Tuesday, April 30, 2013
We Provide Leadership and Guidance Where There Was None
That is arguably the most important and positive benefit The Manosphere has brought to society. I strongly recommend the link if for any other reason there's a free PDF book the guy links to and hey, who doesn't like free books?
Liberty Mastermind Symposium
Remember to sign up if you are interested in attending. The price jumps $50 tomorrow!
The Captain's Great 2013 Motorcycle Adventure
This is the tentative plan.
If anybody happens to be on this route let the Captain know.
No specific dates however.
If anybody happens to be on this route let the Captain know.
No specific dates however.
Eulogy of the American Woman
As a dead woman buried six feet under the ground, I’m appreciative of all the privilege I’ve had to live a life where women were cherished and valued above men, who finally understand their role as sperm donors and tax payers and nothing more. But even more can be done, and I pass the torch to young women today and tell them to keep up the fight for gender equality, girl power, and female happiness at all costs. Thank god I was born an American girl.
Roosh hit this one a while ago and it is still gaining altitude. You will read it.
Roosh hit this one a while ago and it is still gaining altitude. You will read it.
Why I Felt Safe In the 80's
I am not joking when I say this, but when Ronald Reagan was in charge I felt very safe and never worried about the country. Of course I was only a child at the time and there really wasn't anything I could do about it, but I intuitively KNEW the government or "what adults were in charge of" was something I didn't have to concern my mind with.
I didn't know this picture existed, but it more or less speaks more words than most as to why everybody, bar the most hate-filled leftists, loved Ronald Reagan, not to mention felt safe.
(though who is in the background? Stossel?)
I didn't know this picture existed, but it more or less speaks more words than most as to why everybody, bar the most hate-filled leftists, loved Ronald Reagan, not to mention felt safe.
(though who is in the background? Stossel?)
Monday, April 29, 2013
If I Were an Oil Corporate Executive
I'd sell all our assets in the US,
Move our corporate headquarters to Bermuda
and tell all the ungrateful spoiled little eco-brats (and I'm not talking children) in the US
to go pound sand.
It is amazing any of them stay here, let alone supply this ungrateful country with oil.
Move our corporate headquarters to Bermuda
and tell all the ungrateful spoiled little eco-brats (and I'm not talking children) in the US
to go pound sand.
It is amazing any of them stay here, let alone supply this ungrateful country with oil.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Grown Women Don't Read "Twilight"
Or Cosmo
Or EPL
Or 50 Shades of Gray
Or anything you can find in the check out lane at your local grocery store.
Which means grown women are definitely in the minority.
Or EPL
Or 50 Shades of Gray
Or anything you can find in the check out lane at your local grocery store.
Which means grown women are definitely in the minority.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Your Boss Hates You
And the sooner you learn that, and accept the fact they will throw you under the bus, the better your career will be.
They are not your friends.
They are not your mentors.
They are your enemies that need to be quarantined as quickly as possible and people you must be promoted over in order to succeed. They are the bottleneck and blockage to your advancement in your career.
Again, cheap nursing homes for all.
They are not your friends.
They are not your mentors.
They are your enemies that need to be quarantined as quickly as possible and people you must be promoted over in order to succeed. They are the bottleneck and blockage to your advancement in your career.
Again, cheap nursing homes for all.
Is the US Cooking the Books on GDP?
An old school trick economists use to measure the true economic growth of countries where their governments are not...um...known for publishing accurate and true figures
COUGH COUGH
ARGENTINA
COUGH COUGH
CHINA
WHEEZE WHEEZE
VENEZUELA
is instead of taking the liar's word for it, they instead substitute electrical consumption. This is a reasonably good proxy, unaffected by inflation or distortions from government bureaucrats and can be easily measured.
So I decided to do the same thing with the United States.
Here is electrical consumption vs. Real GDP going back to 1949.
Because of the varying axes it is important to index both to 100 in 1949 to see whether one is growing faster than the other. Here is that same chart indexed:
If you eyeball it, it seems the opposite of what I was suspecting was happening. Energy consumption is growing faster than GDP suggesting we've been UNDERSTANDING our economic growth. I double checked the figures , thinking I had erred, but they prove to be the correct.
Understand, however, I still actually think this is an error because if anything the US has become more efficient with its energy and I have seen GDP/unit of energy figures proving this. But here's the interesting thing. Even with this error (that goes against my original case) this data series actually ends up proving it even more so, notably by what I spy with my little eye in the green circle.
Since the chart is indexed you don't really see it, but starting in 2002 energy consumption flatlined while GDP continued to grow. Matter of fact, GDP has grown by 14% since 2002 while energy consumption has grown only by 1%.
This is what I feared was happened. Where the government says,
"Yep! you're all 14% richer now!"
When the energy consumption does not prove so.
Now it is hard to say whether this is because of measuring differences as the chart shows the two do not perfectly correlate with one another, but NEVER in the history of the two data sets has GDP been a full 13% higher than what electrical consumption would suggest.
I can only want to see how much larger the differences will be once we adapt the "New GDP" measure.
(also, any thoughts on the discrepancy or data source from the EIA would be appreciated).
COUGH COUGH
ARGENTINA
COUGH COUGH
CHINA
WHEEZE WHEEZE
VENEZUELA
is instead of taking the liar's word for it, they instead substitute electrical consumption. This is a reasonably good proxy, unaffected by inflation or distortions from government bureaucrats and can be easily measured.
So I decided to do the same thing with the United States.
Here is electrical consumption vs. Real GDP going back to 1949.
Because of the varying axes it is important to index both to 100 in 1949 to see whether one is growing faster than the other. Here is that same chart indexed:
If you eyeball it, it seems the opposite of what I was suspecting was happening. Energy consumption is growing faster than GDP suggesting we've been UNDERSTANDING our economic growth. I double checked the figures , thinking I had erred, but they prove to be the correct.
Understand, however, I still actually think this is an error because if anything the US has become more efficient with its energy and I have seen GDP/unit of energy figures proving this. But here's the interesting thing. Even with this error (that goes against my original case) this data series actually ends up proving it even more so, notably by what I spy with my little eye in the green circle.
Since the chart is indexed you don't really see it, but starting in 2002 energy consumption flatlined while GDP continued to grow. Matter of fact, GDP has grown by 14% since 2002 while energy consumption has grown only by 1%.
This is what I feared was happened. Where the government says,
"Yep! you're all 14% richer now!"
When the energy consumption does not prove so.
Now it is hard to say whether this is because of measuring differences as the chart shows the two do not perfectly correlate with one another, but NEVER in the history of the two data sets has GDP been a full 13% higher than what electrical consumption would suggest.
I can only want to see how much larger the differences will be once we adapt the "New GDP" measure.
(also, any thoughts on the discrepancy or data source from the EIA would be appreciated).
Friday, April 26, 2013
12 Year Old Rapists
Hmmm....I wonder if their fathers could be reached for comment.
Oh, but don't worry. I'm sure there are no consequences to 7 year olds being told to deal drugs.
And remember,
I genuinely want you to remember,
men and fathers are not needed. Society will get along, nay, ADVANCE without them.
Oh, but don't worry. I'm sure there are no consequences to 7 year olds being told to deal drugs.
And remember,
I genuinely want you to remember,
men and fathers are not needed. Society will get along, nay, ADVANCE without them.
Why Cary Grant is Mandatory for the Manosphere
My mother, who I do indeed love, gave me a tonnage of advice.
And in all honesty 90% of it was completely worthless BS that only served to cripple me later in life.
However, there was one "arena" or "genre" of advice she gave me that DID indeed prove to be useful and that was watching Cary Grant movies.
Cary Grant if you are unfamiliar with was arguably the premier actor from the golden years of Hollywood. He played everything from his early years of romantic comedy fill-in to war hero in "Destination Tokyo." But if there was anything you could glean from Cary Grant at the age of 14 it was his vocabulary and charm.
Charm and vocabulary are things that are hard to teach. They are endeavors that truthfully an individual must pursue and perfect. But if you start enough at an early age, or dedicate yourself at an older age, you can naturally embed these traits into your being, infuse them into yourself, and in the end come out a much more advantaged man than your peers. And this advantage is huge over your other alpha male contemporaries.
Understand that with all the TRUTHFUL and LEGITIMATE observations about confidence, dominance, leadership, etc. of the alpha male, not all of those traits are conveyed via physical posturing. Women do not solely interact with you on a physical basis, matter of fact the majority of their INITIAL interaction with you will be verbal. And therefore if you wish to improve your chances, having this "natural Cary Grantish charm" to bolster your "verbal game" will prove necessary.
How do you achieve this Cary Grantish charm?
Very simple.
1. Watch Cary Grant movies.
2. Plagiarize his lines.
3. Increase your vocabulary.
#1 Watch Cary Grant Movies
I cannot claim to be Cary Grant, but I've watched enough of them, and have become familiar enough with the man's acting that I can fake him really good. The man never loses confidence, is always in command, and if he isn't, he is in the state of "confused indifference." Of course Hollywood playrights made him look that way, but merely studying his characters in many movies will at MINIMUM give you a template to work from. He never gets angry, he never gets riled, he's very much like John Wayne. Immovable, though affable and every woman will at minimum like him.
#2 Plagiarize His Lines
The benefit of this is that most modern day women are so uncultured and pursue such mindless endeavors, they don't even know who Cary Grant is. As they lap up the latest gossip of the Kardashians or what latest celebrity harlot had a bastard child to prove her independent womanhood, you clandestinely take in and write down all the smooth oneliners Cary Grant spoke. Even though those one liners were written 60 years ago, the wisdom of our Hollywood playrights in terms of knowledge of the sexes shines through and still applies to today. If you watch those movies from the 50's and 60's you'll see, as clear as day, what charm is and how it plays on female sexual psychology. They knew the formula back then. They know it now. Why bother trying to recreate it? Just repeat it.
Remember. Modern day women are too busy watching the likes of EPL, Sex in the City, etc., to even know who Cary Grant is. So it's like plagiarizing with no risk of being caught.
# 3 Increase Your Vocabulary
If there is one thing I learned from watching Cary Grant flicks it was the cunningness and cleverness of the PRECISE words he chose.
Of course Cary Grant did not CHOOSE those words, the playwrights did.
But the point is still taken.
Understand the power of vocabulary.
Most people when they think "vocabulary" they think "some nerd who knows too many words."
But the truth is that 100% of your verbal communication with the opposite sex HAS TO COME THROUGH WORDS.
And if you have a better command of the vocabulary, why wouldn't that provide a great opportunity to improve your game?
This is the largest point of my post.
For if you have a better command of the language then you can convey, practically magically, much more than your competitors, your super-awesomeness. Instead of merely conveying information you can become the soothsayer, embedding traits like intelligence, wit, and cleverness in those words.
For example you, say get your ass shotdown by a girl who claims "she has a boyfriend."
The NON-Cary Grant familiar man will scuffle off into obscurity or at best say, "cool."
You, familiar with Cary Grant lingo will say,
"Well, if anybody goes on the critical list let me know." (Charade, 1963)
Or if a girl feigns umbrage at your approach you say,
"Dreadful etiquette, I apologize" (which isn't a Cary Grant line, but a Christian Slater line)
The list can go on and on, but the larger point is not one of merely a "tit for tat" memorization of Cary Grant lines from 1940's movies, but to have a command and (more importantly) a familiarity and COMMON USAGE of many $5 English words that when sparing verbally with a woman you can pull the
precise
clever
sniper-precision
words you need to deliver to such effect it not only mutes her, but turns her on. NOT because no other guy used those words but...
because those words convey meaning that no other man in her life was able to convey.
And in all honesty 90% of it was completely worthless BS that only served to cripple me later in life.
However, there was one "arena" or "genre" of advice she gave me that DID indeed prove to be useful and that was watching Cary Grant movies.
Cary Grant if you are unfamiliar with was arguably the premier actor from the golden years of Hollywood. He played everything from his early years of romantic comedy fill-in to war hero in "Destination Tokyo." But if there was anything you could glean from Cary Grant at the age of 14 it was his vocabulary and charm.
Charm and vocabulary are things that are hard to teach. They are endeavors that truthfully an individual must pursue and perfect. But if you start enough at an early age, or dedicate yourself at an older age, you can naturally embed these traits into your being, infuse them into yourself, and in the end come out a much more advantaged man than your peers. And this advantage is huge over your other alpha male contemporaries.
Understand that with all the TRUTHFUL and LEGITIMATE observations about confidence, dominance, leadership, etc. of the alpha male, not all of those traits are conveyed via physical posturing. Women do not solely interact with you on a physical basis, matter of fact the majority of their INITIAL interaction with you will be verbal. And therefore if you wish to improve your chances, having this "natural Cary Grantish charm" to bolster your "verbal game" will prove necessary.
How do you achieve this Cary Grantish charm?
Very simple.
1. Watch Cary Grant movies.
2. Plagiarize his lines.
3. Increase your vocabulary.
#1 Watch Cary Grant Movies
I cannot claim to be Cary Grant, but I've watched enough of them, and have become familiar enough with the man's acting that I can fake him really good. The man never loses confidence, is always in command, and if he isn't, he is in the state of "confused indifference." Of course Hollywood playrights made him look that way, but merely studying his characters in many movies will at MINIMUM give you a template to work from. He never gets angry, he never gets riled, he's very much like John Wayne. Immovable, though affable and every woman will at minimum like him.
#2 Plagiarize His Lines
The benefit of this is that most modern day women are so uncultured and pursue such mindless endeavors, they don't even know who Cary Grant is. As they lap up the latest gossip of the Kardashians or what latest celebrity harlot had a bastard child to prove her independent womanhood, you clandestinely take in and write down all the smooth oneliners Cary Grant spoke. Even though those one liners were written 60 years ago, the wisdom of our Hollywood playrights in terms of knowledge of the sexes shines through and still applies to today. If you watch those movies from the 50's and 60's you'll see, as clear as day, what charm is and how it plays on female sexual psychology. They knew the formula back then. They know it now. Why bother trying to recreate it? Just repeat it.
Remember. Modern day women are too busy watching the likes of EPL, Sex in the City, etc., to even know who Cary Grant is. So it's like plagiarizing with no risk of being caught.
# 3 Increase Your Vocabulary
If there is one thing I learned from watching Cary Grant flicks it was the cunningness and cleverness of the PRECISE words he chose.
Of course Cary Grant did not CHOOSE those words, the playwrights did.
But the point is still taken.
Understand the power of vocabulary.
Most people when they think "vocabulary" they think "some nerd who knows too many words."
But the truth is that 100% of your verbal communication with the opposite sex HAS TO COME THROUGH WORDS.
And if you have a better command of the vocabulary, why wouldn't that provide a great opportunity to improve your game?
This is the largest point of my post.
For if you have a better command of the language then you can convey, practically magically, much more than your competitors, your super-awesomeness. Instead of merely conveying information you can become the soothsayer, embedding traits like intelligence, wit, and cleverness in those words.
For example you, say get your ass shotdown by a girl who claims "she has a boyfriend."
The NON-Cary Grant familiar man will scuffle off into obscurity or at best say, "cool."
You, familiar with Cary Grant lingo will say,
"Well, if anybody goes on the critical list let me know." (Charade, 1963)
Or if a girl feigns umbrage at your approach you say,
"Dreadful etiquette, I apologize" (which isn't a Cary Grant line, but a Christian Slater line)
The list can go on and on, but the larger point is not one of merely a "tit for tat" memorization of Cary Grant lines from 1940's movies, but to have a command and (more importantly) a familiarity and COMMON USAGE of many $5 English words that when sparing verbally with a woman you can pull the
precise
clever
sniper-precision
words you need to deliver to such effect it not only mutes her, but turns her on. NOT because no other guy used those words but...
because those words convey meaning that no other man in her life was able to convey.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Beta of the Century
here's the story
here's the picture
Maybe one of those *cough cough wheeze wheeze* women will let him carry their books to class!
here's the picture
Maybe one of those *cough cough wheeze wheeze* women will let him carry their books to class!
Baby Boomer Meat Markets, CSR and More!
In this latest podcast Aaron talks about Baby Boomer meat markets, how "traditional grandmothers" might become extinct, how he hates it when bank tellers fake taking an interest in you, and he asks corporate America the question - "What's the next, greatest innovation in business? CSR? Linked in? Lobby and rent seeking? Do any of you have ANY new ideas or is it just more BS?"
Some of his finest work and NO recording errors! You can find the archives here.
Some of his finest work and NO recording errors! You can find the archives here.
Dirty, Sloppy Linkage
Wow, who knew she'd end up as a worthless academian bureaucrat!?
Maureen Dowd is HOT! You're just an ageist, sexist, bigot who's intimidated by a strong, independent woman!
Ahhh, yes, "The Healthy Penis!" That'll make our enemies quiver in their boots and think twice about taking us over!
Dude, that's pretty freaking manly. I'd like to see a liberal arts major do that.
Your morning NSFW funny ha ha.
My children will never grow up with yours as I refuse to bring them into this world with your genetic excrement running feral and rampant.
Hmmmm....dominance trumps sexuality and sexual preference. Veeeeerrry interesting.
And just when my X Box breaks AND the repair kit doesn't work. Curse you Aurini!!!!!!
But math is tough!
Maureen Dowd is HOT! You're just an ageist, sexist, bigot who's intimidated by a strong, independent woman!
Ahhh, yes, "The Healthy Penis!" That'll make our enemies quiver in their boots and think twice about taking us over!
Dude, that's pretty freaking manly. I'd like to see a liberal arts major do that.
Your morning NSFW funny ha ha.
My children will never grow up with yours as I refuse to bring them into this world with your genetic excrement running feral and rampant.
Hmmmm....dominance trumps sexuality and sexual preference. Veeeeerrry interesting.
And just when my X Box breaks AND the repair kit doesn't work. Curse you Aurini!!!!!!
But math is tough!
A Most Thorough Review of Enjoy the Decline
Elusive Wapiti wrote a review of "Enjoy the Decline" over at The Spearhead. I mention it not just for self-promotion purposes, but because it is probably the best and most thorough review of the book. If you or somebody you know is wondering "what is it about, and do I want to buy it" Elusive's review is pretty much spot on.
An example:
By far the most useful aspect of this book, in my opinion, is in the case that it makes for readers to realize that whatever bourgeois values they may presently possess, there is a high probability those values are maladaptive in the present economic and social climate. Up has become down and right has become wrong in these last days of the American republic. Work hard and save for retirement? Don’t be ridiculous. Why save when the nation’s leaders gleefully debauch the currency, pulling a “stealth Cyprus” to the tune of 8 – 10% each year? Why delay gratification when there will likely be little / no Social Security for Xers and younger generations, particularly if the government will simply appropriate your savings through an outright Cyprus/France/Hungary/Ireland/Argentina/Poland-style seizure? Why work hard, when doing so only qualifies you to be taxed even more to support an income redistribution scheme consuming more than 2/3 of the Federal budget, “spread [your hard-earned monies] around a little“, to bankroll parasites who didn’t earn it? Why hope for things to get better when unemployment is presently at around 14% and the labor force participation rate is at a 30-year low, is trending downward, and has been so for decades? And why scrimp to pay for college while the higher ed bubble continues to inflate, making your parent’s advice to “get an education” in order to succeed nearly financially suicidal and economically ill-advised in the new economic reality? For that matter, why marry and have children? Silly rabbit, very few men and women these days are equipped to be proper husbands and wives. Moreover, 5,000 years of traditional Marriage 1.0 has been subsumed by Marriage 2.0–and now, by homogamy–and is characterized by easy divorce and the subsequent trafficking in former spouses (usu but not always ex husbands) for the pecuniary interests of the state and ex-wives.
You can find the book here.
An example:
By far the most useful aspect of this book, in my opinion, is in the case that it makes for readers to realize that whatever bourgeois values they may presently possess, there is a high probability those values are maladaptive in the present economic and social climate. Up has become down and right has become wrong in these last days of the American republic. Work hard and save for retirement? Don’t be ridiculous. Why save when the nation’s leaders gleefully debauch the currency, pulling a “stealth Cyprus” to the tune of 8 – 10% each year? Why delay gratification when there will likely be little / no Social Security for Xers and younger generations, particularly if the government will simply appropriate your savings through an outright Cyprus/France/Hungary/Ireland/Argentina/Poland-style seizure? Why work hard, when doing so only qualifies you to be taxed even more to support an income redistribution scheme consuming more than 2/3 of the Federal budget, “spread [your hard-earned monies] around a little“, to bankroll parasites who didn’t earn it? Why hope for things to get better when unemployment is presently at around 14% and the labor force participation rate is at a 30-year low, is trending downward, and has been so for decades? And why scrimp to pay for college while the higher ed bubble continues to inflate, making your parent’s advice to “get an education” in order to succeed nearly financially suicidal and economically ill-advised in the new economic reality? For that matter, why marry and have children? Silly rabbit, very few men and women these days are equipped to be proper husbands and wives. Moreover, 5,000 years of traditional Marriage 1.0 has been subsumed by Marriage 2.0–and now, by homogamy–and is characterized by easy divorce and the subsequent trafficking in former spouses (usu but not always ex husbands) for the pecuniary interests of the state and ex-wives.
You can find the book here.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Outstanding Cartoon on the Basics of the Stock Market
I saw this and immediately had to post it.
If you are interested in investing in stocks, or just have a philosophical interest in the accounting, finance and economics behind what drives a stock market, I strongly recommend taking my online class on stock valuation and analysis.
If you are interested in investing in stocks, or just have a philosophical interest in the accounting, finance and economics behind what drives a stock market, I strongly recommend taking my online class on stock valuation and analysis.
American Women Need a Good Spankin'
And the majority of our problems would go away.
And I'm not half unserious about that either!
(This is a clip from the movie "McLintock!" and is actually a pretty fun, good flick.)
And I'm not half unserious about that either!
(This is a clip from the movie "McLintock!" and is actually a pretty fun, good flick.)
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The New Way to Measure GDP
A couple people have asked about the new revisions being made in terms of how we measure GDP. I investigated this and let me just say
YOU OWE ME BIG.
I had to go through this monster of a document to find the answer and see if;
1. the changes are economically and "accountingly" accurate/correct/called-for/legitimate
2. determine if the impetus for these changes was malicious or well-intended
and after much debating, theorizing and thinking through I think I have your answer.
In short, the changes made (specifically to the R&D) are incorrect in that they double count R&D into the GDP. However, I do not believe these changes were malicious, but were rather logical and theoretical errors made on the part of the economist and accountant "theoreticians."
The longer version...well....why don't you pour yourself a martini first and find a comfy chair before I delve into it?
You back?
Good, OK, let's begin.
First, I found the subsection of the study that specifically addresses R&D and I have it posted here:
most of this is gobbledygook so let me translate this into English for you.
The red section is basically the UN saying that the value of R&D and all of its future economic benefits should be considered in the SNA or "new GDP measure." This assertion is true. The benefits that are derived from R&D SHOULD be included in any measure of economic production for it DOES affect economic production. So so far we have no disagreement with the economists at the UN.
However, we get in into trouble with the green highlighted area. Here the UN is calling for a way to go about achieving their goal of accounting for or measuring R&D in the new GDP measure. They don't go into details, merely suggesting new methodologies and techniques to measure this, but here is where they're wrong.
R&D is already accounted for and measured currently in GDP.
The reason why is that all expenditures on R&D are transacted and accounted for. Maybe not obviously, but every bit of economic production and benefit of R&D DOES end up in the current measure of GDP.
Let me explain why.
When a company, government or other institution spends money on R&D it spends it on two things:
Materials and labor.
Any money spent on materials is immediately accounted for in GDP in that the suppliers of said materials record this as sales. So just because Apple is developing a new lithium battery doesn't mean all the money it spent on lithium doesn't make it into GDP. It does via the lithium company producing and selling Apple its lithium.
That is your first instance of double accounting.
Labor, however, is a bit more ambiguous and the double accounting is not as apparent. All the money spent on scientists, support staff, and maintenance staff in the R&D lab does not immediately result in the production of a good or service. Not recordable at that moment anyway. At this point, however, you may be tempted to make the argument that:
"Well, those people will take their salaries and buys stuff, those transactions of which would end up in GDP."
and think you have found the "double accounting error."
But, while true, it's Keynesian. It doesn't account for the fact the value of their labor and expertise in developing a "new lithium battery" is still not accounted for. For example the scientist who takes his money and buys the Hogan's Heroes DVD set did not MAKE the Hogan's Heroes DVD set. That is the production of somebody else. Ergo the labor he expended at the lab is still not making it into GDP.
Inevitably though, the scientist's labor WILL make it into our current measure of GDP in the future when the product or service his labor was used to develop is sold on the free market.
This is an important point to explore further because I believe it is here where the UN economists are goofing up.
Two things happen when this product is sold.
One, a transaction. This means the transaction will be recorded in GDP.
Two, the scientist's labor is finally valued. It has a price tag put on it.
The reason why is that when a product or service is sold, you are now attaching a value in terms of dollars AND making a transaction. So when somebody buys the latest Apple device the price they pay is NOT just for the materials, and NOT just the labor that went into assembling it, but ALSO for the labor in the R&D lab that was expended developing it's latest doo-dad or feature. Naturally, this is why people are willing to pay a higher price for an IPhone 63 vs. an IPhone 47. That premium IS the market value of the R&D AND IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
Now, admittedly I did not read through all 800 pages of the UN's SNA publication. And I could have misinterpreted the writing, reason or rationale of the economists who wrote it. But as it stands right now, my understanding of this new measure of GDP is flawed and will overstate the level of genuine economic production and wealth in the country.
I VERY MUCH WELCOME any criticisms or corrections from any economists who are more specialized than I am in accounting theory, NIPA accounts, etc. etc.
YOU OWE ME BIG.
I had to go through this monster of a document to find the answer and see if;
1. the changes are economically and "accountingly" accurate/correct/called-for/legitimate
2. determine if the impetus for these changes was malicious or well-intended
and after much debating, theorizing and thinking through I think I have your answer.
In short, the changes made (specifically to the R&D) are incorrect in that they double count R&D into the GDP. However, I do not believe these changes were malicious, but were rather logical and theoretical errors made on the part of the economist and accountant "theoreticians."
The longer version...well....why don't you pour yourself a martini first and find a comfy chair before I delve into it?
You back?
Good, OK, let's begin.
First, I found the subsection of the study that specifically addresses R&D and I have it posted here:
most of this is gobbledygook so let me translate this into English for you.
The red section is basically the UN saying that the value of R&D and all of its future economic benefits should be considered in the SNA or "new GDP measure." This assertion is true. The benefits that are derived from R&D SHOULD be included in any measure of economic production for it DOES affect economic production. So so far we have no disagreement with the economists at the UN.
However, we get in into trouble with the green highlighted area. Here the UN is calling for a way to go about achieving their goal of accounting for or measuring R&D in the new GDP measure. They don't go into details, merely suggesting new methodologies and techniques to measure this, but here is where they're wrong.
R&D is already accounted for and measured currently in GDP.
The reason why is that all expenditures on R&D are transacted and accounted for. Maybe not obviously, but every bit of economic production and benefit of R&D DOES end up in the current measure of GDP.
Let me explain why.
When a company, government or other institution spends money on R&D it spends it on two things:
Materials and labor.
Any money spent on materials is immediately accounted for in GDP in that the suppliers of said materials record this as sales. So just because Apple is developing a new lithium battery doesn't mean all the money it spent on lithium doesn't make it into GDP. It does via the lithium company producing and selling Apple its lithium.
That is your first instance of double accounting.
Labor, however, is a bit more ambiguous and the double accounting is not as apparent. All the money spent on scientists, support staff, and maintenance staff in the R&D lab does not immediately result in the production of a good or service. Not recordable at that moment anyway. At this point, however, you may be tempted to make the argument that:
"Well, those people will take their salaries and buys stuff, those transactions of which would end up in GDP."
and think you have found the "double accounting error."
But, while true, it's Keynesian. It doesn't account for the fact the value of their labor and expertise in developing a "new lithium battery" is still not accounted for. For example the scientist who takes his money and buys the Hogan's Heroes DVD set did not MAKE the Hogan's Heroes DVD set. That is the production of somebody else. Ergo the labor he expended at the lab is still not making it into GDP.
Inevitably though, the scientist's labor WILL make it into our current measure of GDP in the future when the product or service his labor was used to develop is sold on the free market.
This is an important point to explore further because I believe it is here where the UN economists are goofing up.
Two things happen when this product is sold.
One, a transaction. This means the transaction will be recorded in GDP.
Two, the scientist's labor is finally valued. It has a price tag put on it.
The reason why is that when a product or service is sold, you are now attaching a value in terms of dollars AND making a transaction. So when somebody buys the latest Apple device the price they pay is NOT just for the materials, and NOT just the labor that went into assembling it, but ALSO for the labor in the R&D lab that was expended developing it's latest doo-dad or feature. Naturally, this is why people are willing to pay a higher price for an IPhone 63 vs. an IPhone 47. That premium IS the market value of the R&D AND IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
Now, admittedly I did not read through all 800 pages of the UN's SNA publication. And I could have misinterpreted the writing, reason or rationale of the economists who wrote it. But as it stands right now, my understanding of this new measure of GDP is flawed and will overstate the level of genuine economic production and wealth in the country.
I VERY MUCH WELCOME any criticisms or corrections from any economists who are more specialized than I am in accounting theory, NIPA accounts, etc. etc.
The Zombie Feminist
Note - this is a serious post despite the title. This is also a NOT a post about politics as much as it is about psychology. The reader would benefit most from trying to set aside politics while reading this and treat it more as a clinical study in psychology rather than a mockery of feminism or leftist politics.
The more I sit and think about this, the more I realize I'm on to something AND I do not like it.
The "liberal zombie."
The title may get a chuckle, but if you think this through the consequences are very dire, arguably the single largest threat western civilization faces.
In short, how do you reason or rationalize with somebody whose mental capacity has been compromised or impaired? How to you explain or convey a person is wrong when they have a veritable mental disease that prevents their minds from even entertaining the fact they might be wrong. Not to provide a personal anecdote, but to make a very clear point, my brother has been an alcoholic since the 5th grade. After being requested to drive him to the airport this last Christmas, it was impossible to deal with him because he has suffered literal brain damage to the point he can no longer retain commands or maintain his short term memory. You could tell him not to light up the pot in the car, at which point he'd obey your command, only to try to re-light it 3 minutes later. It's not that they disagree with you, it's that their brains have been compromised to the point they're not capable of it, and are only responding to a brainstem level of instinct.
Enter the liberal zombie.
I truly believe that after K-Grad school education, the human brain is so indoctrinated and steeped in leftist thought they are mentally impaired and incapable off;
independent thought
critical thinking
intellectual honesty
open mindedness
admitting being wrong or in error
And with a compliant media, government, and society, this mental disease remains thoroughly ensconced in their psyches into adulthood. But what makes it worse is there is usually a violent (though mindless) reaction. An emotional and visceral response to anyone or anything that dares to suggest they or their ideology is wrong.
For example, compare and contrast these two clips.
This is what a feminist looks like.
This is what a zombie that wants to kill Will Smith looks like.
Precisely how do their psychologies differ?
Will Smith's character (if I remember the movie right) tried to reason with the zombies saying he could cure them.
They wanted none of it.
The MRA in the other video wanted to have a calm discussion.
The feminist wanted none of it.
But worse, both became agitated and (at minimum) angry. So angry in fact it becomes VERY obvious there is no point in trying to reason with them. They lack the mental capacity to reason.
In other words, I fear there will come the point (if we're not there already) that trying to reason with anybody on the left will not only be impossible, but they are so indoctrinated to hate the right (or anybody who disagrees with them), they will become violent and dangerous. And since they are so far gone that they can no longer be engaged with reason, logic, thought, intelligence or discussion, it will unfortunately force "non-leftists" with only one alternative - physical force.
Ergo it is perhaps best for the left at least try to practice what they preach and be open-minded.
The more I sit and think about this, the more I realize I'm on to something AND I do not like it.
The "liberal zombie."
The title may get a chuckle, but if you think this through the consequences are very dire, arguably the single largest threat western civilization faces.
In short, how do you reason or rationalize with somebody whose mental capacity has been compromised or impaired? How to you explain or convey a person is wrong when they have a veritable mental disease that prevents their minds from even entertaining the fact they might be wrong. Not to provide a personal anecdote, but to make a very clear point, my brother has been an alcoholic since the 5th grade. After being requested to drive him to the airport this last Christmas, it was impossible to deal with him because he has suffered literal brain damage to the point he can no longer retain commands or maintain his short term memory. You could tell him not to light up the pot in the car, at which point he'd obey your command, only to try to re-light it 3 minutes later. It's not that they disagree with you, it's that their brains have been compromised to the point they're not capable of it, and are only responding to a brainstem level of instinct.
Enter the liberal zombie.
I truly believe that after K-Grad school education, the human brain is so indoctrinated and steeped in leftist thought they are mentally impaired and incapable off;
independent thought
critical thinking
intellectual honesty
open mindedness
admitting being wrong or in error
And with a compliant media, government, and society, this mental disease remains thoroughly ensconced in their psyches into adulthood. But what makes it worse is there is usually a violent (though mindless) reaction. An emotional and visceral response to anyone or anything that dares to suggest they or their ideology is wrong.
For example, compare and contrast these two clips.
This is what a feminist looks like.
This is what a zombie that wants to kill Will Smith looks like.
Precisely how do their psychologies differ?
Will Smith's character (if I remember the movie right) tried to reason with the zombies saying he could cure them.
They wanted none of it.
The MRA in the other video wanted to have a calm discussion.
The feminist wanted none of it.
But worse, both became agitated and (at minimum) angry. So angry in fact it becomes VERY obvious there is no point in trying to reason with them. They lack the mental capacity to reason.
In other words, I fear there will come the point (if we're not there already) that trying to reason with anybody on the left will not only be impossible, but they are so indoctrinated to hate the right (or anybody who disagrees with them), they will become violent and dangerous. And since they are so far gone that they can no longer be engaged with reason, logic, thought, intelligence or discussion, it will unfortunately force "non-leftists" with only one alternative - physical force.
Ergo it is perhaps best for the left at least try to practice what they preach and be open-minded.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Penn's Sunday School
As many of you know I run.
What many of you may or may not know is that as you get older, fewer of your colleagues can keep up with you.
So whereas it was a blissful summer day in 1998 while you and 4 of your buddies went and knocked out 8 miles in your early 20's around some of Minneapolis' finer groomed parkways...
by the time you're 39 and it's a cold, snowing, dark April night in 2013, you look around and realize nobody is running with you as they've succumbed to the ill-fates of marriage, children, careers, and (sadly some) suicide or premature death.
Thank god technology has advanced to the point the MP3 player was made and podcasts were invented.
I'm a big fan of podcasts, not because I'm trying to create my own, but because they provide what I believe to be the most convenient and beneficial media to people who are genuine intellectuals. There are thousands of "unoccupied audible" hours in a human life where the human mind can be stimulated with the words of another human mind via headphones and I'm shocked there aren't more people with headphones on wherever you go.
Driving, running, working out, you name it. Just because your physical body is occupied, doesn't mean your mind cannot be further stimulated, advanced or progressed through the wisdom, observations and anecdotes of others.
Thus, why I particularly appreciate a good podcast and would like to share with you my three favorite ones.
There is Garage Logic. The host, Joe Soucheray, is pretty much an unknown outside Minnesota, but you will appreciate him and "the Rookie's" rapport with one another. I still to this day don't know why he hasn't been nationally syndicated.
Bill Burr. Rambling and crass and elementary, it's precisely what most men in their teens through 60's need to get through the pansified, girly, PC-obedient society the country has foisted upon us.
But, more recently Penn Gillette's "Sunday School." Though not frequent, I strongly recommend the podcast because, though it's obvious they're not a serious production, Penn and his co-hosts' intelligence provide for some engaging and intellectually stimulating conversation.
If any of you know of any other podcasts FOR FREE you can download, light 'em up. The average broadcaster/podcaster can do 2 hours of material per working day. The average pursuer of intelligent radio will burn through about 4-6 hours per day, ergo new sources are always in demand.
What many of you may or may not know is that as you get older, fewer of your colleagues can keep up with you.
So whereas it was a blissful summer day in 1998 while you and 4 of your buddies went and knocked out 8 miles in your early 20's around some of Minneapolis' finer groomed parkways...
by the time you're 39 and it's a cold, snowing, dark April night in 2013, you look around and realize nobody is running with you as they've succumbed to the ill-fates of marriage, children, careers, and (sadly some) suicide or premature death.
Thank god technology has advanced to the point the MP3 player was made and podcasts were invented.
I'm a big fan of podcasts, not because I'm trying to create my own, but because they provide what I believe to be the most convenient and beneficial media to people who are genuine intellectuals. There are thousands of "unoccupied audible" hours in a human life where the human mind can be stimulated with the words of another human mind via headphones and I'm shocked there aren't more people with headphones on wherever you go.
Driving, running, working out, you name it. Just because your physical body is occupied, doesn't mean your mind cannot be further stimulated, advanced or progressed through the wisdom, observations and anecdotes of others.
Thus, why I particularly appreciate a good podcast and would like to share with you my three favorite ones.
There is Garage Logic. The host, Joe Soucheray, is pretty much an unknown outside Minnesota, but you will appreciate him and "the Rookie's" rapport with one another. I still to this day don't know why he hasn't been nationally syndicated.
Bill Burr. Rambling and crass and elementary, it's precisely what most men in their teens through 60's need to get through the pansified, girly, PC-obedient society the country has foisted upon us.
But, more recently Penn Gillette's "Sunday School." Though not frequent, I strongly recommend the podcast because, though it's obvious they're not a serious production, Penn and his co-hosts' intelligence provide for some engaging and intellectually stimulating conversation.
If any of you know of any other podcasts FOR FREE you can download, light 'em up. The average broadcaster/podcaster can do 2 hours of material per working day. The average pursuer of intelligent radio will burn through about 4-6 hours per day, ergo new sources are always in demand.
Dames in the 40's Liked Math
They didn't say,
"but math is tough."
or
"I just don't like math."
or
"I'm more of a people person."
They said, "Cool, let's learn COBOL."
And that's when they were (of course) HORRENDOUSLY oppressed in those barbaric 1940's.
"but math is tough."
or
"I just don't like math."
or
"I'm more of a people person."
They said, "Cool, let's learn COBOL."
And that's when they were (of course) HORRENDOUSLY oppressed in those barbaric 1940's.
How Robotech Caused Terrorism
I guess I'm going semi-viral.
Don't know how this happened, but I am now the #3 result if you search for the Boston terrorists on Youtube.
This has resulted in a flood of the most worthless, brainless, but still-think-they're-geniuses college brats, as well as some angry radical muslims, spewing the most mind-numbing bullsh$t you'll ever see.
JOIN THE FORAY!!! It's fun!
I've (according to my comment policy) have cleaned it up a bit, but there are still some amazing comments that get through.
Here you go:
Oh, and let's see if "Cappy Gets Results"
Let's like this one up a bit here, eh?
Post Post - Oh honest to god people. Have NONE OF YOU SEEN DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS?????
Here!
Don't know how this happened, but I am now the #3 result if you search for the Boston terrorists on Youtube.
This has resulted in a flood of the most worthless, brainless, but still-think-they're-geniuses college brats, as well as some angry radical muslims, spewing the most mind-numbing bullsh$t you'll ever see.
JOIN THE FORAY!!! It's fun!
I've (according to my comment policy) have cleaned it up a bit, but there are still some amazing comments that get through.
Here you go:
Oh, and let's see if "Cappy Gets Results"
Let's like this one up a bit here, eh?
Post Post - Oh honest to god people. Have NONE OF YOU SEEN DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS?????
Here!
Review of "The Hitchhiking Crash Course"
Hitchhiking is one of those things when you think about it you realize 2 things.
1. It is one word, not "hitch hiking" and
2. "Hey, why don't more people do this? It's cheap, it's a built in adventure, and it's a challenge."
Naturally the appeal of hitchhiking would tempt the tastes of men more than women, but if you're unemployed, young, and got nothing else to do (i.e.-most kids under 30) why the hell not? It's getting somebody to jog your brain out of its predisposed state to never consider hitch hiking and Matt Forney's book does just that.
"The Hitch Hiking Crash Course" is a purposely short book that addresses the do's and don't's of hitch hiking. The book borrows from the author's experience in 2012 hitch hiking from New York to Washington State (where he consequently went through the Captain's home town and did not inform him of his presence). A lot of the book is common sense, but that is only after you read it. You would probably not consider at least 60% of the "do's and don't's" Matt brings up in his book.
Of particular note/interest.
Psychological preparation - Hitch hiking across the country is no small feat. Plus Mr. Forney took 6 months to get across the country. He slept at way sides, truck stops and out in the open. This was not a timid task, hitching 20 miles, that if necessary you could walk in a day. Matt gained invaluable experience, especially mental preparation. The biggest hurdle is one of "just do it," while there are other aspects such as fatigue, a mental mind set while trying to hitch rides and the physical (and consequentially) mental punishment you will put your mind though.
Etiquette - Not that he's conveying the "Carnie Code," but he does clearly show how having the appropriate etiquette will increase your chances of getting rides and making your adventure not only easier, but much more enjoyable. How to interact with everybody you are going to run into (cops, gas station managers, truck drivers, etc) has an effect, if for any other reason you are at the mercy of other people when hitch hiking.
Logistics - Anybody who hitch hikes for 3,500 miles picks up a thing or two beyond common sense. Details like when to hitch hike, where to position yourself on the road, attire, what to pack, and route planning. Save yourself of having to learn by mistake and just take his advice.
All in all it's a solid book, a very short read (60 pages PDF), but most important, the precise and mandatory guide anybody considering hitch hiking needs.
1. It is one word, not "hitch hiking" and
2. "Hey, why don't more people do this? It's cheap, it's a built in adventure, and it's a challenge."
Naturally the appeal of hitchhiking would tempt the tastes of men more than women, but if you're unemployed, young, and got nothing else to do (i.e.-most kids under 30) why the hell not? It's getting somebody to jog your brain out of its predisposed state to never consider hitch hiking and Matt Forney's book does just that.
"The Hitch Hiking Crash Course" is a purposely short book that addresses the do's and don't's of hitch hiking. The book borrows from the author's experience in 2012 hitch hiking from New York to Washington State (where he consequently went through the Captain's home town and did not inform him of his presence). A lot of the book is common sense, but that is only after you read it. You would probably not consider at least 60% of the "do's and don't's" Matt brings up in his book.
Of particular note/interest.
Psychological preparation - Hitch hiking across the country is no small feat. Plus Mr. Forney took 6 months to get across the country. He slept at way sides, truck stops and out in the open. This was not a timid task, hitching 20 miles, that if necessary you could walk in a day. Matt gained invaluable experience, especially mental preparation. The biggest hurdle is one of "just do it," while there are other aspects such as fatigue, a mental mind set while trying to hitch rides and the physical (and consequentially) mental punishment you will put your mind though.
Etiquette - Not that he's conveying the "Carnie Code," but he does clearly show how having the appropriate etiquette will increase your chances of getting rides and making your adventure not only easier, but much more enjoyable. How to interact with everybody you are going to run into (cops, gas station managers, truck drivers, etc) has an effect, if for any other reason you are at the mercy of other people when hitch hiking.
Logistics - Anybody who hitch hikes for 3,500 miles picks up a thing or two beyond common sense. Details like when to hitch hike, where to position yourself on the road, attire, what to pack, and route planning. Save yourself of having to learn by mistake and just take his advice.
All in all it's a solid book, a very short read (60 pages PDF), but most important, the precise and mandatory guide anybody considering hitch hiking needs.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Chronic Regulation Addiction
Chronic Regulation Addiction (CRA) is a disease that infects (mostly) leftists and wreaks havoc on society.
Specifically, it is when a leftist in the form of a bureaucrat, regulator or politician simply cannot stop making new laws.
The disease manifests itself when the host gets addicted to its ego. He or she fails to acknowledge or accept that there is such a thing as "enough law" and instead insists on making new laws and regulations, not for the benefit of society, but rather to stoke their ego.
A person with CRA typically has no other real world experience, skills or purpose in life and naturally gravitates towards government, regulation or non-profits. However, there is a natural point where additional codification, law and regulation no longer provides a benefit to society and further decisions should give way to common sense, leadership, and human thought. Again, this sort of genuine statesmenship never occurs to the person infected with CRA.
Some governmental organizations fight CRA. For example the Texas State Legislature which meets only once every two years. Unfortunately most don't.
Mayor Bloomberg, on the municipal level, is infected with CRA his law-making goes so far as to tell people how much soda they can drink.
The "Forest Stewardship Council," an international organization that tries to standardize forestry standards across various countries' DNR-equivalents is increasing their "certification" standard to include 350+ NEW standards 25% of which are contradictory (this from an inside source who was the inspiration for this post).
And how many principals do we know that substitute "zero-tolerance" policies for genuine leadership, resulting in expulsions over pop-tarts eaten in the shape of a gun or a kid playing "Save the World"
Nearly every career-politician is infected with CRA and continues to make unnecessary laws which only slow down and further (though microscopically) erode societal freedoms.
If you want to stop CRA vote for term limits and a constitutional limit on the number of years people can serve in public office at all levels as well as limit the number of years one can work in the public sector.
This has been a public service announcement from Cappy Cap.
Specifically, it is when a leftist in the form of a bureaucrat, regulator or politician simply cannot stop making new laws.
The disease manifests itself when the host gets addicted to its ego. He or she fails to acknowledge or accept that there is such a thing as "enough law" and instead insists on making new laws and regulations, not for the benefit of society, but rather to stoke their ego.
A person with CRA typically has no other real world experience, skills or purpose in life and naturally gravitates towards government, regulation or non-profits. However, there is a natural point where additional codification, law and regulation no longer provides a benefit to society and further decisions should give way to common sense, leadership, and human thought. Again, this sort of genuine statesmenship never occurs to the person infected with CRA.
Some governmental organizations fight CRA. For example the Texas State Legislature which meets only once every two years. Unfortunately most don't.
Mayor Bloomberg, on the municipal level, is infected with CRA his law-making goes so far as to tell people how much soda they can drink.
The "Forest Stewardship Council," an international organization that tries to standardize forestry standards across various countries' DNR-equivalents is increasing their "certification" standard to include 350+ NEW standards 25% of which are contradictory (this from an inside source who was the inspiration for this post).
And how many principals do we know that substitute "zero-tolerance" policies for genuine leadership, resulting in expulsions over pop-tarts eaten in the shape of a gun or a kid playing "Save the World"
Nearly every career-politician is infected with CRA and continues to make unnecessary laws which only slow down and further (though microscopically) erode societal freedoms.
If you want to stop CRA vote for term limits and a constitutional limit on the number of years people can serve in public office at all levels as well as limit the number of years one can work in the public sector.
This has been a public service announcement from Cappy Cap.
"Her Facebook Isn't Working Very Well"
I was young.
I was, ergo, naive.
And when the date I was scheduled to pick up in 2 hours didn't return my "are we still on for tonight" call I got upset. My upsettedness was warranted for she never return my call and I was stood up.
For some reason later that night I ended up talking to my mother on the phone and when I explained I got stood up IMMEDIATELY her unconscious "Protect the Female Hive At All Costs Including Your Son's Sanity" instinct kicked in and (I kid you not) she said,
"Well maybe she got hit by a truck. You never know."
I had received explanations like this before, all of them from women;
"Maybe she's in the hospital."
"Maybe she's really busy and it just slipped her mind"
"Maybe her cell phone is turned off."
or before the days of cell phones, my all time favorite
"Maybe she's broken down on the road this instant and can't get to a phone."
Of course in hindsight we realize just how stupid these excuses were and realize to what extents the women in our lives would go to protect our feelings or protect the hive.
But I really like this one
"Her Facebook Isn't Working Very Well."
Of course he is spoofing the title, but the spoofing is precisely the sarcasm and ridicule you young boys need to realize just what a bunch of hokey it is when other people provide excuses as to why a girl is
standing you up
not calling you back
etc. etc. etc.
So the next time you hear,
"She got hit by a truck"
you think
"Her facebook wasn't working."
When you hear
"It probably slipped her mind"
you think
"Her facebook wasn't working."
When you hear
"She could be in the hospital"
you think
"Her facebook wasn't working."
THen you go to the gym, hit the weights and run a couple miles.
I was, ergo, naive.
And when the date I was scheduled to pick up in 2 hours didn't return my "are we still on for tonight" call I got upset. My upsettedness was warranted for she never return my call and I was stood up.
For some reason later that night I ended up talking to my mother on the phone and when I explained I got stood up IMMEDIATELY her unconscious "Protect the Female Hive At All Costs Including Your Son's Sanity" instinct kicked in and (I kid you not) she said,
"Well maybe she got hit by a truck. You never know."
I had received explanations like this before, all of them from women;
"Maybe she's in the hospital."
"Maybe she's really busy and it just slipped her mind"
"Maybe her cell phone is turned off."
or before the days of cell phones, my all time favorite
"Maybe she's broken down on the road this instant and can't get to a phone."
Of course in hindsight we realize just how stupid these excuses were and realize to what extents the women in our lives would go to protect our feelings or protect the hive.
But I really like this one
"Her Facebook Isn't Working Very Well."
Of course he is spoofing the title, but the spoofing is precisely the sarcasm and ridicule you young boys need to realize just what a bunch of hokey it is when other people provide excuses as to why a girl is
standing you up
not calling you back
etc. etc. etc.
So the next time you hear,
"She got hit by a truck"
you think
"Her facebook wasn't working."
When you hear
"It probably slipped her mind"
you think
"Her facebook wasn't working."
When you hear
"She could be in the hospital"
you think
"Her facebook wasn't working."
THen you go to the gym, hit the weights and run a couple miles.
Clean It Up People
A reminder I believe is in order once again.
Cappy Cap is a controversial blog. Life is too short to have milquetoast writing, discussion and politics. And while I do the occasional cursing here and there the amount of unnecessary crass language, not to mention vitriolic hate, and condescension of women as of recent is not going to get through. Also outright bigoted and naive commentary such as, "kill all the f#cking muslims/jews" is not going to be tolerated.
This is not going to become a sounding board for angry potty-mouthed middle schoolers. Kick it up a notch here fellas. And if you have any questions about comment policy look up the various clauses including the "St. Leykis Clause."
Cappy Cap is a controversial blog. Life is too short to have milquetoast writing, discussion and politics. And while I do the occasional cursing here and there the amount of unnecessary crass language, not to mention vitriolic hate, and condescension of women as of recent is not going to get through. Also outright bigoted and naive commentary such as, "kill all the f#cking muslims/jews" is not going to be tolerated.
This is not going to become a sounding board for angry potty-mouthed middle schoolers. Kick it up a notch here fellas. And if you have any questions about comment policy look up the various clauses including the "St. Leykis Clause."
Saturday, April 20, 2013
"Any Club That Would Have Me..."
There are many tangents I could go on, but I'll let your minds wander on this one. The reason why is that all the wanderings of all wanderers and the conclusions your draw from them will be correct.
Went to College to be a Stay at Home Mom
I understand that society, the school system, and all of the media drills it into young women's heads that they need to have a career. Some elements of society even shame women for daring to want to be a stay at home mother. However, all of this social engineering will never override biology and most women will answer nature's call to have children. Unfortunately, though, we put women at a great disadvantage practically forcing them to get college degrees, go into debt for those degrees, waste years of their youth pursuing them, only to never use it.
This isn't to say that women shouldn't pursue careers, or shouldn't attend college, or that we're the evil patriarchy glass ceiling, pay gap blah blah blah. It's a request that we at least acknowledge women's tendency to want to have children and when raising young girls to explain that there's nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom, just as there is nothing wrong with becoming a neurosurgeon. The amount of time and money saved would be of great benefit to millions of young women.
This isn't to say that women shouldn't pursue careers, or shouldn't attend college, or that we're the evil patriarchy glass ceiling, pay gap blah blah blah. It's a request that we at least acknowledge women's tendency to want to have children and when raising young girls to explain that there's nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom, just as there is nothing wrong with becoming a neurosurgeon. The amount of time and money saved would be of great benefit to millions of young women.
The League of Ohio Valley Bloggers
Glorious Karl visited me a month or so ago and told me about his ragtag band of Ohio Valley bloggers. I finally am getting around to introducing them for this weekends "Lazy Day Linkage."
Nice Deb is one of the better aggregator sites I've seen. Looks like she updates it faster than Drudge does his.
Interesting. I've been to that mine in my great Utah hike.
Karon Wright, enjoy the unemployment line. I'll say it again, the majority of teachers are not the holy, innocent, pure people you assume them to be.
It only took 45 years to kill this idiotic government program. Which is why I have no faith in the future.
And the Conservative Sociologists makes some keen observations about people who drink at her bar, their employment status and their varying levels of stupidity.
Nice Deb is one of the better aggregator sites I've seen. Looks like she updates it faster than Drudge does his.
Interesting. I've been to that mine in my great Utah hike.
Karon Wright, enjoy the unemployment line. I'll say it again, the majority of teachers are not the holy, innocent, pure people you assume them to be.
It only took 45 years to kill this idiotic government program. Which is why I have no faith in the future.
And the Conservative Sociologists makes some keen observations about people who drink at her bar, their employment status and their varying levels of stupidity.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Where's the Feminist Self-Improvement Counterpart?
Victor Pride caught a lot of flak from feminists a while ago for his 30 Days of Discipline, some of the rules of which were unconventional. But criticize his techniques as you might, the fact still remained that Victor wrote a manual with the intention of self-improvement.
A couple months back I entered a "Forced Discipline and Regimen Month." The goal of this was also self improvement. To force myself to do this I put up before and after pictures. I received some guff about "cheese cake photos" and my blinding pasteyness, but again, the overall intention was self-improvement.
And while the two examples above focus on physic fitness and health, if you step back and cast a wider net, you'll realize The Manosphere, as well as various economics blogs, follow a similar parallel. Namely one of self-improvement. Men trying to improve their chances with women. Men trying to advance their careers and financial success. Men (and women) trying to start businesses. And men and women trying to aim for happier, better lives. They are constantly asking "what can I do to improve myself."
I have a simple question.
Where is the feminist equivalent of this?
If I were to generalize the two spheres (feminism and Manosphere) it seems very obvious The Manosphere is focused on self-improvement and improving one's self while the feminist sphere is one of whining, complaining, bitching, victimization and entitlement. I say this not out of spite or agenda, but because it's true.
The Manosphere, for the most part, is an entity of advancement, progress and self-improvement while feminism is one of complaint, victimhood, and class warfare.
If you don't believe me, just take some sample "themes" from both spheres.
Health
How many feminist blogs/sites write constantly about physical fitness and health? And I'm not talking about "how to eat green/organic" (the purpose of such articles being ulteriorly political, not health), but "how can I lose weight?" or "how can I be sexier to the opposite sex?"
None or very little.
Contrast that to The Manosphere where nearly I'd say 1/4th the articles revolve around health. Heck, we even have entire blogs in our ranks dedicated solely to men's health. And how candid and blunt are they compared to their feminist counterparts? We are harsh and merciless upon our readers. Telling, nay, yelling at our younger readers to lose weight, work out, eat their veggies and your personal preferences be damned. You're going to do it son! Whether you like it or not!
And why do we do it?
For women! Not even ourselves! (though it is duly noted that this is so we can GET women, but the point is we at least change our behavior to match what women want).
Education/Labor Market
Another theme that shows where The Manosphere looks to self-improvement while feminists bitch is education. Manosphere Men always ask whether or not the investment in college or training is worth it. Underpinning this is not just the cost of education, but a long term financial strategy, the purpose of which is to achieve economic independence, self-reliance and freedom. Thus, we pursue fields of study that have a positive and adequate ROI. We also encourage younger men (and women) to pursue such fields based on our experiences. We do not let the difficulty of math or science stand in our way, but commit ourselves to it instead knowing surmounting this challenge will pay much better dividends in the future.
The feminist sphere on the other hand practically demands the right to attend college and have a job as an entitlement. An entitlement of which more often than not proves to be a worthless hobby rather than the first step in a well-thought out, long term, SELF SUSTAINING financial strategy. Then, when the economic realities of the labor market come bearing down on them, they NEVER ask what they can do differently to close the wage gap, but rather bitch, whine, complain and demand government intervention to undo what reality and their stupid decisions have done.
Family/Spouse
A huge percentage of The Manosphere is dedicated on how to be a better father, husband, lover and sex machine. Yes, again, admittedly for our own desires, but I've never heard a feminist fret over "whether or not she could provide for her family." Most men, many of which, did not have the luxury of present or real fathers are now starting to fully understand the damage a lack of a dad has on children and thus are recommitted to be good husbands and good fathers. Their own suffering and experiences make them quite selfless as they thoroughly, seriously and completely think about their children and family, current or to be.
Feminists? Are you kidding me? They're begging to get artificially inseminated and have the federal government supplant the husband and father role, with absolutely no regard to the children they intend to abuse and extract financial governmental resources and societal attention from cough...*raise*. The fact so many feminists view fathers as unnecessary to the proper upbringing of a child shows they only view the child as an asset to own, a pet to have, ultimately proving it's all about them.
Businesses
The Manosphere has a significant percentage of its text dedicated towards setting up a business and doing something significant with your life. Creating a company, employing people, making a better product, innovating a new creation to advance society.
What is the feminist sphere's answer?
Taxing said businesses to fund some non-profit charity that never solves the problem but manages to pay its "directors" a handsome sum?
Some worthless NGO that only employs equally worthless liberal arts majors to protest for some productionless leftist cause or another?
Even MORE bitching and whining about the performance gap between men and women?
Again, The Manosphere is focusing on advancing society where the feminist sphere is primarily focused on parasiting off of it.
Reality
Finally, reality.
Notice how the Manosphere takes a "what is reality" approach first, abides by that reality and then figures out how IT can change to abide and profit from that reality? You know kind of a realistic, mature adult approach to life?
Well the feminism sphere does the complete opposite.
So lazy and ego-centric is the "feminism sphere," it not only ignores reality, but goes to desperate lengths to CRIMINALIZE and CHANGE reality. AND change it to its own selfish and LAZY desires. "Fat Acceptance" being the perfect example.
So selfish and lazy (and veritably insane) is the feminist sphere they ACTUALLY THINK THEY CAN CHANGE MALE SEXUALITY TO THE POINT WE'D LIKE FAT CHICKS. They actually think they can shame men into finding fat and ugly chicks attractive. They think they can, via political arms and the government, get men to "accept fat" (not to mention slave away paying taxes for the government to surrogate their roles in society).
But the key thing is LAZY. Don't for a second think they don't full well know what the reality is. They KNOW what men what. It is the fact that to meet that goal would require such effort and challenge (working out, staying sexy, being GENUINELY educated and intelligent) they are dissuaded from such a life. For such a life requires more effort and rigor than being a women's studies professor, a welfare recipient, a CSR/HR manager, AND requires you consider the desires of others. In short it requires you to be self supporting, and above all else selfless.
And that is a trait no feminist has.
A couple months back I entered a "Forced Discipline and Regimen Month." The goal of this was also self improvement. To force myself to do this I put up before and after pictures. I received some guff about "cheese cake photos" and my blinding pasteyness, but again, the overall intention was self-improvement.
And while the two examples above focus on physic fitness and health, if you step back and cast a wider net, you'll realize The Manosphere, as well as various economics blogs, follow a similar parallel. Namely one of self-improvement. Men trying to improve their chances with women. Men trying to advance their careers and financial success. Men (and women) trying to start businesses. And men and women trying to aim for happier, better lives. They are constantly asking "what can I do to improve myself."
I have a simple question.
Where is the feminist equivalent of this?
If I were to generalize the two spheres (feminism and Manosphere) it seems very obvious The Manosphere is focused on self-improvement and improving one's self while the feminist sphere is one of whining, complaining, bitching, victimization and entitlement. I say this not out of spite or agenda, but because it's true.
The Manosphere, for the most part, is an entity of advancement, progress and self-improvement while feminism is one of complaint, victimhood, and class warfare.
If you don't believe me, just take some sample "themes" from both spheres.
Health
How many feminist blogs/sites write constantly about physical fitness and health? And I'm not talking about "how to eat green/organic" (the purpose of such articles being ulteriorly political, not health), but "how can I lose weight?" or "how can I be sexier to the opposite sex?"
None or very little.
Contrast that to The Manosphere where nearly I'd say 1/4th the articles revolve around health. Heck, we even have entire blogs in our ranks dedicated solely to men's health. And how candid and blunt are they compared to their feminist counterparts? We are harsh and merciless upon our readers. Telling, nay, yelling at our younger readers to lose weight, work out, eat their veggies and your personal preferences be damned. You're going to do it son! Whether you like it or not!
And why do we do it?
For women! Not even ourselves! (though it is duly noted that this is so we can GET women, but the point is we at least change our behavior to match what women want).
Education/Labor Market
Another theme that shows where The Manosphere looks to self-improvement while feminists bitch is education. Manosphere Men always ask whether or not the investment in college or training is worth it. Underpinning this is not just the cost of education, but a long term financial strategy, the purpose of which is to achieve economic independence, self-reliance and freedom. Thus, we pursue fields of study that have a positive and adequate ROI. We also encourage younger men (and women) to pursue such fields based on our experiences. We do not let the difficulty of math or science stand in our way, but commit ourselves to it instead knowing surmounting this challenge will pay much better dividends in the future.
The feminist sphere on the other hand practically demands the right to attend college and have a job as an entitlement. An entitlement of which more often than not proves to be a worthless hobby rather than the first step in a well-thought out, long term, SELF SUSTAINING financial strategy. Then, when the economic realities of the labor market come bearing down on them, they NEVER ask what they can do differently to close the wage gap, but rather bitch, whine, complain and demand government intervention to undo what reality and their stupid decisions have done.
Family/Spouse
A huge percentage of The Manosphere is dedicated on how to be a better father, husband, lover and sex machine. Yes, again, admittedly for our own desires, but I've never heard a feminist fret over "whether or not she could provide for her family." Most men, many of which, did not have the luxury of present or real fathers are now starting to fully understand the damage a lack of a dad has on children and thus are recommitted to be good husbands and good fathers. Their own suffering and experiences make them quite selfless as they thoroughly, seriously and completely think about their children and family, current or to be.
Feminists? Are you kidding me? They're begging to get artificially inseminated and have the federal government supplant the husband and father role, with absolutely no regard to the children
Businesses
The Manosphere has a significant percentage of its text dedicated towards setting up a business and doing something significant with your life. Creating a company, employing people, making a better product, innovating a new creation to advance society.
What is the feminist sphere's answer?
Taxing said businesses to fund some non-profit charity that never solves the problem but manages to pay its "directors" a handsome sum?
Some worthless NGO that only employs equally worthless liberal arts majors to protest for some productionless leftist cause or another?
Even MORE bitching and whining about the performance gap between men and women?
Again, The Manosphere is focusing on advancing society where the feminist sphere is primarily focused on parasiting off of it.
Reality
Finally, reality.
Notice how the Manosphere takes a "what is reality" approach first, abides by that reality and then figures out how IT can change to abide and profit from that reality? You know kind of a realistic, mature adult approach to life?
Well the feminism sphere does the complete opposite.
So lazy and ego-centric is the "feminism sphere," it not only ignores reality, but goes to desperate lengths to CRIMINALIZE and CHANGE reality. AND change it to its own selfish and LAZY desires. "Fat Acceptance" being the perfect example.
So selfish and lazy (and veritably insane) is the feminist sphere they ACTUALLY THINK THEY CAN CHANGE MALE SEXUALITY TO THE POINT WE'D LIKE FAT CHICKS. They actually think they can shame men into finding fat and ugly chicks attractive. They think they can, via political arms and the government, get men to "accept fat" (not to mention slave away paying taxes for the government to surrogate their roles in society).
But the key thing is LAZY. Don't for a second think they don't full well know what the reality is. They KNOW what men what. It is the fact that to meet that goal would require such effort and challenge (working out, staying sexy, being GENUINELY educated and intelligent) they are dissuaded from such a life. For such a life requires more effort and rigor than being a women's studies professor, a welfare recipient, a CSR/HR manager, AND requires you consider the desires of others. In short it requires you to be self supporting, and above all else selfless.
And that is a trait no feminist has.
The Old Can Fight Us or Work With Us
In my latest podcast I mentioned this - how elder people in general do NOT help younger people as you would think they would.
Matter of fact, I've found older people to not only NOT want to help younger people, but obstruct their progress AND take advantage of them. This ranges from obvious things such as the entire education industry (where older people vampirically feed off of younger people) to business "partners" screwing over their younger partners to bosses refusing to do any grooming, training, or mentoring.
Again, if you step back and ask yourself,
"Have any of my elders really helped guide, lead, mentor and help me in my endeavors?"
The answer is not only "no" but also "they have been antagonistic, obstructionist, even against us."
Understand I don't say this as a younger entitled "woe is me, every one is against me," but this HAS been my observation. Contrary to what you would think elders in a society would do (help the younger generations to become successful) I've found they are more against younger people, at minimum indifferent, and at worst taking-advantage of.
Thus when a reader sent me this article, two things stuck out.
1. The elders in this young man's profession had not interest, nor time to guide him or help him in his research.
2. His elders were also WRONG indicating they were manipulating the data for political gain at the expense of future generations.
The lesson to pull from this for younger people is to realize just how alone you are. Not in a social sense, but in a life-leading and guiding sense. NOBODY is here to help you. Nobody is here to lead you. Matter of fact, most people are here to take advantage of you. And the only way out of this mess is going to be through your own self-teaching, self-guidance, logic, and self-upbringing.
Yes, it would have been nice to have elders in society guide and lead you.
Yes, it would have been nice to have your elders be good stewards of the country, and groom you to one day take over and continue its progress, advancement and attainment of excellence.
Yes, these things would have been nice.
But unfortunately you are faced with a leaderless society forcing that role upon your unprepared self.
For the first time in US history the phrase:
"Don't trust anybody over 30 man!"
actually has merit.
Matter of fact, I've found older people to not only NOT want to help younger people, but obstruct their progress AND take advantage of them. This ranges from obvious things such as the entire education industry (where older people vampirically feed off of younger people) to business "partners" screwing over their younger partners to bosses refusing to do any grooming, training, or mentoring.
Again, if you step back and ask yourself,
"Have any of my elders really helped guide, lead, mentor and help me in my endeavors?"
The answer is not only "no" but also "they have been antagonistic, obstructionist, even against us."
Understand I don't say this as a younger entitled "woe is me, every one is against me," but this HAS been my observation. Contrary to what you would think elders in a society would do (help the younger generations to become successful) I've found they are more against younger people, at minimum indifferent, and at worst taking-advantage of.
Thus when a reader sent me this article, two things stuck out.
1. The elders in this young man's profession had not interest, nor time to guide him or help him in his research.
2. His elders were also WRONG indicating they were manipulating the data for political gain at the expense of future generations.
The lesson to pull from this for younger people is to realize just how alone you are. Not in a social sense, but in a life-leading and guiding sense. NOBODY is here to help you. Nobody is here to lead you. Matter of fact, most people are here to take advantage of you. And the only way out of this mess is going to be through your own self-teaching, self-guidance, logic, and self-upbringing.
Yes, it would have been nice to have elders in society guide and lead you.
Yes, it would have been nice to have your elders be good stewards of the country, and groom you to one day take over and continue its progress, advancement and attainment of excellence.
Yes, these things would have been nice.
But unfortunately you are faced with a leaderless society forcing that role upon your unprepared self.
For the first time in US history the phrase:
"Don't trust anybody over 30 man!"
actually has merit.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Wise and Cheap
Ed, our sponsor over at Ranger Self Defense sent me two links.
I am plugging these because they are something I think everybody can use and should use. Diversion safes.
You should at least have SOME of your investments in physical form such as gold, jewelry, guns, bullets, etc. Not a TON, but at least some in case the government ohhhh...I don't know, confiscates your bank account a la Cyprus?
Anyway, he has safes and
stash cans. Literally, they're cans. They're actually pretty cool, you'll at minimum get a kick out of looking at them.
Remember, mention "Cappy" or "Captain" and you get a 10% discount off of your purchase!
I am plugging these because they are something I think everybody can use and should use. Diversion safes.
You should at least have SOME of your investments in physical form such as gold, jewelry, guns, bullets, etc. Not a TON, but at least some in case the government ohhhh...I don't know, confiscates your bank account a la Cyprus?
Anyway, he has safes and
stash cans. Literally, they're cans. They're actually pretty cool, you'll at minimum get a kick out of looking at them.
Remember, mention "Cappy" or "Captain" and you get a 10% discount off of your purchase!
A Call for Everybody's HR Stories!
Greetings all!
I need everybody to send me their HR stories!
I'll explain why later, but it is for my next writing project. They can be as long as you want. GOOD STORIES. STORIES WITH DETAIL.
Just post them below and forward this to anyone you know with a good HR story!
AND ALSO KNOW I WILL BE USING THEM IN MY NEXT PROJECT AND YOU ARE GIVING ME THE RIGHT TO USE IT.
AND ALSO KNOW I WILL BE USING THEM IN MY NEXT PROJECT AND YOU ARE GIVING ME THE RIGHT TO USE IT.
The Prevalence of "Self Harm"
What I found interesting in this is how "self harm" was so highly ranked as the #1 or #2 cause for injury in young females. What I also found interesting is how bad men are presumed to be for women in society, even when it's not true.
Oh well. Just another reason to sit and watch society burn and not care, maybe even laugh at it a bit.
Oh well. Just another reason to sit and watch society burn and not care, maybe even laugh at it a bit.
Probably a White Guy
And that's the truth. This is probably a white guy.
Now all leftists can go pound sand accusing me and the likes of suspecting a muslim in the Boston bombing.
Update - I was right! Let's see if I can go 2 for 2!
UPDATE UPDATE!!! NEW EXPLOSION!!! I predict it was a chemical or faulting mechanics. This is because of course I am a chemicalist and a faulty-mechanic-phobe and am bigoted against both groups. I know my jumping to conclusions is PROOF of my hatred for chemicals and faulty mechanics, but that is because my white privilege forces me to assume it was chemicals and/or faulty mechanics.
Now all leftists can go pound sand accusing me and the likes of suspecting a muslim in the Boston bombing.
Update - I was right! Let's see if I can go 2 for 2!
UPDATE UPDATE!!! NEW EXPLOSION!!! I predict it was a chemical or faulting mechanics. This is because of course I am a chemicalist and a faulty-mechanic-phobe and am bigoted against both groups. I know my jumping to conclusions is PROOF of my hatred for chemicals and faulty mechanics, but that is because my white privilege forces me to assume it was chemicals and/or faulty mechanics.
"But Math is Tough!"
For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick.
Honest to god. I know the ladies of the Capposphere are real women who are equals. They prove their mettle everyday. AND they are intellectually honest. They don't go rushing to the defense of a woman simply because she's a woman and then worry about whether that woman is right or wrong later. They hold all people to the same standard and are just as judgemental against the women as they are the men. But for the rest of the women out there who clamor for equal treatment, but then want special treatment when the going gets tough, shut up. You're a bunch of hypocrites.
Teach a finite, precise study like math or physics differently so women can catch up???
No, how about you do what men do and that is man up, burn the midnight oil and quit whining. Then you'll be equals.
Cripes.
Honest to god. I know the ladies of the Capposphere are real women who are equals. They prove their mettle everyday. AND they are intellectually honest. They don't go rushing to the defense of a woman simply because she's a woman and then worry about whether that woman is right or wrong later. They hold all people to the same standard and are just as judgemental against the women as they are the men. But for the rest of the women out there who clamor for equal treatment, but then want special treatment when the going gets tough, shut up. You're a bunch of hypocrites.
Teach a finite, precise study like math or physics differently so women can catch up???
No, how about you do what men do and that is man up, burn the midnight oil and quit whining. Then you'll be equals.
Cripes.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Eye Candy and Underpants Gnomes
The Underpants Gnomes, if you don't know them is well...here look for yourself:
Obvious it doesn't make sense, which is why South Park is the funniest cartoon ever.
However, something very similar to the UNderpants Gnomes' profit strategy occurs with men. Specifically, eye candy. Why do hot attractive women trigger men to spend money? Ergo, with the help of a kind reader we will test the Eye Candy/Underpants Gnomes profit strategy.
Stage 1 - Desire money to purchase new high quality microphone for podcast
Stage 2 -
Stage 3 - Profit off of increased sales to men of Enjoy the Decline and Amazon sales.
I am, however, reliably informed that if young Amy's pics do help with sales she is not necessarily against providing new ones.
Obvious it doesn't make sense, which is why South Park is the funniest cartoon ever.
However, something very similar to the UNderpants Gnomes' profit strategy occurs with men. Specifically, eye candy. Why do hot attractive women trigger men to spend money? Ergo, with the help of a kind reader we will test the Eye Candy/Underpants Gnomes profit strategy.
Stage 1 - Desire money to purchase new high quality microphone for podcast
Stage 2 -
Stage 3 - Profit off of increased sales to men of Enjoy the Decline and Amazon sales.
I am, however, reliably informed that if young Amy's pics do help with sales she is not necessarily against providing new ones.
It's Not Easy Being "Mean"
It is now pretty universally understood that the single worst thing you can do to torpedo your chances with the ladies is...
be a nice guy.
If there is progress to be pointed to in The Manosphere, that is it. We have pretty much made it basic, introductory knowledge to all men of all ages that you do NOT be the nice guy.
But what is not so easy is doing the opposite. Being a "jerk" or being an "asshole" to succeed with the ladies and let me explain why.
Chances are you really ARE a nice guy.
Understand nobody sets out and says, "I'm going to be a jerk" or "I'm going to be a mean guy!" Most guys want to be nice people because it is being nice that gets you quality friends, keeps your enemies to a minimum, and increases your standard of living. In every social, psychological, political, familial and business circle it pays to be nice. Unfortunately, however, in this one circle (western civilization romantic) you have to change your game, change your personality and do the opposite. And it is difficult to do when your core being, your true personality is a nice one.
I've seen this not just in my own exploits, but recently hanging out with a buddy of mine. Even at the age of 42 he still catches himself unconsciously defaulting to "nice guy mode." He has to constantly keep his guard up, at least in the initial stages of courting a girl. And when it comes time to actually treating a girl poorly he's rued on multiple occasions,
"Geez, I just can't do it. It's not in my nature. I just don't like treating girls poorly."
Unfortunately (or fortunately) he realizes that it's the only option he has if he wants any measure of success, and thus he fakes it through anyway.
Regardless, the point of this post is one of morality versus that of practicality. I understand it isn't fun being mean. I understand it goes against your nature to not call a girl back and play stupid games. I understand you don't want to hurt people's feelings. I get that, we've all been there. But unfortunatley the rules of the game are such that you HAVE to be a jerk. You have to be aloof. You have to be an ass. This of course does not eliminate that "twinge" of guilt or regret as you purposely cancel on your date 2 hours before its start, but the fact these ARE the rules and women respond to it moot any moral qualms you might have.
You need to buy something today. Might as well buy it here on Amazon.
be a nice guy.
If there is progress to be pointed to in The Manosphere, that is it. We have pretty much made it basic, introductory knowledge to all men of all ages that you do NOT be the nice guy.
But what is not so easy is doing the opposite. Being a "jerk" or being an "asshole" to succeed with the ladies and let me explain why.
Chances are you really ARE a nice guy.
Understand nobody sets out and says, "I'm going to be a jerk" or "I'm going to be a mean guy!" Most guys want to be nice people because it is being nice that gets you quality friends, keeps your enemies to a minimum, and increases your standard of living. In every social, psychological, political, familial and business circle it pays to be nice. Unfortunately, however, in this one circle (western civilization romantic) you have to change your game, change your personality and do the opposite. And it is difficult to do when your core being, your true personality is a nice one.
I've seen this not just in my own exploits, but recently hanging out with a buddy of mine. Even at the age of 42 he still catches himself unconsciously defaulting to "nice guy mode." He has to constantly keep his guard up, at least in the initial stages of courting a girl. And when it comes time to actually treating a girl poorly he's rued on multiple occasions,
"Geez, I just can't do it. It's not in my nature. I just don't like treating girls poorly."
Unfortunately (or fortunately) he realizes that it's the only option he has if he wants any measure of success, and thus he fakes it through anyway.
Regardless, the point of this post is one of morality versus that of practicality. I understand it isn't fun being mean. I understand it goes against your nature to not call a girl back and play stupid games. I understand you don't want to hurt people's feelings. I get that, we've all been there. But unfortunatley the rules of the game are such that you HAVE to be a jerk. You have to be aloof. You have to be an ass. This of course does not eliminate that "twinge" of guilt or regret as you purposely cancel on your date 2 hours before its start, but the fact these ARE the rules and women respond to it moot any moral qualms you might have.
You need to buy something today. Might as well buy it here on Amazon.
Monday, April 15, 2013
When the Prom Queen Falls
I returned to Milwaukee about two weeks ago. I was visiting friends and family because I had to drop off my girlfriend in the middle of Wisconsin and it was convenient to continue on to the east side of the state. There was my old baby sitter, my dad, my best friend and my cousins, but in terms of real worth to my life and care, nothing else.
After meeting with my cousins, my friend, and a fan of Cappy Cap, at a cigar lounge on the west side, the only thing I had left to do was kill time, maybe revisit some old haunts, visit my dad and attend a "charity" event where a handful of old school mates would be. There was nothing, and I mean, nothing left in Milwaukee for me. So inbetween visiting my dad and going salsa dancing with my best friend, I was killing time, which landed me at a bar all of 200 yards from my old middle school.
At this bar was a "fund raiser." It was for kids with Asbergers syndrome. Everybody was very friendly and a nice girl who was a friend of mine back in the day was kind enough to invite me to it, so I showed. But when I showed, it was sad. Not sad because anybody was mean or unpolite, but because it showed we were 200 yards from my former middle school. I couldn't remember names, but I remembered faces. They were older now, decrepit, certainly not as handsome or cute as they used to be, but the ultimately sad thing was, was that they were still 200 yards away from the middle school. They hadn't left. They never left. They were still living in this wretched shithole of trailer trash Milwaukee. They were dating the same people and (after conversation) I realized they had bred and inbred resulting in children from multiple fathers/mothers, lines of which you could connect on the old high school year book.
If anything I took from it, it wasn't the stereotypical
"Yeah man, I was the nerd and I proved to be more successful than all of them."
That was a foregone conclusion I knew in '91.
It was the shock at just how utterly low class, trailer trash and shitty people I had attended school with AND how they never escaped it, DESPITE being on the precipice of a major metropolitan area. They had ALL of the opportunities a modern metro area provided and they still insisted on being and remaining trailer trash. Not just the people I saw, but the stories I heard about former friends and acquiantences. One went to jail, the other was dealing drugs. Single parents about, and divorces were standard. If anything it provided a lot of hindsight and proof that I wasn't insane back in the 80's and 90's, that these people (both present and in reference) were genuinely lower class.
The reason I bring this story up is not for revenge or "I told you so-ism," but rather to make a very important point for younger folk, especially kids who are in the current environment where all of their world seems commanded and controlled by the temporary and faux hierarchy of their school.
It is a FLEETING and TEMPORARY aberration.
I didn't believe it when I was in the thick of it, but when you graduate these people will be forced into the real world in one regard or another. And in the end a person's true temerity, salt and worth is what is going to separate the wheat from the chaff. Even with parental or government subsidy they will fail because it is the person, and their low caliber, that will fail them, not society. And besides, you won't remember them as your life becomes preoccupied with more important shit and more important people.
I didn't believe it, but it will happen. The prom queen will fall. The jocks will get fat. And it isn't because of universal karma or "divine intervention," but because society, especially at the public school level, creates a a huge bubble of popularity, fakeness, and bullshit. It is systematic and predictable. It will prop up young kids to certain heights. Kids with short term skills (throwing a ball, big boobs at an early age, etc.), but no long term ones (mathematics, logic, science). Skills that only serve in that short lived environment. And once that environment is taken away from your peers they will deflate like funding from Dotcoms in 2000 and their true value will show.
For years you will think that you want revenge, but if and when you see them you'll realize their real lives are all the revenge you'll need. It will be so much revenge, you'll actually pity them.
And then you'll leave the bar and continue on with your life.
After meeting with my cousins, my friend, and a fan of Cappy Cap, at a cigar lounge on the west side, the only thing I had left to do was kill time, maybe revisit some old haunts, visit my dad and attend a "charity" event where a handful of old school mates would be. There was nothing, and I mean, nothing left in Milwaukee for me. So inbetween visiting my dad and going salsa dancing with my best friend, I was killing time, which landed me at a bar all of 200 yards from my old middle school.
At this bar was a "fund raiser." It was for kids with Asbergers syndrome. Everybody was very friendly and a nice girl who was a friend of mine back in the day was kind enough to invite me to it, so I showed. But when I showed, it was sad. Not sad because anybody was mean or unpolite, but because it showed we were 200 yards from my former middle school. I couldn't remember names, but I remembered faces. They were older now, decrepit, certainly not as handsome or cute as they used to be, but the ultimately sad thing was, was that they were still 200 yards away from the middle school. They hadn't left. They never left. They were still living in this wretched shithole of trailer trash Milwaukee. They were dating the same people and (after conversation) I realized they had bred and inbred resulting in children from multiple fathers/mothers, lines of which you could connect on the old high school year book.
If anything I took from it, it wasn't the stereotypical
"Yeah man, I was the nerd and I proved to be more successful than all of them."
That was a foregone conclusion I knew in '91.
It was the shock at just how utterly low class, trailer trash and shitty people I had attended school with AND how they never escaped it, DESPITE being on the precipice of a major metropolitan area. They had ALL of the opportunities a modern metro area provided and they still insisted on being and remaining trailer trash. Not just the people I saw, but the stories I heard about former friends and acquiantences. One went to jail, the other was dealing drugs. Single parents about, and divorces were standard. If anything it provided a lot of hindsight and proof that I wasn't insane back in the 80's and 90's, that these people (both present and in reference) were genuinely lower class.
The reason I bring this story up is not for revenge or "I told you so-ism," but rather to make a very important point for younger folk, especially kids who are in the current environment where all of their world seems commanded and controlled by the temporary and faux hierarchy of their school.
It is a FLEETING and TEMPORARY aberration.
I didn't believe it when I was in the thick of it, but when you graduate these people will be forced into the real world in one regard or another. And in the end a person's true temerity, salt and worth is what is going to separate the wheat from the chaff. Even with parental or government subsidy they will fail because it is the person, and their low caliber, that will fail them, not society. And besides, you won't remember them as your life becomes preoccupied with more important shit and more important people.
I didn't believe it, but it will happen. The prom queen will fall. The jocks will get fat. And it isn't because of universal karma or "divine intervention," but because society, especially at the public school level, creates a a huge bubble of popularity, fakeness, and bullshit. It is systematic and predictable. It will prop up young kids to certain heights. Kids with short term skills (throwing a ball, big boobs at an early age, etc.), but no long term ones (mathematics, logic, science). Skills that only serve in that short lived environment. And once that environment is taken away from your peers they will deflate like funding from Dotcoms in 2000 and their true value will show.
For years you will think that you want revenge, but if and when you see them you'll realize their real lives are all the revenge you'll need. It will be so much revenge, you'll actually pity them.
And then you'll leave the bar and continue on with your life.
The Evils of "Progressive Credentialism"
What is "progressive credentialism?"
How does it delay the incubation of the US labor force?
And how can you avoid it?
Well, just watch this video.
(on a very serious note, this video should be viewed by every 14-18 year old so they know what lies ahead).
How does it delay the incubation of the US labor force?
And how can you avoid it?
Well, just watch this video.
(on a very serious note, this video should be viewed by every 14-18 year old so they know what lies ahead).
"What Happened to Gold"
I woke up this morning to a text from my father. My father, a former huge lefty, now is starting to notice what he was told doesn't add up to what is transpiring in the real world. Matter of fact, I get the impression he almost feels violated for being lied to all these years and is even more conservative and angry than I am. Regardless, since his economic epiphany he now approaches me with questions about the economy, politics and the like, the most recent one in his text was "what happened to gold."
I speculated at first.
Market bumps.
Margin calls.
The US dollar is gaining strength against other "less sucky" currencies and thus in terms of "relative" currencies the dollar is increasing. But then something struck me.
"Wait, could it be that PAPER gold is going down while phyiscal gold isn't?"
With ABN Amro failing to deliver physical gold recently, that event could spook the markets, as it rightly should. However, it would have an effect on paper gold, not physical gold, if anything increasing the price of physical gold at the expense of paper. But since there is no separate quoting system between paper and physical gold, you would not see this difference or "premium" between the two.
Enter in my coin dealer.
Last week I stopped in to see if there was a way to calculate a market "physical price" and he essentially said, "no, but."
The "but" being is that the dealer (who has to make a profit on his coins) is charged a premium by his supplier. And premiums HAVE BEEN GOING UP RECENTLY beyond the spot price. This is the closest we can get to calculating the premium, the price suppliers are charging retailers, in excess of the spot price, because they only deal in physical gold.
The moral of the story is to remember why you invest in gold or silver - as an insurance policy. And your precious metals investments do you no good when they are merely claims on physical gold...
to be mined in the future...
in a mine in Australia...
that will be held in proxy by a gold ETF...
and the economy hits the fan.
In the future as unscrupulous banks and investment firms aim to profit off of the metals market, especially with their fractional reserve mentality, you can expect only a fraction of the paper gold to be backed by physical gold and the two markets to diverge significantly in the future.
I speculated at first.
Market bumps.
Margin calls.
The US dollar is gaining strength against other "less sucky" currencies and thus in terms of "relative" currencies the dollar is increasing. But then something struck me.
"Wait, could it be that PAPER gold is going down while phyiscal gold isn't?"
With ABN Amro failing to deliver physical gold recently, that event could spook the markets, as it rightly should. However, it would have an effect on paper gold, not physical gold, if anything increasing the price of physical gold at the expense of paper. But since there is no separate quoting system between paper and physical gold, you would not see this difference or "premium" between the two.
Enter in my coin dealer.
Last week I stopped in to see if there was a way to calculate a market "physical price" and he essentially said, "no, but."
The "but" being is that the dealer (who has to make a profit on his coins) is charged a premium by his supplier. And premiums HAVE BEEN GOING UP RECENTLY beyond the spot price. This is the closest we can get to calculating the premium, the price suppliers are charging retailers, in excess of the spot price, because they only deal in physical gold.
The moral of the story is to remember why you invest in gold or silver - as an insurance policy. And your precious metals investments do you no good when they are merely claims on physical gold...
to be mined in the future...
in a mine in Australia...
that will be held in proxy by a gold ETF...
and the economy hits the fan.
In the future as unscrupulous banks and investment firms aim to profit off of the metals market, especially with their fractional reserve mentality, you can expect only a fraction of the paper gold to be backed by physical gold and the two markets to diverge significantly in the future.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
The 3 Musketeers of the Manosphere
There are three sites that I would like to highlight because they are aggregator sites and they account for a fair amount of my traffic.
However, since they are aggregator sites you usually do not link to them since they do not produce or publish their own material. This kind of creates an irony because they send out a TON of linkage, but rarely do we send any back.
Ergo, please consider getting on the good side or sending a link to a buddy for the following three aggregator sites:
Delusion Damage
Hawaiian Libertarian
Viva La Manosphere
However, since they are aggregator sites you usually do not link to them since they do not produce or publish their own material. This kind of creates an irony because they send out a TON of linkage, but rarely do we send any back.
Ergo, please consider getting on the good side or sending a link to a buddy for the following three aggregator sites:
Delusion Damage
Hawaiian Libertarian
Viva La Manosphere
Regret Having Children
Sunshine Mary has a post over here that triggered my little Google Trend searching:
What I love about this is that children (as well as divorce) is usually the first REAL challenge today's modern adult-children face in their lives. Understand the average American youth is shielded from the harsh realities of life with parental or governmental money well into their late 20's, even 30's. But once they have a child or get a divorce, there's no amount of government money, programs, or societal ass-kissing that can shield them from the consequences. And thus, when their cushy life runs head on into the crushing realities of rearing/raising a child, they have buyer's remorse. Thus, the trend upward in people searching for others who have search "regret having children" so they can forgive themselves for not wanting to raise their own children because...well, like...children are *whinny tone* "sooo haaaaard!"
Enjoy the decline!
What I love about this is that children (as well as divorce) is usually the first REAL challenge today's modern adult-children face in their lives. Understand the average American youth is shielded from the harsh realities of life with parental or governmental money well into their late 20's, even 30's. But once they have a child or get a divorce, there's no amount of government money, programs, or societal ass-kissing that can shield them from the consequences. And thus, when their cushy life runs head on into the crushing realities of rearing/raising a child, they have buyer's remorse. Thus, the trend upward in people searching for others who have search "regret having children" so they can forgive themselves for not wanting to raise their own children because...well, like...children are *whinny tone* "sooo haaaaard!"
Enjoy the decline!
The Underrated Life of the Stay-At-Home Husband
Frank let's out a screed I'm not necessarily against. Matter of fact I agree with most of it, but then he let's loose on men who want to stay at home as "girlie."
Ouch.
And thus I think I have to defend those of us guys who are the stay at home types not so much to counter what Frank is saying, nor to lick our wounds, but to explain that there have been fundamental changes in the economic relations and roles between the sexes, changes that make being the "stay at home husband" the logical, wise, and correct choice for most men.
But first let me provide a caveat in that the following advice is meant for men and women without children, which I do believe addresses not only the majority of my readership, but Frank's specific targeted audience with his post. If you have children then with today's taxes and cost of living, yes, both of you will have to work and the argument about who stays at home with the chillllldreeeennnnnnsszzz is moot.
Regardless, here are the reasons why you want to be the one to stay at home.
"Real Work" Sucks - And by "real work" I mean the traditional job where some aging boss who is unaware of the miracles of the internet, requires you to show up to an obsolete office, replete with unnecessary computers, and, oh, by the way, a really sucky commute. I don't know why women in the feminist world thought that "work" was "fun" to the point they demanded it, but if you have ever worked a "real job" in your life you know it sucks. You are not working for yourself, you are working for somebody else. You are also not allowed to achieve your maximum because careers and real jobs are not designed to benefit you, but rather your employer. And finally you are not working for you. You are working for the shareholders of the firm. Shareholders whose interests are the opposite of yours. They want your salary low as possible and really couldn't care less about your career or advancement. No, you are stuck in a job that pays you a sustenance level of income and only if you sell yourself and your mental health to a slave-like level of loyalty to your firm, are you going to reap anything approaching a "career."
"Stay at Home Work" Rules - Of course, just because I eschew real work doesn't mean I don't work. I work all the time. It's just not considered "real work" by the "real world." It's stay at home, self-employed work. Oh, laugh as you may as "stay at home office" or "self employed" usually carries the reputation and connotation as "person who can't find a job" and of course banks will never qualify you for a loan for "self employment income" isn't real income, but if you can be intellectually honest with yourself and pursue real work, just not for an employer, then you are light years ahead of the game. "
Stay at home work" (SAHW), if pursued rigorously, seriously, and professionally means, in a shorter amount of time you will have more success than if you worked a "real job." Not only because you are working for yourself, but because you will typically engage in work you like or at least work you have set up. There are no meetings, there is no negotiation, there is no discussion, it is just you. You are the Supreme Allied Commander and you get to decide, pursue and execute immediately and however you please. This single efficiency benefit is what allows you to run circles around your would-be-employer-now-competitor.
In short SAHW is all about you and the benefits all go to you. You actually enjoy your job, you can do it from home or the coffee store, you are allowed to complete tasks on your own time table and how you see fit, AND, did I mention, no mind-destroying, purposeless commute? Doing what you like AND having an extra 2 hours per day over your commuting your contemporaries makes those that ridicule SAHW look like investment banking analysts plugging dotcoms in 1998. Besides, just because it's work at home, doesn't mean it isn't manly.
I Like Sleep - Sleep is the most underrated benefit to human kind. I enjoy sleeping in till 9 or 10AM. I feel better, I'm healthier and I'm in a better mental mood. I'm more productive and (more importantly) I'm more creative. I can innovate and come up with ideas better than the coffee-junkie forcing themselves to stay awake during that Monday morning meeting. Sure, you could be a "real man" and suffer sleep-deprivation, but why would you?
A Better Home - Sure, I'm the "girlie" stay at home boyfriend. But guess what? The house is in tip top shape. Things are repaired. The cars are in working order. The fridge is full and when my girlfriend gets back we can go out because there ain't no chores to do. Besides, do you know how much you save when you can do your own home and auto maintenance, not to mention how many manly points you get for being able to do those things? Also, we don't need to increase our income tax bracket to pay for others to repair these things. I learn to repair and maintain at home, requiring a lesser income, but same standard of living. Why pay Barry and his legion of constituent parasites more than you have to? Besides, you can't write off maintenance, repair and chore expenses. Might as well do it yourself.
Taxes - On a related note, lower taxes. Certainly, not having children helps in this regard, but still, why have a double income that will only send you into stratospheric tax brackets? You, again, cannot write off house cleaning and maintenance, might as well have one person home doing that.
It's Easier - Sorry ladies, I've lived both lives. The hard working corporate type and the"stay at home wife" life and you have go to be kidding me about how hard it is. Really? Cleaning, vacuuming, and laundry? Really? None of it takes that long and then I can watch Hogan's Heroes. Not to mention the entire time I am doing "house chores" I can listen to my MP3. THAT BEATS LISTENING TO SOME LOSER OF A BOSS IN A MEETING ANYDAY! Not to mention, you don't have any boss watching over you every second. You get to do your chores how you please and when you please. You can leave any time you want, do anything you want, exercise during the day, as long as things get done, who cares. But not a real job. No no no. You got a boss that wants you to look busy even if there isn't any work. You got a boss that wants you to sit in a meeting that has nothing to do with your job. Your boss wants to suck the life out of you, wasting your finite life, for shareholders who couldn't care about you and a government that wants a 40% cut. Meanwhile forfeiting what really is a part-time job where 100% of your efforts go to benefit your family is worth their mental slavery and hell? Sorry, whoever stays at home gets the better deal.
Physical Fitness - Since the standard "chores" only require part time amounts of work, this gives you ample time to stay in physical shape. Never have I been in better physical shape than I am when I'm the stay at home boyfriend. I run every other day, life weights opposite those days. My girlfriend appreciates the physique and so will your girlfriend/wife.
Freedom and Fun - Obviously an underlying theme to all these benefits is your freedom to do as you choose during the day. Not only will this result in you having the most efficient regimen or routine for the day, achieving the most amount of production and work, but you can also maximize your fun. Don't let any stay-at-home husband/wife tell you otherwise. They can sit down and have a cocktail watching the Price is Right. You can play video games while grilling a steak. And if the weather permits you can go out for a motorcycle ride. Heck, even assuming you did have children, playing with the little rug rats certainly is more fun than writing TPR reports.
Fundamental Change in the Labor Market - Much as I lament society's utter failure to fully capitalize on the world's latest revolution, the fact remains it IS happening, just not at the pace I want. If it were up to me, we would not longer have commutes, traffic jams, let alone downtown office buildings because the technology exists that you can work 97% of today's white collar jobs from home. The technology exists, the software is secure, it is the obstacles in the form of aging gray haired bosses who can't let go of control and let people work from home. However, as time has gone on (and more of these aging gray hair types die or FINALLY retire) saner minds are realizing there is no real reason to pay for the unnecessary expense of office space rental, computer expense, and printer expense. Employees are more than willing to work from home and their younger bosses are letting them. This means there is a more hospitable and growing environment to SAHW's and truth be told, that is the future. The mockery and ridicule of people who are "self employed" or "home based business" types will end, because that is where the future labor market is heading. You being the stay-at-home-husband merely positions himself for the future.
Basic Economics - All the compelling and factual reasons above to be the stay-at-home hubby, in the end it is really a matter of economics. Yes you may have that darwinistic male drive to excel and achieve, and yes you may have that biological drive to be a provider, but the economic reality and fact is that it plain financially isn't worth it being the "go getter corporate type" for most men. First, society and politics are cheering for the woman to excel and exceed in the corporate world. This manifests itself in outlandishly handicapped affirmative action programs where the bar is lowered so much for women corporations will go out of their way to create whole departments like HR and CSR departments to keep the government off of their asses. Quotas, either explicitly stated or not, are in force, and no longer does the job go to the best candidate. And women, who are disproportionately represented in HR are in fact sexist and will ply favor to women candidates. In short corporate America has become corrupted to the point it is not only inhospitable to male employment, but is no longer worth your endeavor to become employed there.
Second, government and law in the form of taxation, not to mention divorce law, are also increasingly hostile. Not so much towards men as much as it is the "bread winner." If you are the bread winner, be it male or female, you are the one who loses half your assets, must pay alimony and must "provide for a previously expected standard of living." You want to be "manly" and "be the man?" Good luck. That's too much risk to be a provider male.
Finally, are you kidding me???? Work the crappy corporate job and run the god damned rat race??? For once I fully and wholly agree with the most ardent of feminists. Women SO should take over and be the sole bread winner and provider. It is a no brainer. Let them do all the real work, let them provide for the family, let them major in engineering, study calculus and physics. We'll stay at home and clean, cook, whatever, and pursue our hobby/faux-career as an "artist" "musician" or "part time teacher." The key issue for the likes of Frank and other men invested in their manliness is to not let their manliness blind them to economic realities. If women and feminists are so adamant about them being GENUINE and TRUE equals, then I say let them have at it. We should not look a gift horse in the mouth when given the option to stay at home, clean occasionally, repair the roof and change the oil, and of course pursue our "career" as a "children's book author." Let them work hard, let them commute, let them tolerate and suffer psychotic bosses, let them sit in the meetings. Even with the presence of children the life of the stay at home husband is INFINTELY easier and better than the working woman. It is simply a matter of letting go of unnecessary pride and letting leftist and feminist women have their dream in spades.
Ouch.
And thus I think I have to defend those of us guys who are the stay at home types not so much to counter what Frank is saying, nor to lick our wounds, but to explain that there have been fundamental changes in the economic relations and roles between the sexes, changes that make being the "stay at home husband" the logical, wise, and correct choice for most men.
But first let me provide a caveat in that the following advice is meant for men and women without children, which I do believe addresses not only the majority of my readership, but Frank's specific targeted audience with his post. If you have children then with today's taxes and cost of living, yes, both of you will have to work and the argument about who stays at home with the chillllldreeeennnnnnsszzz is moot.
Regardless, here are the reasons why you want to be the one to stay at home.
"Real Work" Sucks - And by "real work" I mean the traditional job where some aging boss who is unaware of the miracles of the internet, requires you to show up to an obsolete office, replete with unnecessary computers, and, oh, by the way, a really sucky commute. I don't know why women in the feminist world thought that "work" was "fun" to the point they demanded it, but if you have ever worked a "real job" in your life you know it sucks. You are not working for yourself, you are working for somebody else. You are also not allowed to achieve your maximum because careers and real jobs are not designed to benefit you, but rather your employer. And finally you are not working for you. You are working for the shareholders of the firm. Shareholders whose interests are the opposite of yours. They want your salary low as possible and really couldn't care less about your career or advancement. No, you are stuck in a job that pays you a sustenance level of income and only if you sell yourself and your mental health to a slave-like level of loyalty to your firm, are you going to reap anything approaching a "career."
"Stay at Home Work" Rules - Of course, just because I eschew real work doesn't mean I don't work. I work all the time. It's just not considered "real work" by the "real world." It's stay at home, self-employed work. Oh, laugh as you may as "stay at home office" or "self employed" usually carries the reputation and connotation as "person who can't find a job" and of course banks will never qualify you for a loan for "self employment income" isn't real income, but if you can be intellectually honest with yourself and pursue real work, just not for an employer, then you are light years ahead of the game. "
Stay at home work" (SAHW), if pursued rigorously, seriously, and professionally means, in a shorter amount of time you will have more success than if you worked a "real job." Not only because you are working for yourself, but because you will typically engage in work you like or at least work you have set up. There are no meetings, there is no negotiation, there is no discussion, it is just you. You are the Supreme Allied Commander and you get to decide, pursue and execute immediately and however you please. This single efficiency benefit is what allows you to run circles around your would-be-employer-now-competitor.
In short SAHW is all about you and the benefits all go to you. You actually enjoy your job, you can do it from home or the coffee store, you are allowed to complete tasks on your own time table and how you see fit, AND, did I mention, no mind-destroying, purposeless commute? Doing what you like AND having an extra 2 hours per day over your commuting your contemporaries makes those that ridicule SAHW look like investment banking analysts plugging dotcoms in 1998. Besides, just because it's work at home, doesn't mean it isn't manly.
I Like Sleep - Sleep is the most underrated benefit to human kind. I enjoy sleeping in till 9 or 10AM. I feel better, I'm healthier and I'm in a better mental mood. I'm more productive and (more importantly) I'm more creative. I can innovate and come up with ideas better than the coffee-junkie forcing themselves to stay awake during that Monday morning meeting. Sure, you could be a "real man" and suffer sleep-deprivation, but why would you?
A Better Home - Sure, I'm the "girlie" stay at home boyfriend. But guess what? The house is in tip top shape. Things are repaired. The cars are in working order. The fridge is full and when my girlfriend gets back we can go out because there ain't no chores to do. Besides, do you know how much you save when you can do your own home and auto maintenance, not to mention how many manly points you get for being able to do those things? Also, we don't need to increase our income tax bracket to pay for others to repair these things. I learn to repair and maintain at home, requiring a lesser income, but same standard of living. Why pay Barry and his legion of constituent parasites more than you have to? Besides, you can't write off maintenance, repair and chore expenses. Might as well do it yourself.
Taxes - On a related note, lower taxes. Certainly, not having children helps in this regard, but still, why have a double income that will only send you into stratospheric tax brackets? You, again, cannot write off house cleaning and maintenance, might as well have one person home doing that.
It's Easier - Sorry ladies, I've lived both lives. The hard working corporate type and the"stay at home wife" life and you have go to be kidding me about how hard it is. Really? Cleaning, vacuuming, and laundry? Really? None of it takes that long and then I can watch Hogan's Heroes. Not to mention the entire time I am doing "house chores" I can listen to my MP3. THAT BEATS LISTENING TO SOME LOSER OF A BOSS IN A MEETING ANYDAY! Not to mention, you don't have any boss watching over you every second. You get to do your chores how you please and when you please. You can leave any time you want, do anything you want, exercise during the day, as long as things get done, who cares. But not a real job. No no no. You got a boss that wants you to look busy even if there isn't any work. You got a boss that wants you to sit in a meeting that has nothing to do with your job. Your boss wants to suck the life out of you, wasting your finite life, for shareholders who couldn't care about you and a government that wants a 40% cut. Meanwhile forfeiting what really is a part-time job where 100% of your efforts go to benefit your family is worth their mental slavery and hell? Sorry, whoever stays at home gets the better deal.
Physical Fitness - Since the standard "chores" only require part time amounts of work, this gives you ample time to stay in physical shape. Never have I been in better physical shape than I am when I'm the stay at home boyfriend. I run every other day, life weights opposite those days. My girlfriend appreciates the physique and so will your girlfriend/wife.
Freedom and Fun - Obviously an underlying theme to all these benefits is your freedom to do as you choose during the day. Not only will this result in you having the most efficient regimen or routine for the day, achieving the most amount of production and work, but you can also maximize your fun. Don't let any stay-at-home husband/wife tell you otherwise. They can sit down and have a cocktail watching the Price is Right. You can play video games while grilling a steak. And if the weather permits you can go out for a motorcycle ride. Heck, even assuming you did have children, playing with the little rug rats certainly is more fun than writing TPR reports.
Fundamental Change in the Labor Market - Much as I lament society's utter failure to fully capitalize on the world's latest revolution, the fact remains it IS happening, just not at the pace I want. If it were up to me, we would not longer have commutes, traffic jams, let alone downtown office buildings because the technology exists that you can work 97% of today's white collar jobs from home. The technology exists, the software is secure, it is the obstacles in the form of aging gray haired bosses who can't let go of control and let people work from home. However, as time has gone on (and more of these aging gray hair types die or FINALLY retire) saner minds are realizing there is no real reason to pay for the unnecessary expense of office space rental, computer expense, and printer expense. Employees are more than willing to work from home and their younger bosses are letting them. This means there is a more hospitable and growing environment to SAHW's and truth be told, that is the future. The mockery and ridicule of people who are "self employed" or "home based business" types will end, because that is where the future labor market is heading. You being the stay-at-home-husband merely positions himself for the future.
Basic Economics - All the compelling and factual reasons above to be the stay-at-home hubby, in the end it is really a matter of economics. Yes you may have that darwinistic male drive to excel and achieve, and yes you may have that biological drive to be a provider, but the economic reality and fact is that it plain financially isn't worth it being the "go getter corporate type" for most men. First, society and politics are cheering for the woman to excel and exceed in the corporate world. This manifests itself in outlandishly handicapped affirmative action programs where the bar is lowered so much for women corporations will go out of their way to create whole departments like HR and CSR departments to keep the government off of their asses. Quotas, either explicitly stated or not, are in force, and no longer does the job go to the best candidate. And women, who are disproportionately represented in HR are in fact sexist and will ply favor to women candidates. In short corporate America has become corrupted to the point it is not only inhospitable to male employment, but is no longer worth your endeavor to become employed there.
Second, government and law in the form of taxation, not to mention divorce law, are also increasingly hostile. Not so much towards men as much as it is the "bread winner." If you are the bread winner, be it male or female, you are the one who loses half your assets, must pay alimony and must "provide for a previously expected standard of living." You want to be "manly" and "be the man?" Good luck. That's too much risk to be a provider male.
Finally, are you kidding me???? Work the crappy corporate job and run the god damned rat race??? For once I fully and wholly agree with the most ardent of feminists. Women SO should take over and be the sole bread winner and provider. It is a no brainer. Let them do all the real work, let them provide for the family, let them major in engineering, study calculus and physics. We'll stay at home and clean, cook, whatever, and pursue our hobby/faux-career as an "artist" "musician" or "part time teacher." The key issue for the likes of Frank and other men invested in their manliness is to not let their manliness blind them to economic realities. If women and feminists are so adamant about them being GENUINE and TRUE equals, then I say let them have at it. We should not look a gift horse in the mouth when given the option to stay at home, clean occasionally, repair the roof and change the oil, and of course pursue our "career" as a "children's book author." Let them work hard, let them commute, let them tolerate and suffer psychotic bosses, let them sit in the meetings. Even with the presence of children the life of the stay at home husband is INFINTELY easier and better than the working woman. It is simply a matter of letting go of unnecessary pride and letting leftist and feminist women have their dream in spades.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Baby Boomer Economics
"Of the participants who took out loans, the greatest percentage were to people in their 50s (34.2%), followed by those in their 60s (28.9%) and then by those in their 40s (27.3%). The increase among participants in their 50s was nearly double the increase among those under 30. This is based on an analysis of a subset of 1.9 million eligible participants in retirement plans that Wells Fargo administers."
No no! Nothing to see here! Back to your lives citizens. Oh, and you youngsters! You better hit the ground running. We don't have time to train you. You didn't have it as tough as we did. I don't have time to explain this to you. If you can't figure it out on your own, then you don't belong here. You just aren't a team player are you? You're not as wise as us and you should plan better for your future. Matter of fact, can we borrow $45 trillion from your future? We're really smart and you're too stupid to understand. Didn't you hit the ground running? Why, we told you it was a steep learning curve. You're just not smart enough to understand this. Answer our HR questions. You don't know about HR? Well, that's alright, you didn't hit the ground running and we didn't have time to train you. You have to be a self-starter. Didn't you pay attention to detail?
My gosh the lack of nursing home visits will sure be funny. Perhaps we can securitize or commoditize "nursing home visits"?
"Hey grandpa? Want a nursing home visit? Well that will be 50% of your medicare payout this month and 60% of your social security check. Good thing you 'paid into the system!'"
No no! Nothing to see here! Back to your lives citizens. Oh, and you youngsters! You better hit the ground running. We don't have time to train you. You didn't have it as tough as we did. I don't have time to explain this to you. If you can't figure it out on your own, then you don't belong here. You just aren't a team player are you? You're not as wise as us and you should plan better for your future. Matter of fact, can we borrow $45 trillion from your future? We're really smart and you're too stupid to understand. Didn't you hit the ground running? Why, we told you it was a steep learning curve. You're just not smart enough to understand this. Answer our HR questions. You don't know about HR? Well, that's alright, you didn't hit the ground running and we didn't have time to train you. You have to be a self-starter. Didn't you pay attention to detail?
My gosh the lack of nursing home visits will sure be funny. Perhaps we can securitize or commoditize "nursing home visits"?
"Hey grandpa? Want a nursing home visit? Well that will be 50% of your medicare payout this month and 60% of your social security check. Good thing you 'paid into the system!'"
"I Don't Dress Up For You! I Dress Up for MYSELF!"
Of the many lies men will be told from the ages of 12 to...umm....death, one of the more misleading ones (that can trip you up for years unless you learn the deceit behind it) is,
"I don't do X for you! I do it for myself!"
"X" being
dressing up
make up
working out
lingerie
etc. etc.
Right off the bat many of these "items" should prove to be an obvious lie.
What woman REALLY wants to wear make up?
What woman REALLY wants to work out? (hell, what man does?)
If you are REALLY going to do something for yourself, then it is by (a non-pejorative sense) selfish. You truly don't care what other people think. So when it comes Saturday day and the girlfriend is out of town, do you think I'm going to
wake up early
run 6 miles
clean the house
put on nice clothes
and fix the car
for myself???
Hell no! I'm sleeping in till 11AM, drinking during the day, playing video games, and going out with the guys. And on top of it I'm not dressing up for nobody! It is a TRULY selfish endeavor and ergo if you're really "doing it for yourself" you will engage in vices and not virtues such as working out, glaming yourself up, etc. etc.
However, the reason this lie is so tricky is because when a woman says this, it is a half-truth.
While she is NOT dressing up for you, she IS dressing up for somebody else. And that somebody else certainly is NOT her (at least in a direct sense).
Again, we revisit the realm where economics and sexuality meet. Women are (primarily) driven by attention. Attention from who? Attention from anybody.
Oh, go ahead and threaten me with your Adria Richard's hallow threats, I'm sorry dearies, I have nothing left to lose. Besides, this is a fact and is truth. And if you don't like that...well, then maybe you really don't like being treated as an equal and perhaps like every other guy I could continue lying to your face to spare your precious little feelings. But I'm sorry, I'm not a sexist. I believe in the equality of the sexes so you'll APPRECIATE me treating you as a GENUINE equal and never daring to lie to you as that would be degrading.
Anyway, women crave attention. And the primary way (before social media) they can get that is by simply dressing the part. This is why in large part you can be at a bar/club, see a group of girls LITERALLY dressed as ladies of the evening, approach them and get your butt shot down. They REALLY weren't dressing that way for you, just as they technically weren't dressing that way for themselves. They were merely dressing that way to get your attention and the attention of others. And should a supreme specimen of man (professional athlete, celebrity, obvious rich man) approach them, that is also why they dressed that way or went to the gym.
In other words, don't be a fool on either end of this half-lie, half truth. She really isn't doing it for you. And, yes, in a roundabout way she is doing it for herself. But she is ultimately doing it to garner the attention of other people, both men and women.
"I don't do X for you! I do it for myself!"
"X" being
dressing up
make up
working out
lingerie
etc. etc.
Right off the bat many of these "items" should prove to be an obvious lie.
What woman REALLY wants to wear make up?
What woman REALLY wants to work out? (hell, what man does?)
If you are REALLY going to do something for yourself, then it is by (a non-pejorative sense) selfish. You truly don't care what other people think. So when it comes Saturday day and the girlfriend is out of town, do you think I'm going to
wake up early
run 6 miles
clean the house
put on nice clothes
and fix the car
for myself???
Hell no! I'm sleeping in till 11AM, drinking during the day, playing video games, and going out with the guys. And on top of it I'm not dressing up for nobody! It is a TRULY selfish endeavor and ergo if you're really "doing it for yourself" you will engage in vices and not virtues such as working out, glaming yourself up, etc. etc.
However, the reason this lie is so tricky is because when a woman says this, it is a half-truth.
While she is NOT dressing up for you, she IS dressing up for somebody else. And that somebody else certainly is NOT her (at least in a direct sense).
Again, we revisit the realm where economics and sexuality meet. Women are (primarily) driven by attention. Attention from who? Attention from anybody.
Oh, go ahead and threaten me with your Adria Richard's hallow threats, I'm sorry dearies, I have nothing left to lose. Besides, this is a fact and is truth. And if you don't like that...well, then maybe you really don't like being treated as an equal and perhaps like every other guy I could continue lying to your face to spare your precious little feelings. But I'm sorry, I'm not a sexist. I believe in the equality of the sexes so you'll APPRECIATE me treating you as a GENUINE equal and never daring to lie to you as that would be degrading.
Anyway, women crave attention. And the primary way (before social media) they can get that is by simply dressing the part. This is why in large part you can be at a bar/club, see a group of girls LITERALLY dressed as ladies of the evening, approach them and get your butt shot down. They REALLY weren't dressing that way for you, just as they technically weren't dressing that way for themselves. They were merely dressing that way to get your attention and the attention of others. And should a supreme specimen of man (professional athlete, celebrity, obvious rich man) approach them, that is also why they dressed that way or went to the gym.
In other words, don't be a fool on either end of this half-lie, half truth. She really isn't doing it for you. And, yes, in a roundabout way she is doing it for herself. But she is ultimately doing it to garner the attention of other people, both men and women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)