The primary reason I decided to have a vasectomy was because I could not financially afford children, and never saw the case or instance in my future that I would.
This is rapidly being replaced by, "I don't want my would be child to grow up with the mentally damaged children mentally damaged parents like these are bringing up."
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Ladies, Your Feelings Will Never Trump Reality
His answer is one based in physics (i.e., if you wear tight fitting
athletic clothing and you happen to be overweight, inevitably you will
wear out the fabric). End of story. If you have an issue with this, take
it up with the Gods of Alchemy
Friday, November 29, 2013
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Why I Charge Union Members Double
When I can, I usually charge union members double, sometimes triple.
Of course I can't always do this, but have managed to do it a handful of times. It is the least real people working real jobs producing real economic wealth can do to the parasites.
Of course I can't always do this, but have managed to do it a handful of times. It is the least real people working real jobs producing real economic wealth can do to the parasites.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
A Tactic That Works Against Liberals
Was at the bar.
Sat next to a young couple. The girl was an education major still in college, the boy was a recent graduate with a degree in economics.
He was excited when I told him I was an economist, but then depressed when I told him he would not get a job. The girl, somewhat offended I was being truthful and blunt asked what I did for a living. Overhearing that she was an education major, I said,
"I collect welfare and foodstamps for a living. I stopped working two years ago."
I said it with a sincere and direct enough face it convinced her.
She was upset.
"Wait, you don't even try to find work anymore?"
Half-tempted to point out in her declaring an elementary education major that neither was she, I decided not to and instead went with my original plan,
"Yes, not worth working any more. You see how much free shit Obama is giving away? To hell with work. It's for suckers."
She got pissed. ROYALLY pissed. She wouldn't talk to me. You could see it in her face. She was angry that somebody might take advantage of the situation.
And then I realized something - I finally figured out how to convince liberals they're wrong.
It wasn't through charts. It wasn't through logic. It wasn't through reason. And it wasn't through statistics or facts.
It would be by agreeing with them to the full logical conclusion of socialism and acting like you were completely abusing theircharity naivety.
So the next time you run into a liberal and they ask you what you do for a living, with a straight face you say,
"Nothing, I collect welfare and food stamps. I live off of the government."
It is thus far and by far the most effective tactic I have ever deployed.
Sat next to a young couple. The girl was an education major still in college, the boy was a recent graduate with a degree in economics.
He was excited when I told him I was an economist, but then depressed when I told him he would not get a job. The girl, somewhat offended I was being truthful and blunt asked what I did for a living. Overhearing that she was an education major, I said,
"I collect welfare and foodstamps for a living. I stopped working two years ago."
I said it with a sincere and direct enough face it convinced her.
She was upset.
"Wait, you don't even try to find work anymore?"
Half-tempted to point out in her declaring an elementary education major that neither was she, I decided not to and instead went with my original plan,
"Yes, not worth working any more. You see how much free shit Obama is giving away? To hell with work. It's for suckers."
She got pissed. ROYALLY pissed. She wouldn't talk to me. You could see it in her face. She was angry that somebody might take advantage of the situation.
And then I realized something - I finally figured out how to convince liberals they're wrong.
It wasn't through charts. It wasn't through logic. It wasn't through reason. And it wasn't through statistics or facts.
It would be by agreeing with them to the full logical conclusion of socialism and acting like you were completely abusing their
So the next time you run into a liberal and they ask you what you do for a living, with a straight face you say,
"Nothing, I collect welfare and food stamps. I live off of the government."
It is thus far and by far the most effective tactic I have ever deployed.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Don't Hate Me Because I'm Bloggyful
Had a comment that I didn't post because it was cursing and swearing and name calling, but the gist of it was that my little media empire here is not a real job and that I am a charlatan and a fraud, blah, blah, blah.
So let me explain.
I am INCREDIBLY lucky to make a living blogging. I know this, I'm aware of it, and I thank my lucky stars everyday when I see traffic reports or reminisce about when I had a real job.
However, especially since writing Bachelor Pad Economics, I noticed I was getting a little down and a little depressed. This is normal because writing does take it out of you and I am usually very hard on myself ensuring I get my books written quickly, and done by a certain date. This book (Bachelor Pad Economics) is going to be about 450 pages, and it will have taken about 2.5 months to write, edit, and publish. I thought the malaise I go through was because writing is boring, but it wasn't until my girlfriend pointed out I had been writing for four hours straight at my local bar did I realize just how much time I was putting into this.
Between blogging, podcasting, writing, videos, not to mention splitting wood and all the household chores, I knock out about 16-18 hours a day on work.
Is this "real job work?"
No.
Do I have to commute to a cubicle?
No.
Do I have to deal with another gray-haired fool who lost his spine, balls and ability to lead during his MBA classes?
No.
But that doesn't mean I'm lollygagging about, drinking rumpie, and playing video games all day.
It means I'm busting my ass off...and drinking rumpie occasionally playing video games all day.
In other words, detractors, haters, and jealous people, I do work. This is a real job. It's just one that's enjoyable and one where I am the ultimate authority and boss. It's one I earned through my own sweat, toil, dedication, and sacrifice.
Ergo, you can be jealous all you want, but you can't get angry. Well...I mean, you "can" get angry, but your anger is misplaced.
In the meantime I'll just continue to act like I'm drunk all the time, playing video games, sleeping in and never working just to irk the right people.
Enjoy the decline!
So let me explain.
I am INCREDIBLY lucky to make a living blogging. I know this, I'm aware of it, and I thank my lucky stars everyday when I see traffic reports or reminisce about when I had a real job.
However, especially since writing Bachelor Pad Economics, I noticed I was getting a little down and a little depressed. This is normal because writing does take it out of you and I am usually very hard on myself ensuring I get my books written quickly, and done by a certain date. This book (Bachelor Pad Economics) is going to be about 450 pages, and it will have taken about 2.5 months to write, edit, and publish. I thought the malaise I go through was because writing is boring, but it wasn't until my girlfriend pointed out I had been writing for four hours straight at my local bar did I realize just how much time I was putting into this.
Between blogging, podcasting, writing, videos, not to mention splitting wood and all the household chores, I knock out about 16-18 hours a day on work.
Is this "real job work?"
No.
Do I have to commute to a cubicle?
No.
Do I have to deal with another gray-haired fool who lost his spine, balls and ability to lead during his MBA classes?
No.
But that doesn't mean I'm lollygagging about, drinking rumpie, and playing video games all day.
It means I'm busting my ass off...and drinking rumpie occasionally playing video games all day.
In other words, detractors, haters, and jealous people, I do work. This is a real job. It's just one that's enjoyable and one where I am the ultimate authority and boss. It's one I earned through my own sweat, toil, dedication, and sacrifice.
Ergo, you can be jealous all you want, but you can't get angry. Well...I mean, you "can" get angry, but your anger is misplaced.
In the meantime I'll just continue to act like I'm drunk all the time, playing video games, sleeping in and never working just to irk the right people.
Enjoy the decline!
The Closest You'll Get to Economic Utopia
While liberals and leftists do their best to create an economic utopia on Earth, and the best they can come up with is Detroit or North Korea, I've been fortunate enough to experience the closest humanity will ever come to a genuine economic utopia - an all inclusive resort.
You may chuckle a little bit here or there, but I am being serious. All inclusive resorts (the ones without Mexicans or the locals constantly harassing you with trinkets) are precisely what economists, knowingly or not, are aiming for, and let me explain why.
First, I had to turn off my cell phone and laptop. There was no internet or cell phone reception. This forced me NOT to work. Not only did it force me not to work, but because it was not an option, I never worried or fretted about it. Work was no longer an issue. Completely eliminated from my options and therefore completely eliminated from my mind.
Second, all your necessities are taken care of. Food, clothing, shelter. Yes, I had to work up the money to pay for them, but for a wonderful week it was the epitome of true unlimited resources. I could drink until my liver puked, eat until I puked, sleep in my room, and not worry about anything. I would not starve, and thus my lizard brain was not worried about hunting for food or providing for myself.
Third, with all the basics covered, the entirety of my efforts were focused on recreation and fun. I don't think many people get to experience this, even those with unlimited resources. You're always worried or focused on maintaining or increasing your wealth that you never take the time to enjoy it. But (again) with leisure forced on you via no internet or cell phone access, you finally forgive yourself for not working and can finally let loose. I think I played volleyball for 8 hours one day, snorkeled for a couple hours the next, laid on the lazy river for 10, and did waterslides for 20 (I also hosted races with some of the kids to see who had the best time, and yes, I dominated as I knew the technique of slingshotting yourself at the beginning of the slide).
Of course I knew the all inclusive resort was a fleeting phenomenon, and I would soon return to my (horrible) life of waking up at 1030AM, afternoon Rumpies, and writing for 4 hours, but I did have an epiphany or at least an observation:
Would not the all-inclusive resort be the best form of retirement?
As it stands right now, the United States and most European nations so heavily tax their citizenry that 2nd world countries can provide an all-inclusive resort for a fraction of the cost of most 1st world nursing homes. And if you can afford a nursing home for the last ten years of your life, why not save up your pennies and nickels for the last 20 years of your life at an all-inclusive resort?
Naturally, you wouldn't want to stay at just one resort, but perhaps join a club like "Club Med," but a cheaper version. You'd be allowed to travel, visit different resorts, but know for a "lifetime membership" you'd have food and shelter covered until you're dead. I would have to run the figures, but I have so much faith in the leftist idiots that populate and increasingly run the US that the day will come (if it isn't already here) all-inclusive resorts are more affordable than most retirement communities in the US.
You may chuckle a little bit here or there, but I am being serious. All inclusive resorts (the ones without Mexicans or the locals constantly harassing you with trinkets) are precisely what economists, knowingly or not, are aiming for, and let me explain why.
First, I had to turn off my cell phone and laptop. There was no internet or cell phone reception. This forced me NOT to work. Not only did it force me not to work, but because it was not an option, I never worried or fretted about it. Work was no longer an issue. Completely eliminated from my options and therefore completely eliminated from my mind.
Second, all your necessities are taken care of. Food, clothing, shelter. Yes, I had to work up the money to pay for them, but for a wonderful week it was the epitome of true unlimited resources. I could drink until my liver puked, eat until I puked, sleep in my room, and not worry about anything. I would not starve, and thus my lizard brain was not worried about hunting for food or providing for myself.
Third, with all the basics covered, the entirety of my efforts were focused on recreation and fun. I don't think many people get to experience this, even those with unlimited resources. You're always worried or focused on maintaining or increasing your wealth that you never take the time to enjoy it. But (again) with leisure forced on you via no internet or cell phone access, you finally forgive yourself for not working and can finally let loose. I think I played volleyball for 8 hours one day, snorkeled for a couple hours the next, laid on the lazy river for 10, and did waterslides for 20 (I also hosted races with some of the kids to see who had the best time, and yes, I dominated as I knew the technique of slingshotting yourself at the beginning of the slide).
Of course I knew the all inclusive resort was a fleeting phenomenon, and I would soon return to my (horrible) life of waking up at 1030AM, afternoon Rumpies, and writing for 4 hours, but I did have an epiphany or at least an observation:
Would not the all-inclusive resort be the best form of retirement?
As it stands right now, the United States and most European nations so heavily tax their citizenry that 2nd world countries can provide an all-inclusive resort for a fraction of the cost of most 1st world nursing homes. And if you can afford a nursing home for the last ten years of your life, why not save up your pennies and nickels for the last 20 years of your life at an all-inclusive resort?
Naturally, you wouldn't want to stay at just one resort, but perhaps join a club like "Club Med," but a cheaper version. You'd be allowed to travel, visit different resorts, but know for a "lifetime membership" you'd have food and shelter covered until you're dead. I would have to run the figures, but I have so much faith in the leftist idiots that populate and increasingly run the US that the day will come (if it isn't already here) all-inclusive resorts are more affordable than most retirement communities in the US.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Why You Wish You Could Be Don Rickles
I was 18.
I was stupid.
I bought two tickets
6 months in advance to see Victor Borge.
I was stupid because I thought it would be easy to find a date.
How wrong I was.
Because at that point in my stupid, naive life, I thought most girls were like me. Yes, they may have liked "Hootie and the Blowfish" but they also appreciated a pianist genius like Victor Borge.
After asking around 15 girls to attend with me, and having 15 girls say, "who?" I realized I overestimated my generation of women.
Enter now, Don Rickles.
Rickles ain't getting any younger folks. And, like Borge, it wasn't until I was older did I appreciate him. So I was happy to see he's still performing. Better see him before this great American passes on. WWII vet, entertained millions, the epitome of America at its peak.
Or you can always go with Chris Rock or whatever filth passes for comedians nowadays.
I was stupid.
I bought two tickets
6 months in advance to see Victor Borge.
I was stupid because I thought it would be easy to find a date.
How wrong I was.
Because at that point in my stupid, naive life, I thought most girls were like me. Yes, they may have liked "Hootie and the Blowfish" but they also appreciated a pianist genius like Victor Borge.
After asking around 15 girls to attend with me, and having 15 girls say, "who?" I realized I overestimated my generation of women.
Enter now, Don Rickles.
Rickles ain't getting any younger folks. And, like Borge, it wasn't until I was older did I appreciate him. So I was happy to see he's still performing. Better see him before this great American passes on. WWII vet, entertained millions, the epitome of America at its peak.
Or you can always go with Chris Rock or whatever filth passes for comedians nowadays.
Proof American Girls are Dumb: One Directions
Never heard of them.
The reason I never heard of them is because they did not exist until 48 hours ago.
But since some media and marketing executives create them, I have had nothing but an annoying and constant barrage of Yahoo "News" (COUGH COUGH PHLEGM PHLEGM) and other media outlets about
"One Directions"
Look, girls. Don't you think it's about time you "girl up" to your presumed "independent" and "intelligent" reputations American media constantly shoves down my throat?
I mean, you're all so independent.
You're all so smart.
You're all so everything.
And yet, the money in Hollywood is you're so stupid, you're going to swallow whole (pun intended until they take down Miley Ray Syphilis) the latest dumbass boy band.
And you know what, you most likely will.
For once, I find myself aligned with my sworn enemies - the feminists. EVEN THEY can see through this corporatist pablum. They'll tell you the same thing I am, which means (for once) we can't possibly be wrong.
Oh, I know, I know, Hollywood has figured out the magic formula for tweens and teens. And this is merely hypothesizing (look it up, it's word dearies) on my part you're capable of being smart enough to ignore this blatant placation (look up both words dearies) to your genetics. But something tells me you're going to ignore this anyway because "they're so hot" or "they're so cute."
And something tells me the canard (look it up dearies) that "girls mature faster than boys" will continue.
You kids enjoy the decline....never mind, you'll never get the pun.
The reason I never heard of them is because they did not exist until 48 hours ago.
But since some media and marketing executives create them, I have had nothing but an annoying and constant barrage of Yahoo "News" (COUGH COUGH PHLEGM PHLEGM) and other media outlets about
"One Directions"
Look, girls. Don't you think it's about time you "girl up" to your presumed "independent" and "intelligent" reputations American media constantly shoves down my throat?
I mean, you're all so independent.
You're all so smart.
You're all so everything.
And yet, the money in Hollywood is you're so stupid, you're going to swallow whole (pun intended until they take down Miley Ray Syphilis) the latest dumbass boy band.
And you know what, you most likely will.
For once, I find myself aligned with my sworn enemies - the feminists. EVEN THEY can see through this corporatist pablum. They'll tell you the same thing I am, which means (for once) we can't possibly be wrong.
Oh, I know, I know, Hollywood has figured out the magic formula for tweens and teens. And this is merely hypothesizing (look it up, it's word dearies) on my part you're capable of being smart enough to ignore this blatant placation (look up both words dearies) to your genetics. But something tells me you're going to ignore this anyway because "they're so hot" or "they're so cute."
And something tells me the canard (look it up dearies) that "girls mature faster than boys" will continue.
You kids enjoy the decline....never mind, you'll never get the pun.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
.JPG)
Saturday, November 23, 2013
If Girls Want to Pose With Books
I have had some women inquire about posing with the books. So here is a basic break down of the rules:
1. In terms of "risqueness" I am using the traditional 1950's pinup girl as a standard. Nothing too crass, but nothing too Lutheran either.
2. If you don't know if you are good looking enough, send me a picture. Do not get upset if I decline because, well, my readers are typically 30 something men.
3. Dress up anyway for your husband or significant other. My books don't matter, I'm just trying to spruce up the joint here and get a little eye candy in between the charts.
.JPG)
And yes, my books are that good that girls will read them on a lazy Sunday afternoon in bed.
1. In terms of "risqueness" I am using the traditional 1950's pinup girl as a standard. Nothing too crass, but nothing too Lutheran either.
2. If you don't know if you are good looking enough, send me a picture. Do not get upset if I decline because, well, my readers are typically 30 something men.
3. Dress up anyway for your husband or significant other. My books don't matter, I'm just trying to spruce up the joint here and get a little eye candy in between the charts.
.JPG)
And yes, my books are that good that girls will read them on a lazy Sunday afternoon in bed.
Friday, November 22, 2013
How Verenice Gutierrez Demonstrates How Much Feminism Has Failed
I shall point out a handful of things because I wish this to be short and most of my readers already have the background knowledge they need no hand holding.
Verenice Gutierrez is the principal of a school who has claimed peanut butter and jelly is racist.
1. Minority who benefited from affirmative action.
2. Ugly
3. Feminist
4. Worthless doctorate degree
5. Abuses children so she can have a faux career acting like she's educating them when she's really indoctrinating them.
6. Cares more about advancing her socialist ideology than educating children
I simply point out one thing:
If this is the best product socialism and feminism can put forward AND society decides to put this worthless human being in charge of children's education, it is not only a testament to how much feminism has jumped the shark, but how blatantly obvious it is we don't give two shits about educating our children.
Oh, and yes, she is ugly.
Verenice Gutierrez is the principal of a school who has claimed peanut butter and jelly is racist.
1. Minority who benefited from affirmative action.
2. Ugly
3. Feminist
4. Worthless doctorate degree
5. Abuses children so she can have a faux career acting like she's educating them when she's really indoctrinating them.
6. Cares more about advancing her socialist ideology than educating children
I simply point out one thing:
If this is the best product socialism and feminism can put forward AND society decides to put this worthless human being in charge of children's education, it is not only a testament to how much feminism has jumped the shark, but how blatantly obvious it is we don't give two shits about educating our children.
Oh, and yes, she is ugly.
"Masters Degree Preferred"
I convey, what I believe to be, the feelings of the younger generation to all the HR, corporate management types, baby boomers, Gen X'ers, and the education industry who INSIST young people get advanced degrees for jobs that could be done by a 12 year old.
Nice Guys Finish Last
Remember that boys.
Felons get more play than accountants.
Also from Roissy, a no-shit-Sherlock moment.
Like I said in my previous podcast, your husband wants you to lose 15 pounds for Christmas.
Felons get more play than accountants.
Also from Roissy, a no-shit-Sherlock moment.
Like I said in my previous podcast, your husband wants you to lose 15 pounds for Christmas.
Cleaning House Linkfest
From our Muslim Agent in the Field - Swiss young socialists want to pass a law limiting executive pay to 12 x's the lowest paid worker.
From our Rookie Canadian Agent in the Field - Feminism declining since 1990's.
From our Glorious Hat Agent in the Field - Wishing you and everybody good times this 2 months worth of holidays.
From our Canadian Agent in the Field - Explaining to young men that there is hope and you still have a life to live.
From our Matt Forney Agent in the Field - Matt is, well, Matt. He is an adjective unto himself. He's Matt "Forney-ey" and was kind enough to review my book.
From our Rookie Canadian Agent in the Field - Feminism declining since 1990's.
From our Glorious Hat Agent in the Field - Wishing you and everybody good times this 2 months worth of holidays.
From our Canadian Agent in the Field - Explaining to young men that there is hope and you still have a life to live.
From our Matt Forney Agent in the Field - Matt is, well, Matt. He is an adjective unto himself. He's Matt "Forney-ey" and was kind enough to review my book.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Shame Will Get More Women Into Engineering Than This Idiocy
From our IT agent in the field.
In short it is a commercial spoofing the Beastie Boy's song "Girls."
It advertises a chemistry set like toy set designed to get girls interested in the sciences and engineering, which I'm all for.
Just one problem.
It is SOOOOOO STUPID, even condescending to girls and women that it becomes a mockery of itself.
EVEN IN THE LYRICS they talk about girls don't like pink, buuuuuut!!!!!
PINK IS ALL OVER THE PLACE IN THE COMMERCIAL!
Look, here's how you get girls interested in the sciences and engineering.
You introduce them to video games at an early age and then you tell them the truth:
"Boys are better at engineering and math than girls."
That will at least rile them up and give them the energy to prove you wrong. And then maybe some day we'll actually have a generation of girls who are majoring in engineering at equal rates to boys, instead of us just lying to them saying,
"You go girl!"
"Grrrrrllll power!"
"Anything boys can do girls can do better!"
while they still major in baby sitting, women's studies, English, and other subjects that avoid math and rigor at all costs.
In short it is a commercial spoofing the Beastie Boy's song "Girls."
It advertises a chemistry set like toy set designed to get girls interested in the sciences and engineering, which I'm all for.
Just one problem.
It is SOOOOOO STUPID, even condescending to girls and women that it becomes a mockery of itself.
EVEN IN THE LYRICS they talk about girls don't like pink, buuuuuut!!!!!
PINK IS ALL OVER THE PLACE IN THE COMMERCIAL!
Look, here's how you get girls interested in the sciences and engineering.
You introduce them to video games at an early age and then you tell them the truth:
"Boys are better at engineering and math than girls."
That will at least rile them up and give them the energy to prove you wrong. And then maybe some day we'll actually have a generation of girls who are majoring in engineering at equal rates to boys, instead of us just lying to them saying,
"You go girl!"
"Grrrrrllll power!"
"Anything boys can do girls can do better!"
while they still major in baby sitting, women's studies, English, and other subjects that avoid math and rigor at all costs.
.JPG)
Fight or Flight
Hello All,
I'll be speaking in Vegas Jan 23-25th at the "Fight or Flight/Passport to Freedom" symposium hosted by Nomad Capitalist.
This is nothing low rank. They have Peter Schiff headlining and I'm somewhere at the bottom mopping up shop afterwards.
It is my honest opinion this is going to be the next logical step or "wave" in terms of economic philosophy as the national debt is getting so high that it is at the critical mass point where there is no salvation. After that you are going to have to think outside the US not just for your future, but at minimum a place to diversify your investments.
Truth is I am not an expert on overseas investing, international banks, etc., so I will be very interested in the speakers. Regardless, it's a pricey seminar, but may well be worth the money.
Cpt.
I'll be speaking in Vegas Jan 23-25th at the "Fight or Flight/Passport to Freedom" symposium hosted by Nomad Capitalist.
This is nothing low rank. They have Peter Schiff headlining and I'm somewhere at the bottom mopping up shop afterwards.
It is my honest opinion this is going to be the next logical step or "wave" in terms of economic philosophy as the national debt is getting so high that it is at the critical mass point where there is no salvation. After that you are going to have to think outside the US not just for your future, but at minimum a place to diversify your investments.
Truth is I am not an expert on overseas investing, international banks, etc., so I will be very interested in the speakers. Regardless, it's a pricey seminar, but may well be worth the money.
Cpt.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Theoretical Price Limit of Bitcoin
Permit me a very simple mathematical observation.
In my previous post I pointed out how bitcoins were more like diamonds in that there is a limited supply of them, and bar some industrial uses, really have no practical value. Ergo, if you want to compare the value of diamonds to dirt, diamonds are valuable because they are scarce and dirt is cheap because it is not. This ratio of "diamonds to dirt" would by math give you the exchange rate.
So, why not dollars instead of dirt?
You can choose your poison of which measure of the US dollar supply you want to use, but since bitcoin is only going to have 21 million units produced you can calculate their theoretical dollar exchange rates quite easily:
M1 Money Supply - $2.6 trillion
Implied Bitcoin Value = $123,809
M2 Money Supply - $10.974 trillion
Implied Bitcoin Value = $521,319
For this super awesome economic analysis you can read one of my books.
In my previous post I pointed out how bitcoins were more like diamonds in that there is a limited supply of them, and bar some industrial uses, really have no practical value. Ergo, if you want to compare the value of diamonds to dirt, diamonds are valuable because they are scarce and dirt is cheap because it is not. This ratio of "diamonds to dirt" would by math give you the exchange rate.
So, why not dollars instead of dirt?
You can choose your poison of which measure of the US dollar supply you want to use, but since bitcoin is only going to have 21 million units produced you can calculate their theoretical dollar exchange rates quite easily:
M1 Money Supply - $2.6 trillion
Implied Bitcoin Value = $123,809
M2 Money Supply - $10.974 trillion
Implied Bitcoin Value = $521,319
For this super awesome economic analysis you can read one of my books.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Why Exxon Mobil Should Hire Me to Head Their CSR Department
How a "welfare family dynasty" of teen mothers could breed 6 generations in a single lifetime
Why it's OK to be angry and not help out your fellow leftist
Why Exxon Mobil should hire me to head their CSR department
What everybody wants for Christmas
AND MORE!!!
On this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
Why it's OK to be angry and not help out your fellow leftist
Why Exxon Mobil should hire me to head their CSR department
What everybody wants for Christmas
AND MORE!!!
On this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
When Your Aging Parents Come After Your Money
It's called "filial responsibility." Apparently in 25 states your parents can come after you for your money if you don't help take care of them in their old age. These states are:
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia
But the money quote is this right here:
"As recently as the 1950s, 45 states and the federal government had them on the books. They began to erode during the New Deal, when the Social Security Act passed and the concept of government rather than familial responsibility started to take hold."
Ahhhh, replacing people with the loving and caring government.
This is why if you have liberal parents you should just tell them the government is there new children. The government is their all and everything. The government, the government, the government.
Oh well, you aging lefties who love government, you crazy cats try to enjoy that decline, ya hear?
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia
But the money quote is this right here:
"As recently as the 1950s, 45 states and the federal government had them on the books. They began to erode during the New Deal, when the Social Security Act passed and the concept of government rather than familial responsibility started to take hold."
Ahhhh, replacing people with the loving and caring government.
This is why if you have liberal parents you should just tell them the government is there new children. The government is their all and everything. The government, the government, the government.
Oh well, you aging lefties who love government, you crazy cats try to enjoy that decline, ya hear?
Why Doesn't This Come Standard with Every Podcast?
I am still amazed when it's becoming progressively clearer and clearer that podcasts are the way of the future, that the best podcasters out there still do not have something like this standard in all of their websites.
How hard is it to put a "want to sponsor the program" page with contact info?
Look, I do not get paid for this. I am really just that happy of a customer and perhaps more stunned from an economics standpoint how celebrity podcasters just aren't monetizing their sites. Regardless, I cannot endorse Tom Leykis' Show and Gary's professionalism enough for all you budding entrepreneurs looking to expand your business. The demographics are perfect, the price is affordable, chances are (unlike pretty much any radio ads you might run) you will get a positive rate of return on your investment.
How hard is it to put a "want to sponsor the program" page with contact info?
Look, I do not get paid for this. I am really just that happy of a customer and perhaps more stunned from an economics standpoint how celebrity podcasters just aren't monetizing their sites. Regardless, I cannot endorse Tom Leykis' Show and Gary's professionalism enough for all you budding entrepreneurs looking to expand your business. The demographics are perfect, the price is affordable, chances are (unlike pretty much any radio ads you might run) you will get a positive rate of return on your investment.
Monday, November 18, 2013
How Running Can Trick Your Brain Into Thinking You Have Agency
"Agency" is a word Mr. Aurini taught me (among many others). It not only refers to an organization you might work for, but also means purpose or usefulness. It also happens to be a mandatory requirement for all men to attain happiness.
If a man doesn't have agency or purpose in life, he becomes depressed and lethargic. Sometimes even suicidal. Just look at what happens to men after they retire from a successful career. Many, at best, go through a funk. Others get angry, irritated, depressed and don't know what to do with themselves. But forget men who are lucky enough to have a "successful" career. Consider young men today.
Most young men today have had the three main ways they can attain agency denied to them:
Career/provider
Husband
Father
And this was done largely at the hands of women (and lefty pansied men) who voted in government to supplant men in these roles.
The economy is shot and offers no employment opportunities (let alone something as idealistic as a "career") as it is no longer focused on the private sector and growth, but rather wealth redistribution and supporting out parasitic classes.
Becoming a husband is becoming impossible as feminism has turned the quality and caliber of women into this.
And without a wife, let alone a career, it's pretty hard to become a father. Oh sure, men will inseminate women. Sure, they'll breed. But they won't raise a child or spend time bringing the child up. Besides, that's now the job of state-run schools and divorce courts.
So there sits about 2 full generations of young men, full of capacity, full of potential, laying idle and twiddling their thumbs. And just as government has supplanted their roles in society, these men have turned to video games, booze, drugs, porn, even crime to replace women's.
But drink all the booze you want and save the princess a million times, in the end your genetic hard-wiring will take over. And no matter how much you fight it, you will get depressed you have no career, you have no family, and you have no future. The environment is hostile to men's nature and it is an uphill battle to find agency and thus happiness.
But may I make a suggestion? It doesn't solve the underlying problem, but does, in a sneaky way, provide men with a substitute for agency.
Start running.
Running is a way to trick your brain into thinking you have agency. In the darkest days of my life I would get up and literally be incapacitated. I could not move. Not because of neural damaged, but every choice, every action I had available to me led nowhere. So why choose any of them. It had no purpose. And so I laid there on the couch, getting up to get food or go to the bathroom occasionally. My frontal lobes knew, however, this was not a viable long term plan. I had to do something, but with no career, no desire to meet girls, and no (at that time) obvious entrepreneurial opportunities, I did the only thing I could do.
I ran.
Not that I hadn't ran before, I always knocked out 3 miles every other day to keep in shape. But now I was running to kill time. And so instead of my short 25 minute run around Lake of the Isles, I was running 10 miles, everyday. I'd return home and for once I felt completely normal. I wasn't sad, I may have even felt like going out that night to an old haunt. But soon the endorphins wore off and I was back to incapacitation.
Time for weights.
Understand at this point in time I was so defeated I also wasn't eating much. I had dropped from 150 pounds to 125. But, add the running and weight lifting, I was ripped. Not an ounce of fat on me. I could bench press 180 pounds and knock out 150 push ups non-stop. But I wasn't lifting weights to get ripped. Matter of fact, I LOATHED lifting weights. It was the "normal" feeling I wanted after. I refused to do anti-depressants and so weights it was.
Sure enough, after an hour or two, I was feeling "normal" again.
Ideally this would last me into the night at which time I would pop two sleeping pills to knock me out to the real world. And sure enough, my internal organs would not fail me, and I would wake up the next day to start the whole miserable process over again.
This lasted about a year, but inevitably things turned around. When a recruiter called me I was drunk and went into a rage, tirading against the banking industry and how I wasn't baby sitting "dumb, mother fucking, middle aged bankers who can't do Excel."
I got the job.
I had self-taught myself salsa and ballroom dancing.
My dance class revenues tripled.
And though I hated every second of lifting weights,
girls were throwing themselves at me.
Then one day (ironically listening to this song of all things-have to get to the 55 second mark) I all of the sudden realized something - I was happy. I had created my own agency despite society's best efforts to deny me any. I was getting up to do things in life, not merely to run.
Since then, of course my running and weight lifting has tanked. I only knock out 6 miles every other day. I lift weights, but only do enough to keep in shape, and my girlfriend is an outstanding cook, nursing me back to 150 pounds. But I will never forget the role running (and lifting) played in my overcoming that depression. Not because it made me feel normal, but because it didn't make sense at the time why it did. But in hindsight I now know why.
Running or any exercise directly stimulates the lizard part of your brain and tricks it into thinking you have a point or purpose in life. When you are exercising your hindbrain is thinking, "We must be doing something productive. We must be hunting mammoth or toiling in the fields. We are being productive. We have agency." which then continues to have your various glands produce various hormones and chemicals that make you feel good. Of course you don't have purpose. YOu don't have agency. And once you stop working out your frontal lobes that are acutely aware of this fact take over, sending you back to Cameron-ville (Ferris Bueller). But for that hour of working out and the two hours after that your brain and body are given the much-needed "normal feeling" you need to get through the worst bouts of depression.
Now, is every Millennial male and young Gen X man in the throes of a crushing depression?
No, of course not.
But they are without agency or purpose, and they are in a hostile environment that will never provide them the opportunity to have those things. This will at minimum put most young men in a funk and lessen their quality of life. But this does not have to be the case. All a young man has to do is start running (or working out). This won't guarantee a job opens up. This won't guarantee a career becomes a possibility. And it certainly won't turn women today into the Sophia Lorens and June Cleavers we demand. But it will, on a subconscious, cave-man level trick you into thinking otherwise and make it much easier to enjoy the decline.
If a man doesn't have agency or purpose in life, he becomes depressed and lethargic. Sometimes even suicidal. Just look at what happens to men after they retire from a successful career. Many, at best, go through a funk. Others get angry, irritated, depressed and don't know what to do with themselves. But forget men who are lucky enough to have a "successful" career. Consider young men today.
Most young men today have had the three main ways they can attain agency denied to them:
Career/provider
Husband
Father
And this was done largely at the hands of women (and lefty pansied men) who voted in government to supplant men in these roles.
The economy is shot and offers no employment opportunities (let alone something as idealistic as a "career") as it is no longer focused on the private sector and growth, but rather wealth redistribution and supporting out parasitic classes.
Becoming a husband is becoming impossible as feminism has turned the quality and caliber of women into this.
And without a wife, let alone a career, it's pretty hard to become a father. Oh sure, men will inseminate women. Sure, they'll breed. But they won't raise a child or spend time bringing the child up. Besides, that's now the job of state-run schools and divorce courts.
So there sits about 2 full generations of young men, full of capacity, full of potential, laying idle and twiddling their thumbs. And just as government has supplanted their roles in society, these men have turned to video games, booze, drugs, porn, even crime to replace women's.
But drink all the booze you want and save the princess a million times, in the end your genetic hard-wiring will take over. And no matter how much you fight it, you will get depressed you have no career, you have no family, and you have no future. The environment is hostile to men's nature and it is an uphill battle to find agency and thus happiness.
But may I make a suggestion? It doesn't solve the underlying problem, but does, in a sneaky way, provide men with a substitute for agency.
Start running.
Running is a way to trick your brain into thinking you have agency. In the darkest days of my life I would get up and literally be incapacitated. I could not move. Not because of neural damaged, but every choice, every action I had available to me led nowhere. So why choose any of them. It had no purpose. And so I laid there on the couch, getting up to get food or go to the bathroom occasionally. My frontal lobes knew, however, this was not a viable long term plan. I had to do something, but with no career, no desire to meet girls, and no (at that time) obvious entrepreneurial opportunities, I did the only thing I could do.
I ran.
Not that I hadn't ran before, I always knocked out 3 miles every other day to keep in shape. But now I was running to kill time. And so instead of my short 25 minute run around Lake of the Isles, I was running 10 miles, everyday. I'd return home and for once I felt completely normal. I wasn't sad, I may have even felt like going out that night to an old haunt. But soon the endorphins wore off and I was back to incapacitation.
Time for weights.
Understand at this point in time I was so defeated I also wasn't eating much. I had dropped from 150 pounds to 125. But, add the running and weight lifting, I was ripped. Not an ounce of fat on me. I could bench press 180 pounds and knock out 150 push ups non-stop. But I wasn't lifting weights to get ripped. Matter of fact, I LOATHED lifting weights. It was the "normal" feeling I wanted after. I refused to do anti-depressants and so weights it was.
Sure enough, after an hour or two, I was feeling "normal" again.
Ideally this would last me into the night at which time I would pop two sleeping pills to knock me out to the real world. And sure enough, my internal organs would not fail me, and I would wake up the next day to start the whole miserable process over again.
This lasted about a year, but inevitably things turned around. When a recruiter called me I was drunk and went into a rage, tirading against the banking industry and how I wasn't baby sitting "dumb, mother fucking, middle aged bankers who can't do Excel."
I got the job.
I had self-taught myself salsa and ballroom dancing.
My dance class revenues tripled.
And though I hated every second of lifting weights,
girls were throwing themselves at me.
Then one day (ironically listening to this song of all things-have to get to the 55 second mark) I all of the sudden realized something - I was happy. I had created my own agency despite society's best efforts to deny me any. I was getting up to do things in life, not merely to run.
Since then, of course my running and weight lifting has tanked. I only knock out 6 miles every other day. I lift weights, but only do enough to keep in shape, and my girlfriend is an outstanding cook, nursing me back to 150 pounds. But I will never forget the role running (and lifting) played in my overcoming that depression. Not because it made me feel normal, but because it didn't make sense at the time why it did. But in hindsight I now know why.
Running or any exercise directly stimulates the lizard part of your brain and tricks it into thinking you have a point or purpose in life. When you are exercising your hindbrain is thinking, "We must be doing something productive. We must be hunting mammoth or toiling in the fields. We are being productive. We have agency." which then continues to have your various glands produce various hormones and chemicals that make you feel good. Of course you don't have purpose. YOu don't have agency. And once you stop working out your frontal lobes that are acutely aware of this fact take over, sending you back to Cameron-ville (Ferris Bueller). But for that hour of working out and the two hours after that your brain and body are given the much-needed "normal feeling" you need to get through the worst bouts of depression.
Now, is every Millennial male and young Gen X man in the throes of a crushing depression?
No, of course not.
But they are without agency or purpose, and they are in a hostile environment that will never provide them the opportunity to have those things. This will at minimum put most young men in a funk and lessen their quality of life. But this does not have to be the case. All a young man has to do is start running (or working out). This won't guarantee a job opens up. This won't guarantee a career becomes a possibility. And it certainly won't turn women today into the Sophia Lorens and June Cleavers we demand. But it will, on a subconscious, cave-man level trick you into thinking otherwise and make it much easier to enjoy the decline.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Another Successful Parochial Student
Remember parents.
Force feed Jesus down your kids' throats.
The results are great!
The money quote though:
"But Miss Desaine – who insists that all her conquests wear a condom – added: ‘I hope employers see it as a bit of fun and it shows I am more confident than the average girl."
For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick.
Force feed Jesus down your kids' throats.
The results are great!
The money quote though:
"But Miss Desaine – who insists that all her conquests wear a condom – added: ‘I hope employers see it as a bit of fun and it shows I am more confident than the average girl."
For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick.
AKA "Dating is An Expensive Pain in the Ass"
Sit down and pay attention kiddies as Reverend Dalrock delivers his latest sermon explaining why men are not just pulling out of the marriages market, but the dating market as well.
Enjoy the decline!
Enjoy the decline!
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Use the MSM, Don't Let Them Use You
These people are no geniuses with diabolical plans, because if they
were, they wouldn’t have gone to work into media in the first place (my
experience shows that reporters are not the mostly intellectually
curious of people). Any agenda they have against you is primarily due to
mental indolence. They work with people who all think they same because
they all graduated from the same colleges. Think of them as bubbly, useful idiots who hate rocking the boat.
The Destruction Principle
Gather 'round kids and let the ole Captain tell you a story which will explain the sometimes confusing and hypocritical behavior of leftists.
Many years ago me and my brother were engaged in glorious snow fort battle. Never had he or I ever built stronger, sturdier snow forts. We would go out at night and pour water on our forts so they would be reinforced with a 3 inch coating of ice. So strong were the forts they were impenetrable to snow balls. So we started (much to the concern of our mother) building and throwing ice balls.
While more dangerous, they were more effective, knocking off a chip of the snow fort here. A chip of the snow fort there, and then we're hurriedly jump out of our forts to repair them while having a gentlemen's agreement to then attack the other side of our opponent's fort.
Then something dawned on me.
If I were to build a simple column of snow on the top of my fort, much like a thick snow flagpole, my brother would be tempted to knock it down. This would then draw the majority of his fire and munitions, and he would waste those precious resources on a pointless target, while I could reinforce my fort and build more ice balls.
It worked.
Once built nearly all of his missiles were directed at the snow column and I was allowed to strengthen my fort. Occasionally he would hit it, knocking it down and then celebrating. But I would just put up a new column in a matter of seconds and continue on.
Naturally, this was quite some time ago. But what I learned back in 1986 has always carried forward with me. People like easy targets.
Now take this fact and apply it to the modern day leftists or liberal. Specifically, environmentalists and protestors.
Do you know why liberals are protesting fracking in the Bakken oil field?
Do you know why liberals are protesting against nuclear energy?
Do you know why liberals are protesting, well....anything they protest?
What they will tell you is that they are doing it for some noble cause or another. To protect the environment. To protect the children. To save the whales. But this is nothing but an outright lie. However, what's really interesting about this lie is that they are telling it not so much to convince you about their nobility, but rather to convince themselves.
And this is where The Destruction Principle comes in.
Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy. They do not want to work. They do not want to strive. They want an easy and paid-for life as much as possible.
However, the second most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is their ego. They have to be applauded. They have to worshipped. They have to be doing something that provides them and their ego validation.
Naturally, these two traits are mutually exclusive. If you aren't going to work hard for a living, if you're not going to strive towards something, if you're incapable of rigor, then you will achieve nothing noteworthy and your ego will go unvalidated. However, leftists' egos are so huge and so hungry they inevitably have to "do something," and so, just like my brother did in 1986, they go for easy, but pointless, targets.
Going green.
Driving a Prius.
Shopping at Whole Foods
etc.
All of these things are nothing more than substitutes for hard work, production, self-supportation, and genuine human value. They are nothing more than rituals, no different than rituals performed at a church. They are pointless, they achieve nothing, but they make their religious participants falsely "feel good about themselves."
However, where the "destruction" in The Destruction Principle comes in is where you have your environmentalists or your most vain and vile leftists. For example, if some dolt wants to buy a Prius and smugly put their MPG on a vanity plate, they aren't really hurting anybody. They are destroying nothing. But if you have protestors who are going to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, then you are costing people their lives, jobs, not to mention economic growth for the country. You are causing destruction.
And that's The Destruction Principle.
In short, The Destruction Principle is:
"Worthless people, in order to validate their egos, but avoid any real work, will take the production, success, and work of others, villainize it, protest against it, and ultimately destroy it. Not because other people's production, success and work was evil, but because it is easier to destroy other people's work that already exists, rather that build up something of genuine value yourself."
Now, understand just what negative-NPV-humans these vermin are.
They are so arrogant, so lazy, so full of themselves, they have no problems ruining the lives of others, just so they can feel good about themselves.
They are so vile, they don't mind holding up the economic growth of the entire nation, as long as they can go and protest against "global warming," "patriarchy," or any one of the fashionable leftistsreligions causes.
Worse, they are so evil they would rather destroy something that is good, because it's easier than working hard and producing something of value themselves.
Again, look at the Keystone pipeline. To build that would take engineers, chemists, accountants, and skilled tradesmen. But look at just one of the key opponents to it. A worthless crusader who is deathly afraid of real work, never held a real job in her life, and will ruin the lives of millions to avoid it.
Now I know I receive some criticism and guff for simplifying things. But it really is that simple. People who don't like hard work or math are the cause of the majority of our problems today. People who major in worthless degrees are declaring to the world they don't want to work hard, but still want to be in charge. And when you throw in ego and The Destruction Principle, you have a veritable mental-cancer that infects people, has them attack others, and slowly kill off the body known as society. I just wanted to identify and define the problem/symptom as that is the first step to solving problems.
Enjoy the decline!
(If you liked this post you would most likely enjoy my 8 part Youtube series on "Crusaderism")
Many years ago me and my brother were engaged in glorious snow fort battle. Never had he or I ever built stronger, sturdier snow forts. We would go out at night and pour water on our forts so they would be reinforced with a 3 inch coating of ice. So strong were the forts they were impenetrable to snow balls. So we started (much to the concern of our mother) building and throwing ice balls.
While more dangerous, they were more effective, knocking off a chip of the snow fort here. A chip of the snow fort there, and then we're hurriedly jump out of our forts to repair them while having a gentlemen's agreement to then attack the other side of our opponent's fort.
Then something dawned on me.
If I were to build a simple column of snow on the top of my fort, much like a thick snow flagpole, my brother would be tempted to knock it down. This would then draw the majority of his fire and munitions, and he would waste those precious resources on a pointless target, while I could reinforce my fort and build more ice balls.
It worked.
Once built nearly all of his missiles were directed at the snow column and I was allowed to strengthen my fort. Occasionally he would hit it, knocking it down and then celebrating. But I would just put up a new column in a matter of seconds and continue on.
Naturally, this was quite some time ago. But what I learned back in 1986 has always carried forward with me. People like easy targets.
Now take this fact and apply it to the modern day leftists or liberal. Specifically, environmentalists and protestors.
Do you know why liberals are protesting fracking in the Bakken oil field?
Do you know why liberals are protesting against nuclear energy?
Do you know why liberals are protesting, well....anything they protest?
What they will tell you is that they are doing it for some noble cause or another. To protect the environment. To protect the children. To save the whales. But this is nothing but an outright lie. However, what's really interesting about this lie is that they are telling it not so much to convince you about their nobility, but rather to convince themselves.
And this is where The Destruction Principle comes in.
Understand the single most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is that they are lazy. They do not want to work. They do not want to strive. They want an easy and paid-for life as much as possible.
However, the second most defining characteristic of a liberal or a leftist is their ego. They have to be applauded. They have to worshipped. They have to be doing something that provides them and their ego validation.
Naturally, these two traits are mutually exclusive. If you aren't going to work hard for a living, if you're not going to strive towards something, if you're incapable of rigor, then you will achieve nothing noteworthy and your ego will go unvalidated. However, leftists' egos are so huge and so hungry they inevitably have to "do something," and so, just like my brother did in 1986, they go for easy, but pointless, targets.
Going green.
Driving a Prius.
Shopping at Whole Foods
etc.
All of these things are nothing more than substitutes for hard work, production, self-supportation, and genuine human value. They are nothing more than rituals, no different than rituals performed at a church. They are pointless, they achieve nothing, but they make their religious participants falsely "feel good about themselves."
However, where the "destruction" in The Destruction Principle comes in is where you have your environmentalists or your most vain and vile leftists. For example, if some dolt wants to buy a Prius and smugly put their MPG on a vanity plate, they aren't really hurting anybody. They are destroying nothing. But if you have protestors who are going to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, then you are costing people their lives, jobs, not to mention economic growth for the country. You are causing destruction.
And that's The Destruction Principle.
In short, The Destruction Principle is:
"Worthless people, in order to validate their egos, but avoid any real work, will take the production, success, and work of others, villainize it, protest against it, and ultimately destroy it. Not because other people's production, success and work was evil, but because it is easier to destroy other people's work that already exists, rather that build up something of genuine value yourself."
Now, understand just what negative-NPV-humans these vermin are.
They are so arrogant, so lazy, so full of themselves, they have no problems ruining the lives of others, just so they can feel good about themselves.
They are so vile, they don't mind holding up the economic growth of the entire nation, as long as they can go and protest against "global warming," "patriarchy," or any one of the fashionable leftists
Worse, they are so evil they would rather destroy something that is good, because it's easier than working hard and producing something of value themselves.
Again, look at the Keystone pipeline. To build that would take engineers, chemists, accountants, and skilled tradesmen. But look at just one of the key opponents to it. A worthless crusader who is deathly afraid of real work, never held a real job in her life, and will ruin the lives of millions to avoid it.
Now I know I receive some criticism and guff for simplifying things. But it really is that simple. People who don't like hard work or math are the cause of the majority of our problems today. People who major in worthless degrees are declaring to the world they don't want to work hard, but still want to be in charge. And when you throw in ego and The Destruction Principle, you have a veritable mental-cancer that infects people, has them attack others, and slowly kill off the body known as society. I just wanted to identify and define the problem/symptom as that is the first step to solving problems.
Enjoy the decline!
(If you liked this post you would most likely enjoy my 8 part Youtube series on "Crusaderism")
Thursday, November 14, 2013
I Will Only Protect the Women Close to Me
Hosurance is the correct moniker to explain this utterly contemptible and disgusting advertisement by Colorado's insurance exchange. I won't delve into it in detail as I believe Roissy has done a good enough job, but I will merely point out two things this vile and childish advertisement screams at everyone:
1. American women have decayed so much that this isn't considered a parody or mockery of them, but rather an accurate portrayal. Making it worse, the advertisement was likely made by liberal women who have no clue just how badly they've presented women.
2. This is young women telling men they don't need men, they just need the government. Maybe a fling here or there, but man's role in society is no longer provider, father or head of household, just a hot guy for a romp around the bedroom.
To that end, it is now my policy to only help women I know and trust. If I'm already paying for harlots' health insurance and they're going to return the favor by acting like Miley Ray Cyrus and marrying the government, I'm done. I don't care if it's -20 and you're on the side of a road with an overturned car. If it doesn't have a conservative bumper stick or some other obvious evidence you care to support yourself, call up the federal government tow-car hotline.
1. American women have decayed so much that this isn't considered a parody or mockery of them, but rather an accurate portrayal. Making it worse, the advertisement was likely made by liberal women who have no clue just how badly they've presented women.
2. This is young women telling men they don't need men, they just need the government. Maybe a fling here or there, but man's role in society is no longer provider, father or head of household, just a hot guy for a romp around the bedroom.
To that end, it is now my policy to only help women I know and trust. If I'm already paying for harlots' health insurance and they're going to return the favor by acting like Miley Ray Cyrus and marrying the government, I'm done. I don't care if it's -20 and you're on the side of a road with an overturned car. If it doesn't have a conservative bumper stick or some other obvious evidence you care to support yourself, call up the federal government tow-car hotline.
All Employers Are Like That
From my upcoming book "Bachelor Pad Economics" (slated for early December)
The result of such a disparity between what you are capable of and what the real world has to offer is a working environment that not only will spectacularly fail to meet your lofty expectations of challenge and reward, but crush your hopes and dreams of the future. After nearly two decades of schooling it will take you months just to land an interview, sometimes years to find a job. After flirting with the likelihood you’ll have to go on welfare, you will have a bit of “luck” and maybe land a job. You will desperately take it just so you can make ends meet, but you will soon find out it is tedious, mundane, and nothing like what your employer said it would be. You will think you’re just “unlucky,” that not all employers are like that, and it’s just a matter of finding another employer. But you will soon find out, job after job, that all employers are indeed “like that.”
In the meantime consider getting an early jump on Christmas shopping as you spread Cappy Cap Cheer (TM) by purchasing any one of my books.
The result of such a disparity between what you are capable of and what the real world has to offer is a working environment that not only will spectacularly fail to meet your lofty expectations of challenge and reward, but crush your hopes and dreams of the future. After nearly two decades of schooling it will take you months just to land an interview, sometimes years to find a job. After flirting with the likelihood you’ll have to go on welfare, you will have a bit of “luck” and maybe land a job. You will desperately take it just so you can make ends meet, but you will soon find out it is tedious, mundane, and nothing like what your employer said it would be. You will think you’re just “unlucky,” that not all employers are like that, and it’s just a matter of finding another employer. But you will soon find out, job after job, that all employers are indeed “like that.”
In the meantime consider getting an early jump on Christmas shopping as you spread Cappy Cap Cheer (TM) by purchasing any one of my books.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
If It Weren't for Divorce, I'd Have to Get a Real Job
To all the parents out there getting divorced, keep it up! We here in the Manosphere need a constant supply of new and screwed up kids to buy our books, subscribe to our YouTube channels, and give us a token amount of money to set them straight and tell them like it is!
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
So Atheism IS a Religion!
Never understood how atheists are so adamant about being atheist. I mean, isn't one of the biggest benefits of being an atheist that you DON'T have to go to church? Me think they doth protest too much.
Enjoying the Misery of Others
...results from the latest "Racist Running Game,"
the "Mythical Jewish Bar of St. Louis Park,"
bars of the wild west,
and more!
In this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
the "Mythical Jewish Bar of St. Louis Park,"
bars of the wild west,
and more!
In this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
It's "Her Day"
I gotta do more videos when I'm half in the bag. They come out much better than originally think. (language warning).
Regardless, I eviscerate the idiots dropping $25,000 on weddings only to have half of them end up divorced. Not to mention that money could go to a house or some kid's college fund.
Regardless, I eviscerate the idiots dropping $25,000 on weddings only to have half of them end up divorced. Not to mention that money could go to a house or some kid's college fund.
Monday, November 11, 2013
The MGTOW Official Theme Song
Don't know why I didn't think of this before, but it is
"Pass Me By"
perfectly illustrated by Cary Grant portraying Walter Ecklund.
"Pass Me By"
perfectly illustrated by Cary Grant portraying Walter Ecklund.
I Finally Figured Out Bitcoin
Economists,
Lieutenants,
Agents in the Field,
lend me your ears!
For I have finally figured out bitcoin! And truthfully, this is one of my best mental achievements. And hopefully, through my ability to write clearly and explain things, I may be able to explain bitcoin to us all.
I had listened to this podcast of Stefan Molyneux on bitcoin. It was very good, but did not fully answer my question, "why does a bitcoin have any value?" However, what the podcast did do is bring my perception or "observation" up high enough that I could finally see and conclude how bitcoin does actually have value.
To understand why bitcoin has value, you first need to think about why currencies exist in the first place.
The answer from an economics 202 class is "to avoid barter."
Barter is horribly inefficient. If you are a cow herder and want a pint of ale, well, you're out of luck. Because you can't trade a whole cow for a measly pint of ale. Nor can you slice off pieces of beef from the live cow to make the trade more fair. Therefore, if any kind of economic trade and progress is to be made, you need a currency.
Historically, this has meant anything from gold and silver to salt and sea shells. But regardless of what item inevitably becomes an local economy's currency, they all have some key traits and qualities in common.
Divisibility - You can divide gold, silver or salt into measurable quantities. Pounds, ounces, grams, etc. This allows you to scale the currency to the value of the item you wish to purchase.
Durability - The currency cannot rot or decay over time. Milk is a bad currency because in 3 years time it will be quite gross. Gold in 3 years time will still be gold.
Store of Value - The currency must also maintain its value and purchasing power over time. If you're like Venezuela and constantly printing off more commie paper money, it will lose its value. But with a limited supply (gold, silver, diamonds, etc.) you can assume that currency will still have roughly the same amount of purchasing power as it did.
Finally,
Intrinsic Value - The currency must have some kind of real value. Gold can be used for jewelry. Silver can be used in electronics. Copper can be used in plumbing. Salt can be used in cooking. In other words, people will take it as a currency, because even if they don't use it themselves, they know somebody who will. It does have an intrinsic value unto itself.
And it is here (intrinsic value) where most people get lost on bitcoin.
Bitcoin meets all the OTHER characteristics and traits of a good currency. It's divisible. It's durable (infinitely as it is digital). And it will not decay (again, binary doesn't decay).
But precisely what practical, real world application does it have? You can't use it in electronics. You can't make jewelry (aka - buying sex) with it. So why does it have any intrinsic value at all?
The answer lies in comparing a currency's "intrinsic value" versus its value as a currency.
For example look at what has served as the primary currency throughout most of human history - gold.
Why does gold have intrinsic value?
Economists will answer, "because you can use it in jewelry" which is the polite person's way of saying, "men can buy sex with it."
But does that make any sense? That ONE thing you can do with gold, "make jewelry" is why it served as the standard currency for thousands of years across the planet? What you'll soon realize is that, yes, while gold can be used to make jewelry it serves a much more important function to society as a currency. In other words, an item's value as a currency is really not dependent on its intrinsic value. It just needs SOME intrinsic value to get people to have faith in it and start trading it.
Salt can be used to flavor and store food. Was that grounds enough to make it the Mali Empire's default currency?
Silver can be used to make jewelry and some industrial items. Was that grounds enough to make it the currency of the wild west?
Large clam shells could make some funky and uncomfortable bras in ancient Polynesia. Was that grounds enough to make it the default currency in the south Pacific?
Apparently so, because it DID HAPPEN. But not because of jewelry making potential or food storage potential. That was just "enough" intrinsic value to suffice. It was because those items provided more value to the economy as a currency than it did some as jewelry making materials or food flavoring. And to prove it an interesting comparison would be to compare the amount of gold (or silver) actually being used as jewelry versus that of currency, bullion or investment. I'd surmise over time, 90% of silver and gold has been used as a currency and NOT tiaras.
Understanding that a currency derives most of its value from its NON-intrinsic value traits, and only needs a "little" intrinsic value, this then puts the focus on how bitcoin derives it's "little" but necessary intrinsic value.
The answer is simple - scarcity.
Consider diamonds.
Why do they have value?
Taking the jewelry and industrial drilling uses of it away, why do they have value?
The answer is, they don't. They serve no purpose. At least from a PRACTICAL or PURPOSEFUL perspective.
But because they are so rare people will scramble for them. But understand what we're talking about when we talk about "scarcity" or "rarity." It is in relation to other things.
On this planet there is 9 quadrillion megatons of dirt and maybe 100,000 pounds of diamonds. Both dirt and diamonds have no real practical use or value, but diamonds are considered infinitely more valuable. Ergo, when we talk about scarcity, is merely a RATIO between two items that determine whether it is valuable or not. It is simply the ratio of the supply of one thing on the planet (copper) versus that of another (platinum).
And this is why bitcoin has that wee bit of necessary intrinsic value. It is very much like diamonds in that is has no practical use, but it is scarce. Matter of fact, diamonds, gold, silver, rare earth, etc., are constantly being dug up out of the ground. The makers of bitcoin have limited their supply to 21 million units forever, making it even more scarce.
In the end, bitcoin is really nothing more than a private sector currency akin to digital diamonds. And it is my opinion, you have a currency that is better than any official government fiat currency out there as it cannot be hyper-inflated away by a central bank. However, there are some drawbacks to bitcoin.
One, it is completely dependent upon the internet working. Any post apocalyptic event that shuts it down or turns off the electricity, and it's about as valuable as those gold ETF's you have. Two, it is not yet universally accepted by people. This may change over time, but it is a distinct (though growing) minority who use bitcoin. Three, it is such a threat to other established currencies I have no doubt in my mind governments will do everything they can to put the kibosh on it. Fourth, it can be undermined by another digital and more preferable currency.
Regardless, whether bitcoin ends up becoming a universally accepted currency is another matter. the key economic lesson to take from this is what drives the value of a currency is not so much its intrinsic value as much as it is the amount of value society puts on it as a tool for exchange.
(if you liked this post and it finally explained that NAGGING question, "how does Bitcoin have any value" please consider buying some of my books- Worthless, Enjoy the Decline, How to Privatize Governments, and Boris the Shitting Buffalo)
Lieutenants,
Agents in the Field,
lend me your ears!
For I have finally figured out bitcoin! And truthfully, this is one of my best mental achievements. And hopefully, through my ability to write clearly and explain things, I may be able to explain bitcoin to us all.
I had listened to this podcast of Stefan Molyneux on bitcoin. It was very good, but did not fully answer my question, "why does a bitcoin have any value?" However, what the podcast did do is bring my perception or "observation" up high enough that I could finally see and conclude how bitcoin does actually have value.
To understand why bitcoin has value, you first need to think about why currencies exist in the first place.
The answer from an economics 202 class is "to avoid barter."
Barter is horribly inefficient. If you are a cow herder and want a pint of ale, well, you're out of luck. Because you can't trade a whole cow for a measly pint of ale. Nor can you slice off pieces of beef from the live cow to make the trade more fair. Therefore, if any kind of economic trade and progress is to be made, you need a currency.
Historically, this has meant anything from gold and silver to salt and sea shells. But regardless of what item inevitably becomes an local economy's currency, they all have some key traits and qualities in common.
Divisibility - You can divide gold, silver or salt into measurable quantities. Pounds, ounces, grams, etc. This allows you to scale the currency to the value of the item you wish to purchase.
Durability - The currency cannot rot or decay over time. Milk is a bad currency because in 3 years time it will be quite gross. Gold in 3 years time will still be gold.
Store of Value - The currency must also maintain its value and purchasing power over time. If you're like Venezuela and constantly printing off more commie paper money, it will lose its value. But with a limited supply (gold, silver, diamonds, etc.) you can assume that currency will still have roughly the same amount of purchasing power as it did.
Finally,
Intrinsic Value - The currency must have some kind of real value. Gold can be used for jewelry. Silver can be used in electronics. Copper can be used in plumbing. Salt can be used in cooking. In other words, people will take it as a currency, because even if they don't use it themselves, they know somebody who will. It does have an intrinsic value unto itself.
And it is here (intrinsic value) where most people get lost on bitcoin.
Bitcoin meets all the OTHER characteristics and traits of a good currency. It's divisible. It's durable (infinitely as it is digital). And it will not decay (again, binary doesn't decay).
But precisely what practical, real world application does it have? You can't use it in electronics. You can't make jewelry (aka - buying sex) with it. So why does it have any intrinsic value at all?
The answer lies in comparing a currency's "intrinsic value" versus its value as a currency.
For example look at what has served as the primary currency throughout most of human history - gold.
Why does gold have intrinsic value?
Economists will answer, "because you can use it in jewelry" which is the polite person's way of saying, "men can buy sex with it."
But does that make any sense? That ONE thing you can do with gold, "make jewelry" is why it served as the standard currency for thousands of years across the planet? What you'll soon realize is that, yes, while gold can be used to make jewelry it serves a much more important function to society as a currency. In other words, an item's value as a currency is really not dependent on its intrinsic value. It just needs SOME intrinsic value to get people to have faith in it and start trading it.
Salt can be used to flavor and store food. Was that grounds enough to make it the Mali Empire's default currency?
Silver can be used to make jewelry and some industrial items. Was that grounds enough to make it the currency of the wild west?
Large clam shells could make some funky and uncomfortable bras in ancient Polynesia. Was that grounds enough to make it the default currency in the south Pacific?
Apparently so, because it DID HAPPEN. But not because of jewelry making potential or food storage potential. That was just "enough" intrinsic value to suffice. It was because those items provided more value to the economy as a currency than it did some as jewelry making materials or food flavoring. And to prove it an interesting comparison would be to compare the amount of gold (or silver) actually being used as jewelry versus that of currency, bullion or investment. I'd surmise over time, 90% of silver and gold has been used as a currency and NOT tiaras.
Understanding that a currency derives most of its value from its NON-intrinsic value traits, and only needs a "little" intrinsic value, this then puts the focus on how bitcoin derives it's "little" but necessary intrinsic value.
The answer is simple - scarcity.
Consider diamonds.
Why do they have value?
Taking the jewelry and industrial drilling uses of it away, why do they have value?
The answer is, they don't. They serve no purpose. At least from a PRACTICAL or PURPOSEFUL perspective.
But because they are so rare people will scramble for them. But understand what we're talking about when we talk about "scarcity" or "rarity." It is in relation to other things.
On this planet there is 9 quadrillion megatons of dirt and maybe 100,000 pounds of diamonds. Both dirt and diamonds have no real practical use or value, but diamonds are considered infinitely more valuable. Ergo, when we talk about scarcity, is merely a RATIO between two items that determine whether it is valuable or not. It is simply the ratio of the supply of one thing on the planet (copper) versus that of another (platinum).
And this is why bitcoin has that wee bit of necessary intrinsic value. It is very much like diamonds in that is has no practical use, but it is scarce. Matter of fact, diamonds, gold, silver, rare earth, etc., are constantly being dug up out of the ground. The makers of bitcoin have limited their supply to 21 million units forever, making it even more scarce.
In the end, bitcoin is really nothing more than a private sector currency akin to digital diamonds. And it is my opinion, you have a currency that is better than any official government fiat currency out there as it cannot be hyper-inflated away by a central bank. However, there are some drawbacks to bitcoin.
One, it is completely dependent upon the internet working. Any post apocalyptic event that shuts it down or turns off the electricity, and it's about as valuable as those gold ETF's you have. Two, it is not yet universally accepted by people. This may change over time, but it is a distinct (though growing) minority who use bitcoin. Three, it is such a threat to other established currencies I have no doubt in my mind governments will do everything they can to put the kibosh on it. Fourth, it can be undermined by another digital and more preferable currency.
Regardless, whether bitcoin ends up becoming a universally accepted currency is another matter. the key economic lesson to take from this is what drives the value of a currency is not so much its intrinsic value as much as it is the amount of value society puts on it as a tool for exchange.
(if you liked this post and it finally explained that NAGGING question, "how does Bitcoin have any value" please consider buying some of my books- Worthless, Enjoy the Decline, How to Privatize Governments, and Boris the Shitting Buffalo)
Sunday, November 10, 2013
To Make You Seem Even Less Manly
Just watch this video and envy how cool it would have been to have Bruce Lee train you and get to spar against James Coburn or Steve McQueen.
Masters Degree in Pop Culture
For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick.
A reader told me about it, but I could believe it.
But it's true.
You can get ADVANCED DEGREES IN POP CULTURE.
What did you expect? It came from the Frankfurt School.
My favorite is it is so worthless it makes journalism seem like a WORTHWHILE MAJOR.
My god, and I even have to spend time arguing with these people why their degrees are worthless. The problem isn't worthless degrees. It's galactically stupid people who can't or refuse to see that.
A reader told me about it, but I could believe it.
But it's true.
You can get ADVANCED DEGREES IN POP CULTURE.
What did you expect? It came from the Frankfurt School.
My favorite is it is so worthless it makes journalism seem like a WORTHWHILE MAJOR.
My god, and I even have to spend time arguing with these people why their degrees are worthless. The problem isn't worthless degrees. It's galactically stupid people who can't or refuse to see that.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
The "Round-House-Kicking-Chick-Cop Test"
The Bechdel Test.
Never heard of it, but it turns out it's one of those things that proves we have too much government money going to worthless people with worthless goals and worthless lives.
So to show the feminists of the world a bit of solidarity I've come up with my own pointless test that in a very fascist way forces a pointless and harmful ideology on society for the sole purpose of bolstering my ego.
The "Round House Kicking Chick Cop Test" henceforth referred to as the RHKCCT
It is a very simple test.
If there's a cop show that stars or highlights women:
portraying cops,
who weigh less than 120 pounds and
displays them magically kicking the shit out of men who beat them by 80 pounds and
there's no way in hell in the real world they could pull that shit off
then that show and all the actresses that star in and foolish women who turn into that chick-porn get the Nelson Ha Ha Award, henceforth known as the NHHA.
Because, understand this. In order to pass the Bechdel test you need to have
two women
in starring roles
who never talk about men
Which I can sort of understand. But when Swedish theaters provide this rating for all their movies, then frankly it is hilarious, unlikely, delusional, dumber than shit, and not based in reality. Kind of like RHKCCT.
But since Swedish feminism doesn't care about sanity, reality, being dumber than shit, or advancing society, I figured I'd just pick something out from the female world that is infinitely more childish and pathetic, and maybe hope it would make them take a look in the mirror andbreak it...errr...realize their hypocrisy.
Should I hold my breath?
Never heard of it, but it turns out it's one of those things that proves we have too much government money going to worthless people with worthless goals and worthless lives.
So to show the feminists of the world a bit of solidarity I've come up with my own pointless test that in a very fascist way forces a pointless and harmful ideology on society for the sole purpose of bolstering my ego.
The "Round House Kicking Chick Cop Test" henceforth referred to as the RHKCCT
It is a very simple test.
If there's a cop show that stars or highlights women:
portraying cops,
who weigh less than 120 pounds and
displays them magically kicking the shit out of men who beat them by 80 pounds and
there's no way in hell in the real world they could pull that shit off
then that show and all the actresses that star in and foolish women who turn into that chick-porn get the Nelson Ha Ha Award, henceforth known as the NHHA.
Because, understand this. In order to pass the Bechdel test you need to have
two women
in starring roles
who never talk about men
Which I can sort of understand. But when Swedish theaters provide this rating for all their movies, then frankly it is hilarious, unlikely, delusional, dumber than shit, and not based in reality. Kind of like RHKCCT.
But since Swedish feminism doesn't care about sanity, reality, being dumber than shit, or advancing society, I figured I'd just pick something out from the female world that is infinitely more childish and pathetic, and maybe hope it would make them take a look in the mirror and
Should I hold my breath?
Remember, Avoid Women With Horses
It is a surefire way to determine the lack of sanity and fiscal discipline.
Friday, November 08, 2013
WhyYou Should Never Donate to the United Way
If something comes up on my radar once, I usually ignore it.
If something shows up twice, ehh...most likely coincidence.
Three times may be a short term trend.
But when it comes up FIVE times, then I know somethings amiss.
And something is terribly amiss with The United Way.
I have been out of the work force for quite sometime. And when I was in the work force, my wonderfully clam and amicable demeanor told any HR rep or manager never to ask me to donate to charity. It was very clear I was a stringent fiscal libertarian and really have no pity for the poor as I too was once poor and managed to get myself out of without a single penny of help from anybody.
But with an e-mail from a fan, "Rich," it makes now SIX times that I've heard about employees being forced or arm twisted by their bosses or their HR managers to donate to The United Way.
So I decided to do some research, and hokie smokes, it's a god damned epidemic. The most "authoritative" article (I guess) was this one here from the SF Gate. But a basic Bing search pulls up hundreds of stories, articles, discussion boards, etc. about how (in addition to a 40% tax rate) they're forced to donate to the United Way.
Why the United Way is so prevalent, and no other charities are mentioned, I do not know. And whereas my intellectually honest mind says, "There probably are other charities like this," my cynical and statistical mind says, "no, there's something nefarious going on here. The United Way would not be mentioned so frequently."
So lieutenants, economists, agents in the field, children, and Cappy Cappites, how about we flex this here new-found media muscle and do our best to dissuade people from donating to the United Way? Charity ought to be optional, not forced or coerced. And since we're already forced and coerced by liberals via the government to donate to their pet charities, the least we can do is tell the HR bitch and the manager douche to shove it next time they ask us to donate to the United Way.
If something shows up twice, ehh...most likely coincidence.
Three times may be a short term trend.
But when it comes up FIVE times, then I know somethings amiss.
And something is terribly amiss with The United Way.
I have been out of the work force for quite sometime. And when I was in the work force, my wonderfully clam and amicable demeanor told any HR rep or manager never to ask me to donate to charity. It was very clear I was a stringent fiscal libertarian and really have no pity for the poor as I too was once poor and managed to get myself out of without a single penny of help from anybody.
But with an e-mail from a fan, "Rich," it makes now SIX times that I've heard about employees being forced or arm twisted by their bosses or their HR managers to donate to The United Way.
So I decided to do some research, and hokie smokes, it's a god damned epidemic. The most "authoritative" article (I guess) was this one here from the SF Gate. But a basic Bing search pulls up hundreds of stories, articles, discussion boards, etc. about how (in addition to a 40% tax rate) they're forced to donate to the United Way.
Why the United Way is so prevalent, and no other charities are mentioned, I do not know. And whereas my intellectually honest mind says, "There probably are other charities like this," my cynical and statistical mind says, "no, there's something nefarious going on here. The United Way would not be mentioned so frequently."
So lieutenants, economists, agents in the field, children, and Cappy Cappites, how about we flex this here new-found media muscle and do our best to dissuade people from donating to the United Way? Charity ought to be optional, not forced or coerced. And since we're already forced and coerced by liberals via the government to donate to their pet charities, the least we can do is tell the HR bitch and the manager douche to shove it next time they ask us to donate to the United Way.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Crowding Out the Private Sector Husband
I was listening to Stefan Molyneux and he said something that made my economic spidey senses tingle a bit:
That the average unwed mother, supporting a family, received somewhere around $70,000 per year from the government in the various forms of social services, welfare, etc. He then went on to add if you considered public school that was another roughly $10,000 per child.
The number seemed a little high, and I cannot find the specific podcast, but I trust Stefan's veracity to ensure those numbers are correct, so for the purpose of this particular post, I'm going to assume it's true (if somebody has better data or can cite the study, please let me know). But the point Stefan was making was how this essentially supplanted men as the role of a provider. If the government is going to pay a single parent (typically the mother, but not always) $70,000 per year, then why would she bother looking for a husband, at least in the capacity of a provider?
Simple, she won't.
But this got me thinking. Assuming the $70,000 is accurate, what that essentially does is put a price floor on the marriage market. No woman is going to consider any man who makes less than $70,000 because that's the MINIMUM she's going to get from the government. So as a man, if you wish to participate in this market you need to make more than $70,000.
But what percent of men make that much?
Well off to do some research I went and found on wikipedia's entry on personal income that 87% of the population makes less than $75,000 per year (close enough). Yes this included women as well, which probably increased that percent, but let's just say 80% of men make less than $75,000 for the sake of argument. That's 4 out of every 5 men who cannot provide at the level the government does. 4 out of 5 men cannot compete in the marriage market.
Now, naturally, women don't just marry for the provider role, and there are a whole host of other variables that go into it, but the government at least at some level is crowding out men from this marriage market. And we all know from Economics 101 what happens when you set price floors and crowd buyers out of a market -
surpluses.
The chart above graphs your standard supply and demand curve market. The "supply" of women is in pink and denoted "S, women" while the "demand" for women (obviously by men) is in blue and denoted "D, men." Had there been no government interference, the market would "clear" at an equilibrium price that would be around what the median income is for your average man. This would be "normal" and normal women would marry normal men. You would have a normal house and normal children. And life would have gotten on like it always has, normally.
However, with the government essentially providing a $70,000 price guarantee, it throws the whole marriage market out of whack. At such a high income level, many more women are willing to get married, and so the supply of women increases and is denoted by the green S. But with only 20% of the male population making that kind of money or more, the demand drops to the green D. The difference between the plethora of women who are willing to get married and the few men who can afford it, is a surplus of women who constantly ask "where have all the good men gone?"
Of course, it is impossible to put precise numbers on this market. But it does go a long way in explaining, at least economically, why there seems to be a shortage of men (or a surplus of women). Government has crowded men out of the market by making it too expensive to compete in. It would be no different if the government came in and created a law putting the price of Playstation 4 at $5,000. Some people would buy it, but most others would simply not be able to afford it. However, instead of less video games being played, government's vying for the affection of women has resulted in less marriages. Perhaps they can design a government check that will hug you back at night.
Enjoy the decline ladies!
That the average unwed mother, supporting a family, received somewhere around $70,000 per year from the government in the various forms of social services, welfare, etc. He then went on to add if you considered public school that was another roughly $10,000 per child.
The number seemed a little high, and I cannot find the specific podcast, but I trust Stefan's veracity to ensure those numbers are correct, so for the purpose of this particular post, I'm going to assume it's true (if somebody has better data or can cite the study, please let me know). But the point Stefan was making was how this essentially supplanted men as the role of a provider. If the government is going to pay a single parent (typically the mother, but not always) $70,000 per year, then why would she bother looking for a husband, at least in the capacity of a provider?
Simple, she won't.
But this got me thinking. Assuming the $70,000 is accurate, what that essentially does is put a price floor on the marriage market. No woman is going to consider any man who makes less than $70,000 because that's the MINIMUM she's going to get from the government. So as a man, if you wish to participate in this market you need to make more than $70,000.
But what percent of men make that much?
Well off to do some research I went and found on wikipedia's entry on personal income that 87% of the population makes less than $75,000 per year (close enough). Yes this included women as well, which probably increased that percent, but let's just say 80% of men make less than $75,000 for the sake of argument. That's 4 out of every 5 men who cannot provide at the level the government does. 4 out of 5 men cannot compete in the marriage market.
Now, naturally, women don't just marry for the provider role, and there are a whole host of other variables that go into it, but the government at least at some level is crowding out men from this marriage market. And we all know from Economics 101 what happens when you set price floors and crowd buyers out of a market -
surpluses.
The chart above graphs your standard supply and demand curve market. The "supply" of women is in pink and denoted "S, women" while the "demand" for women (obviously by men) is in blue and denoted "D, men." Had there been no government interference, the market would "clear" at an equilibrium price that would be around what the median income is for your average man. This would be "normal" and normal women would marry normal men. You would have a normal house and normal children. And life would have gotten on like it always has, normally.
However, with the government essentially providing a $70,000 price guarantee, it throws the whole marriage market out of whack. At such a high income level, many more women are willing to get married, and so the supply of women increases and is denoted by the green S. But with only 20% of the male population making that kind of money or more, the demand drops to the green D. The difference between the plethora of women who are willing to get married and the few men who can afford it, is a surplus of women who constantly ask "where have all the good men gone?"
Of course, it is impossible to put precise numbers on this market. But it does go a long way in explaining, at least economically, why there seems to be a shortage of men (or a surplus of women). Government has crowded men out of the market by making it too expensive to compete in. It would be no different if the government came in and created a law putting the price of Playstation 4 at $5,000. Some people would buy it, but most others would simply not be able to afford it. However, instead of less video games being played, government's vying for the affection of women has resulted in less marriages. Perhaps they can design a government check that will hug you back at night.
Enjoy the decline ladies!
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Why Post-Scarcity Economics is Scary
Follow along if you will on a mental exercise in post-scarcity economics.
"Post Scarcity" is basically a utopian ideal of economists. It means everything is free because things are no longer scarce. Matter of fact the entire study of economics would be unnecessary in a world where resources were unlimitedly plentiful and not scarce. But to really wrap your brain around the concept of "post scarcity" you have to understand what it really means.
If resources were unlimited, everything would be free. Cars would be free just as gumballs would be free. And because everything is free, then NOTHING would have value. There would be no prices. Just "stuff."
You can kind of imagine this if you've ever seen Star Trek where they have the replicator. As a child you might say, "Well I'd replicate a ton of diamonds and be rich!" But the problem is there is no "rich" or "poor" in a post-scarcity economy. The diamonds have no value because they can be replicated ad-infinitum, just like everything else. Again, NOTHING would have value, NOTHING would have a price. Matter of fact in a TRULY 100% post scarcity economy, you wouldn't even have money, because,
what would you buy? Everything is free.
Naturally, a 100% post-scarcity world is actually impossible. Even if we perfect 3 d printing, you need people to maintain the 3d printers, people to transport goods, electricity, not to mention maintain the infrastructure of society as well as some government services to manage the humans. But what is interesting about economics (and humanity) is that though a 100% pure post-scarcity economy is impossible, we are constantly, asymptotically approaching it. Just 100 years ago food was kind of a huge issue. Now it isn't. Just 250 year ago, electricity was a huge issue (non-existent). Now it isn't. And thus, though we will never have EVERYTHING be truly free, because of technological advances, we are constantly closing in on that post scarcity goal.
This then leads the human mind into an interesting world. If 3d printers actually deliver on all of their promises, it will be the first time in human history where your physical needs are met at zero or near zero cost. This then behooves the question:
"What will humans do or pursue in life?"
Realize you, me and everybody else works a fair percentage of our lives working up the money to pay for everything. But if "everything" (or most everything) were free, what would the economy be about then? What would humans work and live for?
The answer is other humans.
Specifically, sex and attention.
Imagine again there is no such thing as money. Material goods and physical possessions are limitlessly abundant. What would then have any kind of value in this society and economy? Well, with physical goods being completely free, the only thing would be non-physical goods or services, namely provided by humans. And because of our binary sexual nature, this would leave only two goods or services left to be traded.
Sex and attention.
Men would want sex from women and women would want attention from men.
Of course, this trade has always been going on, but has been confused or complicated with physical goods. Men needed to display their income earning potential to convince women that are good providers, so they would buy "expensive stuffs" like sports cars, Rolexes, etc. to peacock around. But, alas, in a post-scarcity world, this role would be rendered obsolete, relegating the man solely to his ability to provide attention to score some sex. Women would also face a much more simplified economy. Instead of having to work all those extra hours to buy a pravda purse and pay off her Masters Degree in English, she now just has to earn mens' attention by solely focusing on her physical beauty. And this is where it gets scary.
Though it's impossible to predict, as far as my SAEG (TM) tells me, a post scarcity world would be nothing more than a super, hyper-sexualized world where the last remaining economy is purely based on men's ability to be ripped and buff, and women's ability to make themselves as pretty as possible. In other words, imagine Miley Ray Cyrus and roided up guys at the gym, but a hundred times more vain, slutty, and self-obsessed. Millions of them, all trying to outdo each other in order to garner the most about of sex/attention they can.
In short what would happen is an arms race based on narcissism, looks, beauty, and the like that would drive both the supply and demand curves to the right for sex and attention.
Normally, economists would agree this is a good thing. When the supply and demand curves for anything shift right, you have increased production but (assuming proportional increases in supply and demand) no increase in price. But my fear is at what human cost.
Humans are not cars or widgets. And matter of fact, intellectual conversation and stimulation I believe is the most important thing humans can provide other humans, something physical items can't. But with everybody racing for the gym, getting the latest implants, and injecting themselves with the latest roids, it is unlikely such a vain society will stimulate intelligence, let alone intelligent conversation. And so my second prediction.
Should post-scarcity ever occur, it will fragment humans into two camps.
1. Those willing to expend the effort necessary to participate in the arms war of sex/attention
2. Those not willing to expend the effort and instead focus on intelligence and personality
The first group will likely breed and populate the future as their entire focus is on sex and attraction. The second group, though maybe not as much, will still copulate, but focus on less physical and more mental qualities and traits. Naturally, over time, these two groups will evolve with one group becoming "hotter" and the other group "uglier," but it makes me wonder if over time and because of the "hyper arms-sex-attention race" post scarcity would instill in the "hot group," that they would evolve into separate different species (and is here where my speculation runs out as I am not a great biologist, geneticist, let alone philosopher, and is perhaps where others might take over).
However, as I said before, this was a mental exercise. There are many variables that would make such a scenario unlikely, even impossible, and I would hope some of you would point those out (besides, it would only take one generation focusing on looks and not the engineering needed to keep the 3d replicators operational that would end the post-scarcity economy). But before economists cheer for a post-scarcity economy, they may want to think about what it would replace and what the consequences might be.
"Post Scarcity" is basically a utopian ideal of economists. It means everything is free because things are no longer scarce. Matter of fact the entire study of economics would be unnecessary in a world where resources were unlimitedly plentiful and not scarce. But to really wrap your brain around the concept of "post scarcity" you have to understand what it really means.
If resources were unlimited, everything would be free. Cars would be free just as gumballs would be free. And because everything is free, then NOTHING would have value. There would be no prices. Just "stuff."
You can kind of imagine this if you've ever seen Star Trek where they have the replicator. As a child you might say, "Well I'd replicate a ton of diamonds and be rich!" But the problem is there is no "rich" or "poor" in a post-scarcity economy. The diamonds have no value because they can be replicated ad-infinitum, just like everything else. Again, NOTHING would have value, NOTHING would have a price. Matter of fact in a TRULY 100% post scarcity economy, you wouldn't even have money, because,
what would you buy? Everything is free.
Naturally, a 100% post-scarcity world is actually impossible. Even if we perfect 3 d printing, you need people to maintain the 3d printers, people to transport goods, electricity, not to mention maintain the infrastructure of society as well as some government services to manage the humans. But what is interesting about economics (and humanity) is that though a 100% pure post-scarcity economy is impossible, we are constantly, asymptotically approaching it. Just 100 years ago food was kind of a huge issue. Now it isn't. Just 250 year ago, electricity was a huge issue (non-existent). Now it isn't. And thus, though we will never have EVERYTHING be truly free, because of technological advances, we are constantly closing in on that post scarcity goal.
This then leads the human mind into an interesting world. If 3d printers actually deliver on all of their promises, it will be the first time in human history where your physical needs are met at zero or near zero cost. This then behooves the question:
"What will humans do or pursue in life?"
Realize you, me and everybody else works a fair percentage of our lives working up the money to pay for everything. But if "everything" (or most everything) were free, what would the economy be about then? What would humans work and live for?
The answer is other humans.
Specifically, sex and attention.
Imagine again there is no such thing as money. Material goods and physical possessions are limitlessly abundant. What would then have any kind of value in this society and economy? Well, with physical goods being completely free, the only thing would be non-physical goods or services, namely provided by humans. And because of our binary sexual nature, this would leave only two goods or services left to be traded.
Sex and attention.
Men would want sex from women and women would want attention from men.
Of course, this trade has always been going on, but has been confused or complicated with physical goods. Men needed to display their income earning potential to convince women that are good providers, so they would buy "expensive stuffs" like sports cars, Rolexes, etc. to peacock around. But, alas, in a post-scarcity world, this role would be rendered obsolete, relegating the man solely to his ability to provide attention to score some sex. Women would also face a much more simplified economy. Instead of having to work all those extra hours to buy a pravda purse and pay off her Masters Degree in English, she now just has to earn mens' attention by solely focusing on her physical beauty. And this is where it gets scary.
Though it's impossible to predict, as far as my SAEG (TM) tells me, a post scarcity world would be nothing more than a super, hyper-sexualized world where the last remaining economy is purely based on men's ability to be ripped and buff, and women's ability to make themselves as pretty as possible. In other words, imagine Miley Ray Cyrus and roided up guys at the gym, but a hundred times more vain, slutty, and self-obsessed. Millions of them, all trying to outdo each other in order to garner the most about of sex/attention they can.
In short what would happen is an arms race based on narcissism, looks, beauty, and the like that would drive both the supply and demand curves to the right for sex and attention.
Normally, economists would agree this is a good thing. When the supply and demand curves for anything shift right, you have increased production but (assuming proportional increases in supply and demand) no increase in price. But my fear is at what human cost.
Humans are not cars or widgets. And matter of fact, intellectual conversation and stimulation I believe is the most important thing humans can provide other humans, something physical items can't. But with everybody racing for the gym, getting the latest implants, and injecting themselves with the latest roids, it is unlikely such a vain society will stimulate intelligence, let alone intelligent conversation. And so my second prediction.
Should post-scarcity ever occur, it will fragment humans into two camps.
1. Those willing to expend the effort necessary to participate in the arms war of sex/attention
2. Those not willing to expend the effort and instead focus on intelligence and personality
The first group will likely breed and populate the future as their entire focus is on sex and attraction. The second group, though maybe not as much, will still copulate, but focus on less physical and more mental qualities and traits. Naturally, over time, these two groups will evolve with one group becoming "hotter" and the other group "uglier," but it makes me wonder if over time and because of the "hyper arms-sex-attention race" post scarcity would instill in the "hot group," that they would evolve into separate different species (and is here where my speculation runs out as I am not a great biologist, geneticist, let alone philosopher, and is perhaps where others might take over).
However, as I said before, this was a mental exercise. There are many variables that would make such a scenario unlikely, even impossible, and I would hope some of you would point those out (besides, it would only take one generation focusing on looks and not the engineering needed to keep the 3d replicators operational that would end the post-scarcity economy). But before economists cheer for a post-scarcity economy, they may want to think about what it would replace and what the consequences might be.
Why You Should Sleep With Your Students
Permit me to be blunt...not that I wasn't previously.
You should totally sleep with your students.
Of course I am not speaking to K-12 employees or anybody who takes their teaching job seriously, but if you are like me and ended up teaching on a part time basis to adults, you should totally take advantage of your situation and sleep with your students.
The reasons are numerous and the drawbacks are nearly non-existent.
As a (male) instructor you are already put in a position of power and authority, granting you at least two more points on the scale of 1-10. I cannot count the number of women I seduced because I was a:
dance instructor
economics professor
financial advisor
It was almost effortless.
So why should you refuse the advantage if you are in an equal position of educational power?
Aren't you men working primarily to work up the money to hopefully convince a young lady to copulate with you? Why work so hard when your profession will do that job for you?
Also, unless you are really attached to your job or you are teaching minors, does it really pay enough for you to start having morals?
Sure, there were rules against professors dating their students.
Sure, there were rules against me fornicating with my apprentices.
But there weren't any rules after class ended. And there certainly weren't any rules after they graduated. Besides, no girl is going to rat you out and if she does you at most lost a job that paid a lousy $18/hour and had no job stability.
The larger point is simply this:
Out of every bit of game and strategy I've ever ran, it was "Teacher Game" that got me the most play. Being an economist scored me nothing. But being an "economics professor" scored me at least three nubile girls. Being a salsa dancer was fine. I think I got a couple dates. But being a salsa dance instructor score me much more.
It is the position of power a teacher/professor/instructor has that grants him a HUGE advantage when it comes to seducing women. So instead of going down to the night club and perfecting your "negging" skills, may I perhaps suggest an alternative?
Go to your local community college or community education department and "selflessly" become a teacher of one sort or another.
Women under your tutelage are much easier than women at the bar.
You should totally sleep with your students.
Of course I am not speaking to K-12 employees or anybody who takes their teaching job seriously, but if you are like me and ended up teaching on a part time basis to adults, you should totally take advantage of your situation and sleep with your students.
The reasons are numerous and the drawbacks are nearly non-existent.
As a (male) instructor you are already put in a position of power and authority, granting you at least two more points on the scale of 1-10. I cannot count the number of women I seduced because I was a:
dance instructor
economics professor
financial advisor
It was almost effortless.
So why should you refuse the advantage if you are in an equal position of educational power?
Aren't you men working primarily to work up the money to hopefully convince a young lady to copulate with you? Why work so hard when your profession will do that job for you?
Also, unless you are really attached to your job or you are teaching minors, does it really pay enough for you to start having morals?
Sure, there were rules against professors dating their students.
Sure, there were rules against me fornicating with my apprentices.
But there weren't any rules after class ended. And there certainly weren't any rules after they graduated. Besides, no girl is going to rat you out and if she does you at most lost a job that paid a lousy $18/hour and had no job stability.
The larger point is simply this:
Out of every bit of game and strategy I've ever ran, it was "Teacher Game" that got me the most play. Being an economist scored me nothing. But being an "economics professor" scored me at least three nubile girls. Being a salsa dancer was fine. I think I got a couple dates. But being a salsa dance instructor score me much more.
It is the position of power a teacher/professor/instructor has that grants him a HUGE advantage when it comes to seducing women. So instead of going down to the night club and perfecting your "negging" skills, may I perhaps suggest an alternative?
Go to your local community college or community education department and "selflessly" become a teacher of one sort or another.
Women under your tutelage are much easier than women at the bar.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Neotony
I really wish I could find people who were high level, intelligent thinkers. I mean, this low-brow, boring biological/philosophical talk just isn't stimulating at all (warning, it's a lengthy video, but if you know how to strip the audio from Youtube videos it makes for a great podcast)
Monday, November 04, 2013
How We Fooled Women Into Thinking Work Was Great
and more in this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
Punishing Liberal Millenials
But liberals, in contrast, are nice. Obama is cool. You chose
petty fascism with a smile. Not a lot of thought went into it. Facts,
evidence – these were mere distractions from the feelings-based
validation that came from rejecting us wicked conservatives.
It's great because they punish themselves.
It's great because they punish themselves.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Mike Rowe Should Be in the Next Expendables
Just how badass would that be to have Mike Rowe in Expendables 3?
100% completely badass, that's how badass it would be!
100% completely badass, that's how badass it would be!
Friday, November 01, 2013
A Rant Against Spoiled Brat College Students
A curse-laden rant as college students are complaining about their student loan interest rates going up to almost 4%.
Remember, inoculate your children against this horrible disease. Buy them the book "Worthless." It will make sure they're immune to living at home at 30.
Remember, inoculate your children against this horrible disease. Buy them the book "Worthless." It will make sure they're immune to living at home at 30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)