's natural resources" religion is a piece of atavistic thinking that harkens back to pre-1776, when Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations," which proved conclusively that resources and wealth come form division of labor enabled by a market place, not mutual predation fighting over a fixed pie.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Feb 12, 6:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Brits exported Opium to Manchu-occupied China in order to balance trade. The world (excepting Britain itself domestically) was largely on silver specie standard for currency in the first half of 19th century. The Opium War was the best thing ever happened to Chinese people in the 19th century: by opening up that country to direct trade, it reduced Manchu monopoly on Chinese market and Chinese labor; in the following decades, Chinese labor and merchants alike flooded to treaty ports opened up by the war, to be under British (and American, etc.) semi-colonial administration with local representation and basic rules of law, instead of staying under full-colonial rule under Manchus (no local representation and no due process of law and no individual rights). It's just like the arrival of Brits made India and Africa better for Indians and Africans than the places ever had been (and ever since the departure of British rule). As for Chinese export of narcotics in return, that happened in the 1870's, after the Manchu government there was forced into legalizing opium production after the Second Opium War in the 1860's. By the end of 19th century, China had become the largest exporter of opium, half a century after the first Opium War.

As for Fentynal, the cross-border trade value is tiny compared to all the other goods that cross borders. IMHO, if it closes the case on the hard-core drug addicts in a few hours instead of decades of government welfare, it's not a bad thing for the rest of the society or for the individuals themseves! A lot of terminally ill people and over-aged prostitutes/SJW's with nothing to look forward to after wasting their younger years should be encouraged to take the easy way out.