The Captain's Prayer.
IQ by major and gender. aka "Math is tough. How do I math? WHY IS THERE A WAGE GAP DAMNIT!!!!????"
"Math is Tough" part 2
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Friday, June 27, 2014
Durrrrr... Why is Tuition So High???
You idiotic leftist college students deserve nothing more that what you bring upon yourself.
40 Year Old Women with 13 Year Old Excuses
From our Pheonix Agent in the Field.(names deleted for privacy):
My observations will be kept short and succinct because it's Friday and I don't feel like working.
1. We all need to step back, clear the gunk from our eyes and look at this for what it truly is. We are allowing full grown adult women to grow in this society to the point they reach the age of 40 and still think this bullshit not only flies, but think this is perfectly acceptable adult behavior. It is NOT adult behavior, it is insulting, it is childish and it is all too common.
2. While some people will make claims this whole "manosphere/red pill" thing is a bunch of sour grapes basement dwelling virgins, it is stuff like this that proves it is not. There IS something wrong with the male-female dynamics in this society and (while men do have their flaws and are certainly to blame) the blame is disproportionately and deservedly laid on women.
3. Before you assume something about this guy's physique because he's a software programmer, I have met this agent in the field. Hiked with the guy. He is in GREAT shape and good looking too. Add to that him never being married, no kids, no baggage, you'd think a 40 year old woman would be THANKFUL to find this diamond in the rough.
No, no. "My friend's car broke down."
Ladies, I know "you" don't do these things. And I know your friends don't do these things. That's because you're good women and you only surround yourselves with equally good women. But you have to believe us men when we recount experiences and episodes such as this as you aren't the majority of women. This stuff is bullshit, it's all too common, and apparently, given this is a 40 year old woman, it ain't going away.
My observations will be kept short and succinct because it's Friday and I don't feel like working.
1. We all need to step back, clear the gunk from our eyes and look at this for what it truly is. We are allowing full grown adult women to grow in this society to the point they reach the age of 40 and still think this bullshit not only flies, but think this is perfectly acceptable adult behavior. It is NOT adult behavior, it is insulting, it is childish and it is all too common.
2. While some people will make claims this whole "manosphere/red pill" thing is a bunch of sour grapes basement dwelling virgins, it is stuff like this that proves it is not. There IS something wrong with the male-female dynamics in this society and (while men do have their flaws and are certainly to blame) the blame is disproportionately and deservedly laid on women.
3. Before you assume something about this guy's physique because he's a software programmer, I have met this agent in the field. Hiked with the guy. He is in GREAT shape and good looking too. Add to that him never being married, no kids, no baggage, you'd think a 40 year old woman would be THANKFUL to find this diamond in the rough.
No, no. "My friend's car broke down."
Ladies, I know "you" don't do these things. And I know your friends don't do these things. That's because you're good women and you only surround yourselves with equally good women. But you have to believe us men when we recount experiences and episodes such as this as you aren't the majority of women. This stuff is bullshit, it's all too common, and apparently, given this is a 40 year old woman, it ain't going away.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Why Men Don't Want to Have Children
In response to this article where the old broad is just "so confused" as to why none of her sons want children:
The Real Rate of Return of Stocks
Follow young Cappy on this financial and intellectual endeavor and learn something you just aren't going to find in the MSM.
Understand that there is no such thing as capital gains when it comes to stocks.
Yes, I know there IS such a thing and that it is proven everyday day, but theoretically there shouldn't be any capital gains, let alone an entire retirement industry based on capital gains because, in theory, a market would be efficient enough to price all future profits into the current day price of a stock leaving no room for capital gains.
So why would you own a stock?
Dividends, my good boy. Dividends.
The reason why is that dividends are THE ONLY THING THAT IS PRODUCED BY A CORPORATION THAT IS ACTUALLY PAID OUT TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS. And this is a very important reality to understand if you wish to understand the value of stocks, because when you buy a stock you aren't
"buying the right to vote"
or
"purchasing a percentage of the firm's assets"
you're not even getting
"a percentage of the firm's profits."
No, you get a proportional percentage of the dividends that are paid out, if any.
That's it. That's all a stock is. A right to a proportional percentage of future dividends the company may pay out.
Ergo, it is ONLY dividends that matter and drive the value of a stock.
So how do stock prices stack up against the dividends they pay? What kind of percent rate of return can you expect from dividends? Well historically you could expect a rate of return around 5%. But with retirement dollars and QE money flooding the market, stocks have been driven so high without a commensurate increase in dividends that you get
are you ready for it?
a WHOPPING 2% rate of return!
But are you really even getting that?
I was listening to the Kerry Lutz show and he had Danielle Park on who made the very astute point of "what about inflation?"
Indeed what about inflation and so with my SAEG I went and calculated the dividend yield going back to 1914 and adjusted it for inflation. And shucks howdy, look at that!
Stocks really haven't been providing a positive rate of return since about the mid 70's.
A couple points, however.
One, the negative rates of return from 1974 on are obviously caused by the oil embargoes and inflationary days of the late 70's. However, ever since then, rates have more or less remained marginally negative, stocks never really beating out inflation. It behooves the question why are stocks going up at in real terms since their ONLY driver of value (dividends) is effectively providing negative rates of return?
Two, the retirement bubble got it's official kick off in 1978 when we had our first ordained retirement plan (the 401k). Since then the stock market has been flooded with dollars which may have driven up capital gains (and made everybody happy on paper), but driven the real rate of return on dividends below zero.
Three, despite the dramatic increase in the stock market since 2008, you'd think inflation-adjusted dividend yields would be driven into negative territory. However, oddly enough, they're positive in the fraction of a percentage point range.
Why?
Inflation is very low...or so we're told.
The question is if you believe the official CPI numbers being churned out.
The larger point is not one of whether inflation is being manipulated or retirement dollars are flooding the market or QE-X is driving prices higher, but yields lower. It's just what a lousy investment stocks have been post - WWII when you look at the only thing they produce - dividends.
We don't get excited about bonds that only pay 3%
We whine about our savings accounts and CD's only paying 1%
But by god and shucks howdy, we'll plow trillions into a stock market that pays -.5% because...capital gains.
I just hope when Economics 101 classes are taught in the future, right along side the "Holland Tulip Bubble" some kind econ prof will cite this post.
Enjoy the decline.
Understand that there is no such thing as capital gains when it comes to stocks.
Yes, I know there IS such a thing and that it is proven everyday day, but theoretically there shouldn't be any capital gains, let alone an entire retirement industry based on capital gains because, in theory, a market would be efficient enough to price all future profits into the current day price of a stock leaving no room for capital gains.
So why would you own a stock?
Dividends, my good boy. Dividends.
The reason why is that dividends are THE ONLY THING THAT IS PRODUCED BY A CORPORATION THAT IS ACTUALLY PAID OUT TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS. And this is a very important reality to understand if you wish to understand the value of stocks, because when you buy a stock you aren't
"buying the right to vote"
or
"purchasing a percentage of the firm's assets"
you're not even getting
"a percentage of the firm's profits."
No, you get a proportional percentage of the dividends that are paid out, if any.
That's it. That's all a stock is. A right to a proportional percentage of future dividends the company may pay out.
Ergo, it is ONLY dividends that matter and drive the value of a stock.
So how do stock prices stack up against the dividends they pay? What kind of percent rate of return can you expect from dividends? Well historically you could expect a rate of return around 5%. But with retirement dollars and QE money flooding the market, stocks have been driven so high without a commensurate increase in dividends that you get
are you ready for it?
a WHOPPING 2% rate of return!
But are you really even getting that?
I was listening to the Kerry Lutz show and he had Danielle Park on who made the very astute point of "what about inflation?"
Indeed what about inflation and so with my SAEG I went and calculated the dividend yield going back to 1914 and adjusted it for inflation. And shucks howdy, look at that!
Stocks really haven't been providing a positive rate of return since about the mid 70's.
A couple points, however.
One, the negative rates of return from 1974 on are obviously caused by the oil embargoes and inflationary days of the late 70's. However, ever since then, rates have more or less remained marginally negative, stocks never really beating out inflation. It behooves the question why are stocks going up at in real terms since their ONLY driver of value (dividends) is effectively providing negative rates of return?
Two, the retirement bubble got it's official kick off in 1978 when we had our first ordained retirement plan (the 401k). Since then the stock market has been flooded with dollars which may have driven up capital gains (and made everybody happy on paper), but driven the real rate of return on dividends below zero.
Three, despite the dramatic increase in the stock market since 2008, you'd think inflation-adjusted dividend yields would be driven into negative territory. However, oddly enough, they're positive in the fraction of a percentage point range.
Why?
Inflation is very low...or so we're told.
The question is if you believe the official CPI numbers being churned out.
The larger point is not one of whether inflation is being manipulated or retirement dollars are flooding the market or QE-X is driving prices higher, but yields lower. It's just what a lousy investment stocks have been post - WWII when you look at the only thing they produce - dividends.
We don't get excited about bonds that only pay 3%
We whine about our savings accounts and CD's only paying 1%
But by god and shucks howdy, we'll plow trillions into a stock market that pays -.5% because...capital gains.
I just hope when Economics 101 classes are taught in the future, right along side the "Holland Tulip Bubble" some kind econ prof will cite this post.
Enjoy the decline.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Christian Men Having Problems Dating Christian Women
A secularist PK's view:
If you need guidance, wisdom, or just a guy that knows everything, contact Asshole Consulting!
If you need guidance, wisdom, or just a guy that knows everything, contact Asshole Consulting!
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
The Economics of Robots Replacing Human Labor
A commenter on my Youtube channel, though leftist, did indeed make a comment that made me think. He said that, ideally, and hopefully in the near future, robots will replace human labor resulting in everybody's needs being met. This would wipe out nearly all jobs, but would allow for and mandate a guaranteed income for most humans, even those that did not work.
Though idealistic, poppycock like this can only come from leftist 20 somethings steeped in academia and too much reality TV, there were strains and elements of his point that did make sense, or at least intrigued me, and thus merited a full thinking through. And so I donned my motorcycle helmet, put on my gloves, and hopped on the ole Cappy Capp Cycle and headed out west to think this one through.
And think through it I did. So permit me to share the results.
The first thing to point out about a utopia in which robots do all of our labor and we loaf around like Roman emperors is that it is never going to be possible. Human labor will still be required for tasks that robots are just not ever going to be capable of. Most obvious of which is who will program, build, and maintain the robots? Relatedly, robots not being sentient and incapable of identifying a need in the market will not know what robots to build in the first place to meet the ever changing and evolving demands of humans. Also, robots are incapable of trouble shooting and doing complex diagnoses such as a "ghost" in your motorcycle, a medical problem, or an active crime, let alone coming up with the solution to fix such problems. Finally, humans also want the human touch. This could be anything from a massage, spa treatment, or waiting tables to books, movies, art, and umm....*ahem* the eldest profession.
Because of this, the best of my thinking leads me to believe that there will be at least THREE general types of human labor that will never go away:
1. Programmers and builders of robots
2. Tradesman that require non-programmable skills that can solve randomness (surgeons, plumbers, lawyers, mechanics, etc.
3. Personal human or "vanity" services
There could certainly be more and no doubt we could debate about the above, but in the "Robot Economy" one thing is for certain - what human jobs do exist will be classified into two general cateogies:
High skill
and
Low skill
You will either decide at the age of 15 "Eh, I just want a life of leisure and will live off of my mandating income, maybe working a shift as a waiter" or "No, I want to go the extra mile and become a surgeon." This will result in a heavily skewed or asymptotic labor market with two very distinct classes within:
So far there is nothing technically wrong with this theoretical economy. If robots and technology are efficient enough you only need a small percentage of "high skilled" workers to support the robots which in turn supports the much more numerous "low skilled" workers. Matter of fact, this would indeed be ideal and I'd be all for it.
There just a couple problems...as there always is with ideas coming out of academia.
1. Some Humans Breed to Resource Capacity
If we could be assured that humans would only have a certain amount of children, this idealistic economy may work. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to breed to the point their resources are stretched. Admittedly, not ALL humans do this, some living within their means, but noticed how I said, "some" humans and not "all." The reason why is that it only takes SOME humans to outbreed past the productive capacity of the entire roboticized economy. And before you jump to conclusions about which humans those are, I would say nearly all of them.
Africans are the most obvious of this example. Trillions of dollars in aid didn't increase the income per capita of Africa in large part because just more capita were made. It is NOT a coincidence that the poorest countries have the highest birthing rates. Regardless, more money doesn't result in increased standards of livings with some humans, just more capita.
But what of those responsible suburbanite SWPL people only having 1.4 children per couple? See they're not breeding past the productive capacity of said roboticized industries!
Oh, you mean the people who "have to" buy McMansions they can't afford, lease cars that cost more than my mortgage, wear clothes that will be out of fashion in 6 months, and keep those monstrosities of debt-fueled spending frenzies called "malls" in business all while majoring in sociology thinking that career will pay for their outlandishly expensive dreams?
You mean those fiscally austere and responsible people?
Yeah, right, they'll NEVER out-consume the productive ability of the roboticized economy.
In short, it really doesn't matter your race is. The point is even if you come from the poorest classes on the planet or hail from the richest, it is human nature to consume to the point your finances are stretched. This will put pressure on not just the roboticized economy to constantly produce more and more, but insane demands on the humans on the back-end of said economy to keep up with the insatiable demands of the low-skill class.
2. The Human Ego Will Not Abide a 95% Low Skill Class
If there's something I've learned in the past 4 years about humans, it's that they need ego just as much as they need food, clothing and shelter.
Let's say you magically get it to where 5% of "high skilled humans" can build, manage, and maintain a roboticized economy that supports the remaining 95%.
In that 95% what percent are going to accept a life and career as a waiter, a backrubber, a smiley hotel bell boy, or just nothing? Can you see the DudeBro's being told they aren't going to become investment bankers? Can you see the 30 something independent single woman being told she is not going to have a career in social work? Can you see the Millennial kid being told he's not going to be needed as a lawyer?
They'd all throw temper tantrums.
What you need to realize today that nearly 40% of the employment we have today (most of which is in government, non-profit, and academia) is NOT for some kind of productive purpose that serves society, but is there SOLELY to benefit the ego of two full generations of adult children who are talentless, but are too emotionally fragile to accept it. The HR ditz, the social worker, the teacher, the fireman, the life guard, the non-profit director, you name it. But not only are they too emotionally fragile to accept this reality, they are also too egotistical. They will NOT sit idly by, getting the "High Skilled Person's Test" in this theoretical utopia, finding out they failed, and are condemned to merely collecting a check or being a spa person.
In other words, not only will the Roboticized Economy need to produce enough to provide for the basics of the 95% low-skill class, it will have to have a surplus production of (what I'd estimate to be) an additional 40% GDP to create entire faux "Ego Employment Industries" so millions can make believe and play pretend "professional worker person"...much like we do today.
3. Class Envy
If you think income distribution, class warfare, and class envy is bad now, just wait till the robots take over!
The irony is of course those who clamor for such a roboticized economy and things like "guaranteed income" would be the first to be protesting the "unfairness" and "economic injustice" that those surgeons and robot programmers were making so much more than they were.
Never mind that their food, clothing, and shelter is paid for.
Never mind no human in the history of the world has enjoyed such a life of leisure.
Never mind the above-mentioned system would be as close as humans could get to a genuine "Utopia."
It would be a matter of nano-seconds before the leftists' human nature of envy, greed, and hatred would forget their enviable life of leisure, and start coveting what the high-skill class of humans have.
The truth is that while this utopia is impossible to attain, society has constantly been moving towards it asymptotically the entire time. The West has made amazing, jaw-dropping advances that would no doubt seem magical to people alive just 200 years ago. People back then would have killed and been thankful for what we have today and wouldn't care that they live in the lower skill class. But as is human nature, particularly of the leftist variety, if you grow up surrounded by it, you tend to envy and then villainize the productive people in your society. Ergo, the roboticized asymptotic curve will always forever move towards a perpendicular right angle, providing the masses ever increasing standards of living, but they'll only focus on what the producers have and they don't. Thus, while technology and innovation may in theory make such an economy a possibility (one can say it already has), it is human nature that will prevent it from being realized.
Enjoy the decline.
Though idealistic, poppycock like this can only come from leftist 20 somethings steeped in academia and too much reality TV, there were strains and elements of his point that did make sense, or at least intrigued me, and thus merited a full thinking through. And so I donned my motorcycle helmet, put on my gloves, and hopped on the ole Cappy Capp Cycle and headed out west to think this one through.
And think through it I did. So permit me to share the results.
The first thing to point out about a utopia in which robots do all of our labor and we loaf around like Roman emperors is that it is never going to be possible. Human labor will still be required for tasks that robots are just not ever going to be capable of. Most obvious of which is who will program, build, and maintain the robots? Relatedly, robots not being sentient and incapable of identifying a need in the market will not know what robots to build in the first place to meet the ever changing and evolving demands of humans. Also, robots are incapable of trouble shooting and doing complex diagnoses such as a "ghost" in your motorcycle, a medical problem, or an active crime, let alone coming up with the solution to fix such problems. Finally, humans also want the human touch. This could be anything from a massage, spa treatment, or waiting tables to books, movies, art, and umm....*ahem* the eldest profession.
Because of this, the best of my thinking leads me to believe that there will be at least THREE general types of human labor that will never go away:
1. Programmers and builders of robots
2. Tradesman that require non-programmable skills that can solve randomness (surgeons, plumbers, lawyers, mechanics, etc.
3. Personal human or "vanity" services
There could certainly be more and no doubt we could debate about the above, but in the "Robot Economy" one thing is for certain - what human jobs do exist will be classified into two general cateogies:
High skill
and
Low skill
You will either decide at the age of 15 "Eh, I just want a life of leisure and will live off of my mandating income, maybe working a shift as a waiter" or "No, I want to go the extra mile and become a surgeon." This will result in a heavily skewed or asymptotic labor market with two very distinct classes within:
So far there is nothing technically wrong with this theoretical economy. If robots and technology are efficient enough you only need a small percentage of "high skilled" workers to support the robots which in turn supports the much more numerous "low skilled" workers. Matter of fact, this would indeed be ideal and I'd be all for it.
There just a couple problems...as there always is with ideas coming out of academia.
1. Some Humans Breed to Resource Capacity
If we could be assured that humans would only have a certain amount of children, this idealistic economy may work. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to breed to the point their resources are stretched. Admittedly, not ALL humans do this, some living within their means, but noticed how I said, "some" humans and not "all." The reason why is that it only takes SOME humans to outbreed past the productive capacity of the entire roboticized economy. And before you jump to conclusions about which humans those are, I would say nearly all of them.
Africans are the most obvious of this example. Trillions of dollars in aid didn't increase the income per capita of Africa in large part because just more capita were made. It is NOT a coincidence that the poorest countries have the highest birthing rates. Regardless, more money doesn't result in increased standards of livings with some humans, just more capita.
But what of those responsible suburbanite SWPL people only having 1.4 children per couple? See they're not breeding past the productive capacity of said roboticized industries!
Oh, you mean the people who "have to" buy McMansions they can't afford, lease cars that cost more than my mortgage, wear clothes that will be out of fashion in 6 months, and keep those monstrosities of debt-fueled spending frenzies called "malls" in business all while majoring in sociology thinking that career will pay for their outlandishly expensive dreams?
You mean those fiscally austere and responsible people?
Yeah, right, they'll NEVER out-consume the productive ability of the roboticized economy.
In short, it really doesn't matter your race is. The point is even if you come from the poorest classes on the planet or hail from the richest, it is human nature to consume to the point your finances are stretched. This will put pressure on not just the roboticized economy to constantly produce more and more, but insane demands on the humans on the back-end of said economy to keep up with the insatiable demands of the low-skill class.
2. The Human Ego Will Not Abide a 95% Low Skill Class
If there's something I've learned in the past 4 years about humans, it's that they need ego just as much as they need food, clothing and shelter.
Let's say you magically get it to where 5% of "high skilled humans" can build, manage, and maintain a roboticized economy that supports the remaining 95%.
In that 95% what percent are going to accept a life and career as a waiter, a backrubber, a smiley hotel bell boy, or just nothing? Can you see the DudeBro's being told they aren't going to become investment bankers? Can you see the 30 something independent single woman being told she is not going to have a career in social work? Can you see the Millennial kid being told he's not going to be needed as a lawyer?
They'd all throw temper tantrums.
What you need to realize today that nearly 40% of the employment we have today (most of which is in government, non-profit, and academia) is NOT for some kind of productive purpose that serves society, but is there SOLELY to benefit the ego of two full generations of adult children who are talentless, but are too emotionally fragile to accept it. The HR ditz, the social worker, the teacher, the fireman, the life guard, the non-profit director, you name it. But not only are they too emotionally fragile to accept this reality, they are also too egotistical. They will NOT sit idly by, getting the "High Skilled Person's Test" in this theoretical utopia, finding out they failed, and are condemned to merely collecting a check or being a spa person.
In other words, not only will the Roboticized Economy need to produce enough to provide for the basics of the 95% low-skill class, it will have to have a surplus production of (what I'd estimate to be) an additional 40% GDP to create entire faux "Ego Employment Industries" so millions can make believe and play pretend "professional worker person"...much like we do today.
3. Class Envy
If you think income distribution, class warfare, and class envy is bad now, just wait till the robots take over!
The irony is of course those who clamor for such a roboticized economy and things like "guaranteed income" would be the first to be protesting the "unfairness" and "economic injustice" that those surgeons and robot programmers were making so much more than they were.
Never mind that their food, clothing, and shelter is paid for.
Never mind no human in the history of the world has enjoyed such a life of leisure.
Never mind the above-mentioned system would be as close as humans could get to a genuine "Utopia."
It would be a matter of nano-seconds before the leftists' human nature of envy, greed, and hatred would forget their enviable life of leisure, and start coveting what the high-skill class of humans have.
The truth is that while this utopia is impossible to attain, society has constantly been moving towards it asymptotically the entire time. The West has made amazing, jaw-dropping advances that would no doubt seem magical to people alive just 200 years ago. People back then would have killed and been thankful for what we have today and wouldn't care that they live in the lower skill class. But as is human nature, particularly of the leftist variety, if you grow up surrounded by it, you tend to envy and then villainize the productive people in your society. Ergo, the roboticized asymptotic curve will always forever move towards a perpendicular right angle, providing the masses ever increasing standards of living, but they'll only focus on what the producers have and they don't. Thus, while technology and innovation may in theory make such an economy a possibility (one can say it already has), it is human nature that will prevent it from being realized.
Enjoy the decline.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Why People Hate Mike Rowe
Because he's a real man and holds men to real standards.
And that makes all the little pansified, PC boys' panties get in a bundle.
And that makes all the little pansified, PC boys' panties get in a bundle.
The Clarey Podcast - Crotch Rocket to the Bakken Oil Field Episode
The Captain's girlfriend spots a tornado at work today...while he still has yet to see one
Taking a crotch rocket to the Bakken Oil field,
Racial slurs between male friends as a means of showing affection,
The problems with success,
Listener e-mails
and MORE
in this episode of The Clarey Podcast.
(You can find the archive here)
Taking a crotch rocket to the Bakken Oil field,
Racial slurs between male friends as a means of showing affection,
The problems with success,
Listener e-mails
and MORE
in this episode of The Clarey Podcast.
(You can find the archive here)
That's a Total Nazi Move
An update about the International Conference on Men's Issues where feminists and college students have made attempts to shut it down. I won't be attending, but they have moved venues and consequently have more seats available.
My only editorial on the whole thing is a simple one because it is that simple - the left hates the freedom of speech. And every day lefties better stop focusing on free Obama Phones and student debt forgiveness and instead start focusing on true, blatant, and obvious signs of evil within their ranks.
My only editorial on the whole thing is a simple one because it is that simple - the left hates the freedom of speech. And every day lefties better stop focusing on free Obama Phones and student debt forgiveness and instead start focusing on true, blatant, and obvious signs of evil within their ranks.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Once Lost a Student Can Never Be Recovered
Permit me to explain a non-state-teacher's-union-leftist-education-degree-approved real world, private sector observation about education:
Once I lost interest in school, I never gained it back. And that wasn't just me, but what I'd estimate to be about 95% of boys and about 50% of girls.
Once we lost an interest in school, it was damn well near impossible to ever get us excited or interested about it again.
Notice I say "school" and not "education," because what goes on in the public schools really isn't education but baby sitting, indoctrination and keeping talentless people employed as they hide behind the guise of children. But regardless of the political machinations of what the public schools really are, it is sad because it wasn't until I was about 35 did I take an interest in education or things like reading. School was a chore, all the way from my second day of kindergarten to my last day of college. 17 years of what was no less than a mental prison for an industry that managed to siphon off around $250,000 from me and my parents when it was all said and done. So when it was all said and done you basically had a boy sitting, nodding his head, sometimes barely staying awake, just to jump through one ass big hoop while I learned little to nothing along the way (except a seething hatred of teachers).
And that is the true tragedy of education today. Because just imagine if you, me, and every other boy and girl out there was not forced to go to this mental prison, but were rather invigorated, excited, and MENTALLY ENGAGED their entire K-college education? 17 years of actually looking forward to school like you do today reading a good book or studying something on teh interwebz. 17 years of not just stimulating your mind, but pushing it towards new horizons, exercising it to take on and understand new concepts. We'd have a country full of creative and literal geniuses and nowhere near the financial problems we have today.
Sadly they key vital ingredient to getting students excited about school and mentally engaged is missing - interesting, exciting, and passionate teachers.
Oh, I know, I know. Little Suzy McSuburbaniteprincess at the age of 17 declares her education major because she's "passionate" about education and wants to change "children's lives." The truth, however, is borne out in the classrooms.
Boring
Incapable
Uninspiring
Stupid
Politicized
Adult children
posing as "educators," inspiring excitement in their students about as much as Whoopi Goldberg inspires an erection.
This is the real problem - a lack of inspiring teachers.
Not to brag, but when I taught (be it economics, finance, or ballroom dancing) I made damn sure my students were intellectually entertained and engaged. I had students screaming in a mock-stock market exchange. Curmudgeony old men who came to dance class kicking and screaming, dipping their wives an hour later. And once performed an economics sermon for my class from the top of my 1985 Cutlass Supreme about the evils of brand new cars. This isn't because I'm a genius or have some kind of natural gift for teaching, I just remembered how boring it was sitting in school and couldn't dare to punish hundreds of students I had nothing personally against. Ergo, I took the time to think my class through, think the lesson plans through and create an EXPERIENCE that my students would enjoy and learn along the way.
Sadly, that's too much to ask of people who belie their laziness when declaring education majors.
The truth is that if we really cared about the children, if we really wanted them to get an education, we'd pretty much fire all the teachers, get rid of something as stupid as an a "Degree in Education," and hire people with real world experience, who also have the capacity for empathy of their students. People who just don't mouth the words "I care about the children" as they go and protest Scott Walker, but people who actually DO CARE about the children, enough to ensure those children are never bored, intellectually disengaged, or disincentived to pay attention. People with real world experience that enables them to directly tie in what's on the board to the real world and explain to the students' brains why it's pertinent to their lives, not a 23 year old child spouting off leftist talking points about global warming.
Of course this is laughably impossible in today's political climate. The sheeple believe there's no such thing as too much money for education. And the vile thieves of the democrat party posing as teachers are masters at extracting nearly a trillion a year from these rubes in exchange for the shittiest education in all of Western Civilization. Worse still, they've now had nearly 50 yearsbrainwashing "educating" three generations to think a certain way, protect the hive, and vote socialist.
All I ask is that society wake up and at least admit that nobody really enjoys school and the primary reason why is we have arguably society's worst and most incompetent people posing as "teachers."
Once I lost interest in school, I never gained it back. And that wasn't just me, but what I'd estimate to be about 95% of boys and about 50% of girls.
Once we lost an interest in school, it was damn well near impossible to ever get us excited or interested about it again.
Notice I say "school" and not "education," because what goes on in the public schools really isn't education but baby sitting, indoctrination and keeping talentless people employed as they hide behind the guise of children. But regardless of the political machinations of what the public schools really are, it is sad because it wasn't until I was about 35 did I take an interest in education or things like reading. School was a chore, all the way from my second day of kindergarten to my last day of college. 17 years of what was no less than a mental prison for an industry that managed to siphon off around $250,000 from me and my parents when it was all said and done. So when it was all said and done you basically had a boy sitting, nodding his head, sometimes barely staying awake, just to jump through one ass big hoop while I learned little to nothing along the way (except a seething hatred of teachers).
And that is the true tragedy of education today. Because just imagine if you, me, and every other boy and girl out there was not forced to go to this mental prison, but were rather invigorated, excited, and MENTALLY ENGAGED their entire K-college education? 17 years of actually looking forward to school like you do today reading a good book or studying something on teh interwebz. 17 years of not just stimulating your mind, but pushing it towards new horizons, exercising it to take on and understand new concepts. We'd have a country full of creative and literal geniuses and nowhere near the financial problems we have today.
Sadly they key vital ingredient to getting students excited about school and mentally engaged is missing - interesting, exciting, and passionate teachers.
Oh, I know, I know. Little Suzy McSuburbaniteprincess at the age of 17 declares her education major because she's "passionate" about education and wants to change "children's lives." The truth, however, is borne out in the classrooms.
Boring
Incapable
Uninspiring
Stupid
Politicized
Adult children
posing as "educators," inspiring excitement in their students about as much as Whoopi Goldberg inspires an erection.
This is the real problem - a lack of inspiring teachers.
Not to brag, but when I taught (be it economics, finance, or ballroom dancing) I made damn sure my students were intellectually entertained and engaged. I had students screaming in a mock-stock market exchange. Curmudgeony old men who came to dance class kicking and screaming, dipping their wives an hour later. And once performed an economics sermon for my class from the top of my 1985 Cutlass Supreme about the evils of brand new cars. This isn't because I'm a genius or have some kind of natural gift for teaching, I just remembered how boring it was sitting in school and couldn't dare to punish hundreds of students I had nothing personally against. Ergo, I took the time to think my class through, think the lesson plans through and create an EXPERIENCE that my students would enjoy and learn along the way.
Sadly, that's too much to ask of people who belie their laziness when declaring education majors.
The truth is that if we really cared about the children, if we really wanted them to get an education, we'd pretty much fire all the teachers, get rid of something as stupid as an a "Degree in Education," and hire people with real world experience, who also have the capacity for empathy of their students. People who just don't mouth the words "I care about the children" as they go and protest Scott Walker, but people who actually DO CARE about the children, enough to ensure those children are never bored, intellectually disengaged, or disincentived to pay attention. People with real world experience that enables them to directly tie in what's on the board to the real world and explain to the students' brains why it's pertinent to their lives, not a 23 year old child spouting off leftist talking points about global warming.
Of course this is laughably impossible in today's political climate. The sheeple believe there's no such thing as too much money for education. And the vile thieves of the democrat party posing as teachers are masters at extracting nearly a trillion a year from these rubes in exchange for the shittiest education in all of Western Civilization. Worse still, they've now had nearly 50 years
All I ask is that society wake up and at least admit that nobody really enjoys school and the primary reason why is we have arguably society's worst and most incompetent people posing as "teachers."
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Saturday Day Constitutional
Over nice and under laid.
Just another nail on the coffin on the radio industry. I don't think anybody is going to be shedding a tear watching the East Coast publishers, West Coast recording studios, and all the other "elitists" who determined what kind of media would be published or not.
Picking up girls in a Lamborghini without talking (moths to the flames, boys. Moths to the flames)
How white males can claim the benefits of diversity - claim you're gay.
An interview with a man who does other people's homework for a living.
The Black Brigade has another damn fine podcast, BUT this time replete with incredibly Barack Obama impersonation. Also, they recap the Iraqi situation that I'm too lazy to look up.
Just another nail on the coffin on the radio industry. I don't think anybody is going to be shedding a tear watching the East Coast publishers, West Coast recording studios, and all the other "elitists" who determined what kind of media would be published or not.
Picking up girls in a Lamborghini without talking (moths to the flames, boys. Moths to the flames)
How white males can claim the benefits of diversity - claim you're gay.
An interview with a man who does other people's homework for a living.
The Black Brigade has another damn fine podcast, BUT this time replete with incredibly Barack Obama impersonation. Also, they recap the Iraqi situation that I'm too lazy to look up.
From a Father
Average Married Dad is kind enough to write a review of Worthless and explains why every son (and daughter) needs to read it...and consequently why it should be on the NYT's best seller list.
Job Posting
Aleksey at Academic Composition is looking for people to post ads on Craig's List. The basics are thus:
Contact Alex
In summary
Start up compensation: $20
Requirement: Creating a new GMAIL Account and using it to set up a Craigslist Account
Payment method: PayPal
Regular compensation: $1 per each day your ad stays live on the forum
Bonus: $5 per customer
For people in:
1. Minneapolis, MN
2. Denver, CO
3. Dallas, TX
4. Phoenix, AZ
5. Vancouver, BC
6. Boston, MA
7. Chicago, IL
8. Madison, WI
9. Honolulu, HI
10. Toronto, ON
12. New York, NY
13. New Jersey, New York area
14. Seattle, WA
15. Atlanta, GA
16. Jacksonville, FL
17. Philadelphia, PA
18. Pittsburgh, PA
19. Los Angeles, CA
20. San Francisco, CA
Friday, June 20, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
What "Asshole Consulting" Tells Us About Society
I was interviewed on Kerry Lutz's show yesterday and we actually had a great discussion about Asshole Consulting. Not so much the business model, but what it says about a society that there would be an actual market for a consulting company that basically dispenses advice your father, mother, teachers, and elders should have give you.
But that's just it.
What fathers?
What mothers?
What teachers?
What elders?
The sad truth is the "elders" are nothing but spoiled brat children who just happen to be 40+. Inundated with touchy feel-good 60's BS, trillions of debt in stimulus spending, and socialist poppycock, they never grew up. Everybody still gets divorced at the same enviable Baby Boomer levels. The economy has gone to pot. The young have no financial future. And NOBODY has even the faintest clue about the basics in personal financial management.
Throw it all together and you now have two full generations brought up with what can at best be considered an impaired and deficient upbringing.
People may find it despicable that I charge to provide basic "older brother" advice to the young, disadvantaged and destitute, but charging them $30 for a harsh-truth e-mail is better than the free sugar-coated lies they've been told that only destroys their lives, but spares their feeeeeelinnnnngsssss.
But that's just it.
What fathers?
What mothers?
What teachers?
What elders?
The sad truth is the "elders" are nothing but spoiled brat children who just happen to be 40+. Inundated with touchy feel-good 60's BS, trillions of debt in stimulus spending, and socialist poppycock, they never grew up. Everybody still gets divorced at the same enviable Baby Boomer levels. The economy has gone to pot. The young have no financial future. And NOBODY has even the faintest clue about the basics in personal financial management.
Throw it all together and you now have two full generations brought up with what can at best be considered an impaired and deficient upbringing.
People may find it despicable that I charge to provide basic "older brother" advice to the young, disadvantaged and destitute, but charging them $30 for a harsh-truth e-mail is better than the free sugar-coated lies they've been told that only destroys their lives, but spares their feeeeeelinnnnngsssss.
Volunteers Love Themselves, But Hate the Poor
I received a request from some social media internet company that wanted to do some kind of "affiliate" thing with my blog. I always entertain these offers because sometimes they actually pay money instead of "exchange traffic" or "help optimize my SEO." So I said, "sure yeah, what do you got?"
"Well, we work with non-profits" and then he lost me there because no matter what he said after that would be irrelevant and let me explain why.
Non-profits DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS.
They don't.
They just don't.
I've asked before for people to provide me a list of social ills non-profits have solved and am still waiting for one. Haiti is still a shithole, Africa is still a shithole, Chicago is still a shithole. racism is still abound, 1 in 5 children are starving in America..matter of fact, if you ask any of these non-profit types they're saying the situation has GOTTEN WORSE and they need EVEN MORE money.
My question is "What happened to the $4-$8 TRILLION we gave you over the past 40 years?????"
Naturally, in the private sector if you handed out trillions of dollars to solve problems and NONE of them were solved, whoever was in charge would be fired. But ahhhhh, there's the problem.
You're thinking logically again.
You see, charity, non-profit and social spend is NOT to solve the said ills of society. It is FIRST AND FOREMOST for the workers in those industries. There is no limit to the MILLIONS of spoiled brat suburbanite high school graduates who go to some third world nation to "help" which is liberalese for "free trip and ego-masturbation hiding the fact I'm a lazy 18 year old who doesn't want to work hard or study math." And they really never grow up, but instead aspire to start their own charities and non-profits (just look at the heads of any non-profit and see if they're engineers, doctors or any real contributors of society, or are instead liberal arts majors hailing from rich families). This results in an entire industry (and a significant part of government) that is nothing more than adult children syphoning money off of charitable people and taxpayers so they can play "incompetent do-gooder" and avoid a real job.
But what pushes the non-profit world from "naive and lazy" to "full blown evil" is where they realize that if they ever were to solve the problem, then they'd be out of a job and have to find real work. This results in one of two things. Either they NEVER solve the problem, constantly begging for more money (the public schools is a perfect example of this) OR they create whole new problems (once the Keystone pipeline was kaboshed, all those environmentalists went on to protest fracking). In other words these people USE AND ABUSE the actually disadvantaged people they're claiming to help and is ultimately why 32 cents on the dollar is actually received by welfare recipients, "Live AID" made some musicians rich while Africans still suffered, and black kids in Chicago suffer a lousy education while the true Uncle Tom eats sushi in the White House.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have more respect for the welfareist of the welfare bums because at least they're honest. They just want a free buck and I can at least understand that on a human psychology level. But the scum that populate the non-profit world are a zillion times worse in that they not only want to parasite off of the rest of society, but DARE to claim their actions are noble and DARE to act superior, smug, and altruistic about it.
"Well, we work with non-profits" and then he lost me there because no matter what he said after that would be irrelevant and let me explain why.
Non-profits DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS.
They don't.
They just don't.
I've asked before for people to provide me a list of social ills non-profits have solved and am still waiting for one. Haiti is still a shithole, Africa is still a shithole, Chicago is still a shithole. racism is still abound, 1 in 5 children are starving in America..matter of fact, if you ask any of these non-profit types they're saying the situation has GOTTEN WORSE and they need EVEN MORE money.
My question is "What happened to the $4-$8 TRILLION we gave you over the past 40 years?????"
Naturally, in the private sector if you handed out trillions of dollars to solve problems and NONE of them were solved, whoever was in charge would be fired. But ahhhhh, there's the problem.
You're thinking logically again.
You see, charity, non-profit and social spend is NOT to solve the said ills of society. It is FIRST AND FOREMOST for the workers in those industries. There is no limit to the MILLIONS of spoiled brat suburbanite high school graduates who go to some third world nation to "help" which is liberalese for "free trip and ego-masturbation hiding the fact I'm a lazy 18 year old who doesn't want to work hard or study math." And they really never grow up, but instead aspire to start their own charities and non-profits (just look at the heads of any non-profit and see if they're engineers, doctors or any real contributors of society, or are instead liberal arts majors hailing from rich families). This results in an entire industry (and a significant part of government) that is nothing more than adult children syphoning money off of charitable people and taxpayers so they can play "incompetent do-gooder" and avoid a real job.
But what pushes the non-profit world from "naive and lazy" to "full blown evil" is where they realize that if they ever were to solve the problem, then they'd be out of a job and have to find real work. This results in one of two things. Either they NEVER solve the problem, constantly begging for more money (the public schools is a perfect example of this) OR they create whole new problems (once the Keystone pipeline was kaboshed, all those environmentalists went on to protest fracking). In other words these people USE AND ABUSE the actually disadvantaged people they're claiming to help and is ultimately why 32 cents on the dollar is actually received by welfare recipients, "Live AID" made some musicians rich while Africans still suffered, and black kids in Chicago suffer a lousy education while the true Uncle Tom eats sushi in the White House.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have more respect for the welfareist of the welfare bums because at least they're honest. They just want a free buck and I can at least understand that on a human psychology level. But the scum that populate the non-profit world are a zillion times worse in that they not only want to parasite off of the rest of society, but DARE to claim their actions are noble and DARE to act superior, smug, and altruistic about it.
Hoarder Economics
While therapists and TV network producers aim to profit off of hoarders, none of them ever get around to actually solving the problem at its genetic level. They treat it, they have interventions, sometimes an increasingly-rare father figure comes in, bypasses them all, and lays down the law. But by and large the phenomenon is one that persists.
However, with my patented SAGE (TM) I have found an economic rationale or “counterargument” for what is the number one excuse hoarders use to explain why they hoard -
“It has value"
or
“I can use this in the future.”
And I think for those of you that must suffer hoarders, it will prove invaluable.
Let us set aside the argument that their basement-dwelling, mold-infested, “Computer Programming Today” magazines from the 1970's really don't have any value. Let us set aside the argument that Beanie Babies don't pay dividends and provide no cash flow. And let us set aside the argument that all those clothes haven't been worn in 10 years and are obsoleted through fashion.
Let's just assume EVERYTHING a hoarder hoards has value.
So where do you store it?
Well, you have many options where to store this stuff. But the problem is that no matter where you store it, it's going to cost money to store it.
A rental facility costs rent.
Your house has a mortgage (and property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. even if you pay the mortgage)
And your apartment also costs rent.
And if you've ever been in realty you know that rent, housing and storage costs are measured by (what metric was that again?) oh, that's right
$/square foot.
This is often the variable the hoarder's brain fails to account for. That even if their stuff did have value, which it doesn't, they are still paying for it in that they must house it SOMEWHERE. And the more stuff they have, the more they must pay. You calculate total storage cost, and the fact they NEVER sell it, the true storage costs are at least thrice any potential value of all the stuff.
Naturally, for genuine psycho-hoarders who have an emotional vestment in their junk this logical economic argument will not force them to start jettisoning their junk. BUT for the “sane hoarders:”
Great Depression generation
People brought up under poverty
A cluttery husband
and pretty much every female in America (yuk yuk yuk)
this handy economic rationale may open their eyes to how hoarding junk is really costing them more in the long run...not to mention grant you that sanity of having a clean house you can finally enjoy.
However, with my patented SAGE (TM) I have found an economic rationale or “counterargument” for what is the number one excuse hoarders use to explain why they hoard -
“It has value"
or
“I can use this in the future.”
And I think for those of you that must suffer hoarders, it will prove invaluable.
Let us set aside the argument that their basement-dwelling, mold-infested, “Computer Programming Today” magazines from the 1970's really don't have any value. Let us set aside the argument that Beanie Babies don't pay dividends and provide no cash flow. And let us set aside the argument that all those clothes haven't been worn in 10 years and are obsoleted through fashion.
Let's just assume EVERYTHING a hoarder hoards has value.
So where do you store it?
Well, you have many options where to store this stuff. But the problem is that no matter where you store it, it's going to cost money to store it.
A rental facility costs rent.
Your house has a mortgage (and property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. even if you pay the mortgage)
And your apartment also costs rent.
And if you've ever been in realty you know that rent, housing and storage costs are measured by (what metric was that again?) oh, that's right
$/square foot.
This is often the variable the hoarder's brain fails to account for. That even if their stuff did have value, which it doesn't, they are still paying for it in that they must house it SOMEWHERE. And the more stuff they have, the more they must pay. You calculate total storage cost, and the fact they NEVER sell it, the true storage costs are at least thrice any potential value of all the stuff.
Naturally, for genuine psycho-hoarders who have an emotional vestment in their junk this logical economic argument will not force them to start jettisoning their junk. BUT for the “sane hoarders:”
Great Depression generation
People brought up under poverty
A cluttery husband
and pretty much every female in America (yuk yuk yuk)
this handy economic rationale may open their eyes to how hoarding junk is really costing them more in the long run...not to mention grant you that sanity of having a clean house you can finally enjoy.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Real Threat of the Patent Office
Conservative talk radio is once again just like the Republican Party.
Timid
Tepid
Weak
Polite
and apologetic
when it comes to the patent office reneging on the Washington Redskin's trademark.
"Oooo!!! Ooo!!! Gee Joe I don't know about that. That 'MAY' lead somewhere! Ooooo! Oooo!!! Slippery slope!"
Thankfully I'm not as spineless as they are and I don't care to be fake nice to the "party across the aisle" in the hopes they may someday reciprocate my politeness.
The truth is it was 100% an Obama appointee ideologue's move and it was done 100% for political purposes.
This, in it of itself, does not particularly wreak any damage. Just a political hack with a government position abusing power. However, because leftists are idiots and really don't understand economics, they have no idea just how much economic damage they've potentially caused in turning the patent office political -
What inventor or entrepreneur is EVER going to trust the patent office, let alone come up with a new invention ever again?
Oh, I know, I know, big companies and big Pharma and big chemical companies will still apply for their patents and copyrights, but the next Edison, the next Gates, the next Ford? If they're conservative (or at least capitalists which they usually are) why should they trust the patent office now with their sweat and toil?
The true damage caused by this little political whining cry baby stunt is that a name that really only offends the professional offense-seekers has now completely undermined that concept of copyrights, patents, and intellectual property.
Enjoy that freaking decline.
Timid
Tepid
Weak
Polite
and apologetic
when it comes to the patent office reneging on the Washington Redskin's trademark.
"Oooo!!! Ooo!!! Gee Joe I don't know about that. That 'MAY' lead somewhere! Ooooo! Oooo!!! Slippery slope!"
Thankfully I'm not as spineless as they are and I don't care to be fake nice to the "party across the aisle" in the hopes they may someday reciprocate my politeness.
The truth is it was 100% an Obama appointee ideologue's move and it was done 100% for political purposes.
This, in it of itself, does not particularly wreak any damage. Just a political hack with a government position abusing power. However, because leftists are idiots and really don't understand economics, they have no idea just how much economic damage they've potentially caused in turning the patent office political -
What inventor or entrepreneur is EVER going to trust the patent office, let alone come up with a new invention ever again?
Oh, I know, I know, big companies and big Pharma and big chemical companies will still apply for their patents and copyrights, but the next Edison, the next Gates, the next Ford? If they're conservative (or at least capitalists which they usually are) why should they trust the patent office now with their sweat and toil?
The true damage caused by this little political whining cry baby stunt is that a name that really only offends the professional offense-seekers has now completely undermined that concept of copyrights, patents, and intellectual property.
Enjoy that freaking decline.
Wednesday Night Constitutional
Do not underestimate stupid people.
We should just ban all guns...that way we can use knives.
Didn't we just leave this place?
We should just ban all guns...that way we can use knives.
Didn't we just leave this place?
No Greater Determining Sociological Variable Than Single Moms
Why do we champion such idiocy in society?
Never mind, I know, I know. It helps elect socialists to power by promising a surrogate provider to replace fathers and husbands. At least the children don't suffer.
Never mind, I know, I know. It helps elect socialists to power by promising a surrogate provider to replace fathers and husbands. At least the children don't suffer.
The Most Depressing Podcast Ever
The Black Brigade has another damn fine podcast up, but the news they cover not just makes it the most depressing podcast I've listened to in a while, but only reinforces why enjoying the decline is the way to go.
New Blogroll - Glitter Night
Two posts that intrigued me:
The top 4 Forgotten Military Units.
A review of "The Burqa" - Apparently makes Quentin Tarantino seem tame.
You can visit the main site here.
The top 4 Forgotten Military Units.
A review of "The Burqa" - Apparently makes Quentin Tarantino seem tame.
You can visit the main site here.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
To give context, I was in all good faith attempting to get this kid to at least RETHINK attending law school. Alas, this is what happens when you try to introduce reality into the Millennial's Dream-World built up by politicians, aloof parents, and an education industry desperate to rip them off of their money.
It's instances like this that makes me happy to hear the never ending news stories of (typically) leftists students getting crushed and their lives crippled by student loans.
It's instances like this that makes me happy to hear the never ending news stories of (typically) leftists students getting crushed and their lives crippled by student loans.
Fuck You Mark Dayton
Fuck you and your spoiled brat children.
(read down to the point where you find out his children run a restaurant and complained to him about the minimum wage hike)
(read down to the point where you find out his children run a restaurant and complained to him about the minimum wage hike)
Tuesday Evening Constitutional
Fat tatted up self-absorbed crusader goes on a crusade because...well...she's got nothing better to do.
El Capitan de Espanol! I was looking for somebody to translate.
College degrees per capita.
Self-sufficiency is better than a college degree. But don't tell professors and their spoiled veal-like suburbanite princes and princesses that.
Oh, just NOW you realize Americans are stupid?
Ghostbusters, 1774 America, and some zingers on Obama.
Uh ohhhh!!!! Google has no problem hiring people without degrees! Oh noezies!!!!! What are the edukated childrenz of Ameriku suppozed to doo?
Speaking of stupid.
El Capitan de Espanol! I was looking for somebody to translate.
College degrees per capita.
Self-sufficiency is better than a college degree. But don't tell professors and their spoiled veal-like suburbanite princes and princesses that.
Oh, just NOW you realize Americans are stupid?
Ghostbusters, 1774 America, and some zingers on Obama.
Uh ohhhh!!!! Google has no problem hiring people without degrees! Oh noezies!!!!! What are the edukated childrenz of Ameriku suppozed to doo?
Speaking of stupid.
The Marksman's Box
A year ago I headed out west for my annual South Dakota trip. I was invited to visit a reader out in Wyoming. He was an older man, but he was a skilled man because when he showed me his little shop (which was an abandoned gas station) he showed me "The Marksman's Box."
It was one of those things that was so simple in design that it was brilliant. It is basically an ammo box, a strap of which you use to sling it over your shoulder or just carry. However, the way the top opens suspends the strap in midair just above the box allowing you to lay the barrel of your gun down using it essentially as a firing platform.
I've been meaning to link to the poor guy for the past year, but then ended up working on various other projects. It wasn't until recently I rediscovered the pictures from that trip did I frantically realize I forgot.
Anyway, he isn't a sponsor because he isn't paying me, but he was a heck of a nice guy with a heck of a nice idea. please consider purchasing one if you're looking for something to carry ammo as well as to help your aim.
It was one of those things that was so simple in design that it was brilliant. It is basically an ammo box, a strap of which you use to sling it over your shoulder or just carry. However, the way the top opens suspends the strap in midair just above the box allowing you to lay the barrel of your gun down using it essentially as a firing platform.
I've been meaning to link to the poor guy for the past year, but then ended up working on various other projects. It wasn't until recently I rediscovered the pictures from that trip did I frantically realize I forgot.
Anyway, he isn't a sponsor because he isn't paying me, but he was a heck of a nice guy with a heck of a nice idea. please consider purchasing one if you're looking for something to carry ammo as well as to help your aim.
Dealing With Adult Children
But the biggest purpose in ensuring that whatever your critics say about
you is a lie is that it ultimately calls into question their authority
and accuracy. No matter how emotional, no matter how enraged, when they
are lying about you it calls into question everything else they’ve said
about you and gives you cache and credibility over them.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Monday Night Constitutional
Stay frosty, boys. Stay the freak frosty.
Some outstanding charts from Susan Walsh. My favorite is the chart showing a near-zero interest from women in hooking up or looking for sex, but a booming interest in dating.
New sponsor "Confessions of an Online Hustler"
Indian accounts of tornadoes pre-colonial days.
Some outstanding charts from Susan Walsh. My favorite is the chart showing a near-zero interest from women in hooking up or looking for sex, but a booming interest in dating.
New sponsor "Confessions of an Online Hustler"
Indian accounts of tornadoes pre-colonial days.
When the Economy Refuses to Play Keynesian Ball
Guy #1.
Good buddy of mine. Realtor carpenter. Busted his ass off when he was young. Fell in love in his early 20's. Lent a girl with big tits a lot of money, never got it back. Didn't matter as through determination and raw effort he inevitably made killer coin during the housing bubble. However, while he was successful he was foolish enough to buy a cabin and a luxury SUV (among other purchases) thinking it would continue forever. Crash hit, he suffered mightily for 6 years. Now, he crawled back, not losing a thing, and is once again approaching $100,000 for an annual salary.
His next major purchase?
A new fishing pole.
Guy #2
Another good buddy of mine. Smart, young entrepreneur. Made a KILLING during the housing bubble as he was a master carpenter and also invested in real estate. Was flying to Vegas on a semi-weekly basis with his wife. Drove a Mercedes and also thought the good times would last. Housing bubble hit. Some of his investment partners proved not to be as solvent or honest as they claimed. His flagship operation went bust. Now, he's rebuilt himself a nice piece of property he bought at the bottom of the bust, built up a stash of cash to pay off creditors if necessary.
His next major purchase?
A cigar with me.
Guy #3
Me.
Never had anywhere near the success of the aforementioned two. Finally found a company to refinance my house. Make enough money on book sales and various internet ventures to put food on the table and travel on the cheap sleeping in crappy motels, if not the rental car. One time, with full time dance classes and full time banking work, almost made $100,000 had I not told my employer to go fornicate himself. Housing bubble hit, reverted to solely dance classes, and once again lived in an illegally furnished basement apartment to make ends meet.
Next major purchase?
Gas for my next road trip.
So what, young lieutenants, do all the aforementioned boys above have in common?
Well, let me tell you.
1. They in their naive youth were more than willing to bust out of the gates, take on life, and become great entrepreneurs or captains of industry.
2. They foolishly assumed what finite and fleeting fortune they did have was going to last forever and either purchased things they shouldn't have or made investments in what is now in retrospect foolish things.
3. After suffering the great recession, having to get by on limited income wherein finances were so crippling and threatening, all of them have (and pay attention to this) ZERO INTEREST IN EVER BUYING ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANT WORTH EVER AGAIN.
And thus the point of my post.
While we three men of occident aren't conclusive empirical proof, we are anecdotes of what I believe to be a torpedoing trend for the Keynesian Obamanauts - people, with the harshness of the Great Recession fresh in their minds, just plain don't want to invest or spend money.
I wanted to see if there was a "Marginal Propensity to Consume" figure on the FRED database to confirm this, but I could not find one. Still, using several proxies you see at least a reluctance or stubbornness as the population becomes penny pinchers a la those who went through the Great Depression.
Gross private investment, though recovering, still isn't back to its historical average:
The Personal Savings Rate (which I believe is actually a good thing) is not playing Keynesian ball
And the velocity of money puts another nail on Obama's record-breaking stimulus spending:
Whatever specific events caused this - crushing finances for 7 years, big titted girls running off with money, foreclosure, ne'er an ounce of job security - the larger point is that what is ultimately driving this fear to spend and invest is psychology. And sadly, for Obama and his Keynesians, they largely ignore psychology, insisting to treat economics as an actual, mathematical science arrogantly thinking they can predict the economy like Newtonian physics.
Since they ignore psychology the economic policies they enact are rendered impotent. For example we do have relatively low taxes historically speaking. But spending is so out of control it undermines the entire future of the economy, driving away any long term investment. Obama can talk all he wants about jobs, but with Obama and the left blatantly spouting off their hatred, envy and desire to steal from the successful, it not only makes it just talk, but further deters any would-be entrepreneurs from trying their best. And ironically, since none of these Keynesian tactics have actually worked, the left has screwed over their most reliable demographic - young people. Additionally burden this demographic with student loans used largely to finance the "Leftist Vampire Professor Industry" and it doesn't matter how much "hope and faith" they have in Obama, they just plain don't have the money to buy houses, cars, and boost the economy.
The end result is what we have now - an economy that could not be more diametrically opposed to textbook economics. Historical (and I do mean historical) stimulus spending, yet a stagnant economy.
For Austrian economists or people who just have their heads out of their asses, this makes sense. For charlatans posing as Keynesians, but who know better (Krugman, etc.), this also makes sense, but they need to come up with increasingly fabricated poppycock to keep the spending gravy train going. For the rest of the economists out there this simply does not compute. But then again, most economists spent way too much time obsessing over math, let alone they actually believed the leftist claptrap they were fed in school. Alas, the price one pays for a lack of intellectually honest and independent thought is confusion and forced cognitive dissonance.
Enjoy the decline!
Good buddy of mine. Realtor carpenter. Busted his ass off when he was young. Fell in love in his early 20's. Lent a girl with big tits a lot of money, never got it back. Didn't matter as through determination and raw effort he inevitably made killer coin during the housing bubble. However, while he was successful he was foolish enough to buy a cabin and a luxury SUV (among other purchases) thinking it would continue forever. Crash hit, he suffered mightily for 6 years. Now, he crawled back, not losing a thing, and is once again approaching $100,000 for an annual salary.
His next major purchase?
A new fishing pole.
Guy #2
Another good buddy of mine. Smart, young entrepreneur. Made a KILLING during the housing bubble as he was a master carpenter and also invested in real estate. Was flying to Vegas on a semi-weekly basis with his wife. Drove a Mercedes and also thought the good times would last. Housing bubble hit. Some of his investment partners proved not to be as solvent or honest as they claimed. His flagship operation went bust. Now, he's rebuilt himself a nice piece of property he bought at the bottom of the bust, built up a stash of cash to pay off creditors if necessary.
His next major purchase?
A cigar with me.
Guy #3
Me.
Never had anywhere near the success of the aforementioned two. Finally found a company to refinance my house. Make enough money on book sales and various internet ventures to put food on the table and travel on the cheap sleeping in crappy motels, if not the rental car. One time, with full time dance classes and full time banking work, almost made $100,000 had I not told my employer to go fornicate himself. Housing bubble hit, reverted to solely dance classes, and once again lived in an illegally furnished basement apartment to make ends meet.
Next major purchase?
Gas for my next road trip.
So what, young lieutenants, do all the aforementioned boys above have in common?
Well, let me tell you.
1. They in their naive youth were more than willing to bust out of the gates, take on life, and become great entrepreneurs or captains of industry.
2. They foolishly assumed what finite and fleeting fortune they did have was going to last forever and either purchased things they shouldn't have or made investments in what is now in retrospect foolish things.
3. After suffering the great recession, having to get by on limited income wherein finances were so crippling and threatening, all of them have (and pay attention to this) ZERO INTEREST IN EVER BUYING ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANT WORTH EVER AGAIN.
And thus the point of my post.
While we three men of occident aren't conclusive empirical proof, we are anecdotes of what I believe to be a torpedoing trend for the Keynesian Obamanauts - people, with the harshness of the Great Recession fresh in their minds, just plain don't want to invest or spend money.
I wanted to see if there was a "Marginal Propensity to Consume" figure on the FRED database to confirm this, but I could not find one. Still, using several proxies you see at least a reluctance or stubbornness as the population becomes penny pinchers a la those who went through the Great Depression.
Gross private investment, though recovering, still isn't back to its historical average:
The Personal Savings Rate (which I believe is actually a good thing) is not playing Keynesian ball
And the velocity of money puts another nail on Obama's record-breaking stimulus spending:
Whatever specific events caused this - crushing finances for 7 years, big titted girls running off with money, foreclosure, ne'er an ounce of job security - the larger point is that what is ultimately driving this fear to spend and invest is psychology. And sadly, for Obama and his Keynesians, they largely ignore psychology, insisting to treat economics as an actual, mathematical science arrogantly thinking they can predict the economy like Newtonian physics.
Since they ignore psychology the economic policies they enact are rendered impotent. For example we do have relatively low taxes historically speaking. But spending is so out of control it undermines the entire future of the economy, driving away any long term investment. Obama can talk all he wants about jobs, but with Obama and the left blatantly spouting off their hatred, envy and desire to steal from the successful, it not only makes it just talk, but further deters any would-be entrepreneurs from trying their best. And ironically, since none of these Keynesian tactics have actually worked, the left has screwed over their most reliable demographic - young people. Additionally burden this demographic with student loans used largely to finance the "Leftist Vampire Professor Industry" and it doesn't matter how much "hope and faith" they have in Obama, they just plain don't have the money to buy houses, cars, and boost the economy.
The end result is what we have now - an economy that could not be more diametrically opposed to textbook economics. Historical (and I do mean historical) stimulus spending, yet a stagnant economy.
For Austrian economists or people who just have their heads out of their asses, this makes sense. For charlatans posing as Keynesians, but who know better (Krugman, etc.), this also makes sense, but they need to come up with increasingly fabricated poppycock to keep the spending gravy train going. For the rest of the economists out there this simply does not compute. But then again, most economists spent way too much time obsessing over math, let alone they actually believed the leftist claptrap they were fed in school. Alas, the price one pays for a lack of intellectually honest and independent thought is confusion and forced cognitive dissonance.
Enjoy the decline!
Monday Night Liebschens
All liberal and leftists roads lead towards Lierre Keith. I ask a simple question of the leftist activists. When it's all said and done...or heck, you're just Lierre's age, do you ever stop and say, "wow, I just pissed away my life?" Or does that thought never occur to you?
That reality is a bitch. Let's replace with withlies er...um....non-reality.
Dow Jones 32,000....and based on his argument I can't disagree with him.
Now if Free Northerner would just write something deep and intricate involving economics, inflation, philosophy, morality, religion and logic. You know, if just once he would do that AND make it interesting. You know instead of all that other boring tripe he writes.
That reality is a bitch. Let's replace with with
Dow Jones 32,000....and based on his argument I can't disagree with him.
Now if Free Northerner would just write something deep and intricate involving economics, inflation, philosophy, morality, religion and logic. You know, if just once he would do that AND make it interesting. You know instead of all that other boring tripe he writes.
Lastest Clarey Podcast
Advanced apologies from the road because I was driving to visit my dad for father's day. So if you're against this podcast you're against father's day and you're evil and hate all fathers.
No, actually, you aren't. You just don't like marginal audio quality.
Still, in this latest podcast:
How the Mighty Morphin POwer Rangers are Creepy
How the National Park Rangers in Glacier National Park are Hippie Nazi's you can ignore
Not regretting having children
And the amazing absence of black people in horse racing
AND MORE!
in this totally non-racist, non-horse-a-phobic, non-Might-Morphins-Power-Ranger-Anti-Pedophiliac episode of The Clarey Podcast!
(Archives can be found here!)
No, actually, you aren't. You just don't like marginal audio quality.
Still, in this latest podcast:
How the Mighty Morphin POwer Rangers are Creepy
How the National Park Rangers in Glacier National Park are Hippie Nazi's you can ignore
Not regretting having children
And the amazing absence of black people in horse racing
AND MORE!
in this totally non-racist, non-horse-a-phobic, non-Might-Morphins-Power-Ranger-Anti-Pedophiliac episode of The Clarey Podcast!
(Archives can be found here!)
A Sad Father's Day
From our Chicago Agent in the Field:
I always knew Jenny McCarthy was worthless. And that Mark Wahlberg's brother was...well...Mark Wahlberg's brother and not Mark Wahlberg. Because Mark Wahlberg would never settle for Jenny McCarthy.
Anyway, deep down inside I wish that what we "perceive" is not what "is" and that we're just being pessimistic. Sadly, when I see this I start to realize that the problem really does run that deep and that it really is an issue.
I always knew Jenny McCarthy was worthless. And that Mark Wahlberg's brother was...well...Mark Wahlberg's brother and not Mark Wahlberg. Because Mark Wahlberg would never settle for Jenny McCarthy.
Anyway, deep down inside I wish that what we "perceive" is not what "is" and that we're just being pessimistic. Sadly, when I see this I start to realize that the problem really does run that deep and that it really is an issue.
It's a Good Day When a Hoarder Dies
I couldn't put my finger on it why I had this visceral and extreme hatred and disgust with hoarders. Not just in watching the shows, but dealing with people in my own life who put more value on material items than they did life and their fellow human beings.
And then it dawned on me why:
They put more value on worthless material items than they did life and their fellow human beings.
My epiphany about humans being the most important thing in this world is well-covered ground. I don't need to delve into that. But the fact that hoarding is a phenomenon AND to a lesser extent VERY COMMON among the rest of society, only serves as a damning testament to the general patheticness of society.
Think about it. Nearly everybody you know hoards to one level or another. Not the extreme where a worthless soul is crushed by the collapsing floor underneath the weight of filth. But just look at the average American household and how much unneeded and worthless stuff is crammed into it.
Admittedly I have a unique perspective ridding myself of nearly 75% of my Earthly possessions. LImiting myself to just the bare necessities and ONE box of mementos. But even the average person has about 60% of stuff they don't need, don't use, but still hold onto. Certainly, a lot of this is unconscious (not until you move do you realize just what a burden all your stuff is). But where my ire is raised is when a person is asked to get rid of their stuff so that they may continue on with life AND HAS A PERSONAL UMBRAGE AND AFFRONT to getting rid of said stuff, that is where I start to view them as inferior.
Trinkets, doileys, furniture, appliances, televisions, clothes, you name it. Humans are programmed to put more value on stuff they'll never use than the people said stuff inconveniences. They'd rather cripple their finances, renting or paying a mortgage for a house that serves more as a storage facility, not to mention torpedo their personal or love relationships, than rid themselves of meaningless things because they are so subhuman, so sub-par, they actually value things more than life and their fellow human beings.
It took me a while to fully explore and understand my genuine hatred for hoarders and people who are pack rats. And now after thinking it through (not to mention seeing instance first hand) I understand why I not only despised such people but why my despisement was completely legitimate:
They are not humans, but subhumans. And subhumans that would rather collect "Beanie Babies" or some other worthless shit than give their spouse or children or just their plain fellow man an extra bedroom in case of need.
It is indeed one of the few and genuine drawbacks of capitalism.
And then it dawned on me why:
They put more value on worthless material items than they did life and their fellow human beings.
My epiphany about humans being the most important thing in this world is well-covered ground. I don't need to delve into that. But the fact that hoarding is a phenomenon AND to a lesser extent VERY COMMON among the rest of society, only serves as a damning testament to the general patheticness of society.
Think about it. Nearly everybody you know hoards to one level or another. Not the extreme where a worthless soul is crushed by the collapsing floor underneath the weight of filth. But just look at the average American household and how much unneeded and worthless stuff is crammed into it.
Admittedly I have a unique perspective ridding myself of nearly 75% of my Earthly possessions. LImiting myself to just the bare necessities and ONE box of mementos. But even the average person has about 60% of stuff they don't need, don't use, but still hold onto. Certainly, a lot of this is unconscious (not until you move do you realize just what a burden all your stuff is). But where my ire is raised is when a person is asked to get rid of their stuff so that they may continue on with life AND HAS A PERSONAL UMBRAGE AND AFFRONT to getting rid of said stuff, that is where I start to view them as inferior.
Trinkets, doileys, furniture, appliances, televisions, clothes, you name it. Humans are programmed to put more value on stuff they'll never use than the people said stuff inconveniences. They'd rather cripple their finances, renting or paying a mortgage for a house that serves more as a storage facility, not to mention torpedo their personal or love relationships, than rid themselves of meaningless things because they are so subhuman, so sub-par, they actually value things more than life and their fellow human beings.
It took me a while to fully explore and understand my genuine hatred for hoarders and people who are pack rats. And now after thinking it through (not to mention seeing instance first hand) I understand why I not only despised such people but why my despisement was completely legitimate:
They are not humans, but subhumans. And subhumans that would rather collect "Beanie Babies" or some other worthless shit than give their spouse or children or just their plain fellow man an extra bedroom in case of need.
It is indeed one of the few and genuine drawbacks of capitalism.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Outstanding Podcast on Your IQ
Molyneaux has a very good podcast (the first caller) about how having a high IQ serves as a handicap towards integrating with the rest of society. His mockery of people looking for gold on the beach is also hilarious.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Friday Night Constitutional
Yawnnnn...don't care. And yes, it's because I'm an asshole.
Why you never book at the Hilton in a Liberal Town.
I dated a black girl once. But she acted like a respectable woman. And that's why I dated her (though it was shortlived because she didn't reciprocate the poor ole Cappy's feelings...sniff sniff.). However I would never date this.
What happens when you renounce your US citizenship?
We don't need no STIIIIINNNNKING fathers!
Why you never book at the Hilton in a Liberal Town.
I dated a black girl once. But she acted like a respectable woman. And that's why I dated her (though it was shortlived because she didn't reciprocate the poor ole Cappy's feelings...sniff sniff.). However I would never date this.
What happens when you renounce your US citizenship?
We don't need no STIIIIINNNNKING fathers!
When the Fuel Runs Out
I've been kicking around a theory, one of which I've ran past Roosh and some other philosophers and theoreticians.
Do men have a finite amount of fuel/energy?
Fuel and energy for what, you ask.
Fuel and energy for pursuing women.
It seems a stupid question on the face of it, but when you think it through a couple more layers you start to see it's importance and ramifications. Most of "sexual market value theory" is based on the relative worth of an individual where young women in their 20 something prime command the highest premium while men age more slowly, but surely into their 40 something primes. This is the biologically "separation of powers" that nature has programmed into the human species to ensure not only its survival, but that no one sex gains the upper hand over the other. But the entirety of this "model" (completely true as it is) is one-sided in its focus.
It only focuses on demand for the respective sex.
It never considers supply.
And supply is the topic I'd like to address today.
I took an informal survey a while ago asking men what percentage of their free time they dedicated towards the pursuit of women. And like I surmised, the results showed a high percentage during their late teens and early twenties, only to dwindle to near nothingness in by the time they reached their 50's. Matter of fact most men in their 50's had more interest in reading books than going out and finding favor with the opposite sex.
This not only supplements the theory that men have a more long term advantage over women, aging like scotch while women age like milk, but deals a double blow to the "supply demand" dynamics of aging courtship. Not only do men get better with age, they lose an interest in pursuing women as well.
This isn't to say that men as they approach 50 don't notice a fine POA crossing their vantage point, but based on my observations they are less willing to spend the effort and resources in trying to procure a hottie.
And who can blame them?
If we revert back to lizard-brain-neaderthal times, calories spent was the primary calculation that determined if you lived or died. Do I spent 5,000 calories of energy pursuing a herd of deer to MAYBE beget 6,000 calories of meat? Do I spend 10,000 calories tilling fields to grow a crop to MAYBE beget 12,000 calories of food? Though our minds have recently been inoculated against such biological mathetmatical realities for the past 100 years due to advances in food production, that doesn't undo the 2 million years of human genetic evolution that has trained mens' brains intuitively to calculate every proposition as such.
Ergo, it is in man's natural instinct to constantly weigh the pro's and con's of effort expended on trying to mate versus the opportunity cost. And with ample supply of food, not to mention an unlimited choice of substitute goods (video games, scotch, TV, sports, internet porn, etc.), most logically thinking males will choose the substitute goods and "rub one out" to quote Bill Burr, as that is the least expenditure of physical effort and calories and therefore provides them (according to their lizard brain) the highest chances of survival.
This then leads me to my theory that most men have a finite and limited amount of "fuel." In my younger, more idealistic, years, I would have contended a man's life force was unlimited. He was truly limitless. All he needed was mere support from society and a man's potential was unlimited. While I do on a theoretical basis yearn to believe as such, living in the real world and seeing just how "anti-progress" society is, I've come to accept that a man's potential is indeed limited by the idiocy, closemindedness, bigotry, and anti-success-envy that rules the rest of society. It not only is draining, but is also provides great disincentive at every step of a (would be) genius' advancement. Constantly hounded about inequality, superior performance, the concept of "excellence," and bedraggled into the mundacity of "affirmative action," a true genius or society performer has the life and inspiration kicked out of them. Combine this with progressive tax rates and a general hatred for the successful, men's fuel or "desire" to perform at their peak is severely deterred.
This acceleration, according to my theory, "burns up" the "tolerance fuel" young men have for society, included of which is women. A young man circa 1947 would graduate from college, know how to weld, and likely have a serious job offer at the local car shop. He would have little to no problem finding a suitable woman to court and she'd be happy to court him. Today, however, with $50,000 in debt, no job prospects, and a part time job at Starbucks seriously burns through whatever "patience fuel" a young man has today. Throw in the generally bitchy attitude of most American female college graduates and you don't have June Cleaver at home to soothe your ills and support you, but rather a demanding, commanding, fuel-burning battle axe blathering on about her worthless liberal arts degree. Not only does the lack of economic and employment opportunity burn away at your fuel, but the parasitic deadweight of liberal arts majoring bloviating entitled-thinking American females just evaporates whatever remaining fuel reserves you have left.
Accelerate this scenario over the course of a 20 to 30 something man's life. Poverty, constantly harangued with a never ending supply of self-entitled liberal female adult-children, and in the end, you will burn out. You will lose your patience, and you will lose your desire to ever go to a club or a bar again. And thus my theory.
Most men have only a limited amount of energy, patience, tolerance, and naivete. But once that runs out, they will rarely, if ever, go out to the club scene and present the "supply curve" of attention women so desperately want. Over time, as men age and get wise, they will eschew the night club scene, and even the online dating scene, as they realize, time and time again, their efforts are wasted. And since their efforts are wasted and said efforts are a very real and mathematical percentage of their lives, costing them genuine opportunity costs, they will scale down.
The results are obvious:
Less men at clubs
Less men at dance classes
Less men asking women out.
Less men in general
This isn't to say hot spots in NYC or Las Vegas aren't going to be teaming with DudeBroInc. But it is to say that over time young men, after having the candle burned at both ends, will "burn out" running out of fuel and no longer have the energy or fuel to go out at night to find you. They will be at home, watching Midnight Run, watching porn, grilling steaks or reading books.
Just remember that when you're 42 and still think you have the right to fire up your "Bitch Shield" because nobody is watching.
Do men have a finite amount of fuel/energy?
Fuel and energy for what, you ask.
Fuel and energy for pursuing women.
It seems a stupid question on the face of it, but when you think it through a couple more layers you start to see it's importance and ramifications. Most of "sexual market value theory" is based on the relative worth of an individual where young women in their 20 something prime command the highest premium while men age more slowly, but surely into their 40 something primes. This is the biologically "separation of powers" that nature has programmed into the human species to ensure not only its survival, but that no one sex gains the upper hand over the other. But the entirety of this "model" (completely true as it is) is one-sided in its focus.
It only focuses on demand for the respective sex.
It never considers supply.
And supply is the topic I'd like to address today.
I took an informal survey a while ago asking men what percentage of their free time they dedicated towards the pursuit of women. And like I surmised, the results showed a high percentage during their late teens and early twenties, only to dwindle to near nothingness in by the time they reached their 50's. Matter of fact most men in their 50's had more interest in reading books than going out and finding favor with the opposite sex.
This not only supplements the theory that men have a more long term advantage over women, aging like scotch while women age like milk, but deals a double blow to the "supply demand" dynamics of aging courtship. Not only do men get better with age, they lose an interest in pursuing women as well.
This isn't to say that men as they approach 50 don't notice a fine POA crossing their vantage point, but based on my observations they are less willing to spend the effort and resources in trying to procure a hottie.
And who can blame them?
If we revert back to lizard-brain-neaderthal times, calories spent was the primary calculation that determined if you lived or died. Do I spent 5,000 calories of energy pursuing a herd of deer to MAYBE beget 6,000 calories of meat? Do I spend 10,000 calories tilling fields to grow a crop to MAYBE beget 12,000 calories of food? Though our minds have recently been inoculated against such biological mathetmatical realities for the past 100 years due to advances in food production, that doesn't undo the 2 million years of human genetic evolution that has trained mens' brains intuitively to calculate every proposition as such.
Ergo, it is in man's natural instinct to constantly weigh the pro's and con's of effort expended on trying to mate versus the opportunity cost. And with ample supply of food, not to mention an unlimited choice of substitute goods (video games, scotch, TV, sports, internet porn, etc.), most logically thinking males will choose the substitute goods and "rub one out" to quote Bill Burr, as that is the least expenditure of physical effort and calories and therefore provides them (according to their lizard brain) the highest chances of survival.
This then leads me to my theory that most men have a finite and limited amount of "fuel." In my younger, more idealistic, years, I would have contended a man's life force was unlimited. He was truly limitless. All he needed was mere support from society and a man's potential was unlimited. While I do on a theoretical basis yearn to believe as such, living in the real world and seeing just how "anti-progress" society is, I've come to accept that a man's potential is indeed limited by the idiocy, closemindedness, bigotry, and anti-success-envy that rules the rest of society. It not only is draining, but is also provides great disincentive at every step of a (would be) genius' advancement. Constantly hounded about inequality, superior performance, the concept of "excellence," and bedraggled into the mundacity of "affirmative action," a true genius or society performer has the life and inspiration kicked out of them. Combine this with progressive tax rates and a general hatred for the successful, men's fuel or "desire" to perform at their peak is severely deterred.
This acceleration, according to my theory, "burns up" the "tolerance fuel" young men have for society, included of which is women. A young man circa 1947 would graduate from college, know how to weld, and likely have a serious job offer at the local car shop. He would have little to no problem finding a suitable woman to court and she'd be happy to court him. Today, however, with $50,000 in debt, no job prospects, and a part time job at Starbucks seriously burns through whatever "patience fuel" a young man has today. Throw in the generally bitchy attitude of most American female college graduates and you don't have June Cleaver at home to soothe your ills and support you, but rather a demanding, commanding, fuel-burning battle axe blathering on about her worthless liberal arts degree. Not only does the lack of economic and employment opportunity burn away at your fuel, but the parasitic deadweight of liberal arts majoring bloviating entitled-thinking American females just evaporates whatever remaining fuel reserves you have left.
Accelerate this scenario over the course of a 20 to 30 something man's life. Poverty, constantly harangued with a never ending supply of self-entitled liberal female adult-children, and in the end, you will burn out. You will lose your patience, and you will lose your desire to ever go to a club or a bar again. And thus my theory.
Most men have only a limited amount of energy, patience, tolerance, and naivete. But once that runs out, they will rarely, if ever, go out to the club scene and present the "supply curve" of attention women so desperately want. Over time, as men age and get wise, they will eschew the night club scene, and even the online dating scene, as they realize, time and time again, their efforts are wasted. And since their efforts are wasted and said efforts are a very real and mathematical percentage of their lives, costing them genuine opportunity costs, they will scale down.
The results are obvious:
Less men at clubs
Less men at dance classes
Less men asking women out.
Less men in general
This isn't to say hot spots in NYC or Las Vegas aren't going to be teaming with DudeBroInc. But it is to say that over time young men, after having the candle burned at both ends, will "burn out" running out of fuel and no longer have the energy or fuel to go out at night to find you. They will be at home, watching Midnight Run, watching porn, grilling steaks or reading books.
Just remember that when you're 42 and still think you have the right to fire up your "Bitch Shield" because nobody is watching.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Smart People Outsource
"Outsourcing" is a funny thing.
Business experts applaud it.
Democrats love screwing over their union base by destroying jobs for it.
And every American loves nothing more than forcing Asians to slave away to make their latest Apple product for it.
But you know where the REAL cutting edge of outsourcing is?
Outsourcing your worthless prerequisite classes forced on you by the Big Education Industrial Complex.
Do you REALLY need to take 10 courses in
common sense
diversity
CSR
and other leftist claptrap bullshit?
no you don't.
But your higher education indoctrinators demand you do so they can employ further worthless scum such as themselves and enrich themselves in the process.
Why don't you fight back with a tool they themselves use?
OUTSOURCE your worthless hoop jumping classes to Academic Composition.
Academic Composition will write the pointless, purposeless papers you don't want to, let alone have the time to in order to prove to those souless corporations that you're worth hiring. Besides, corporations believe outsourcing is a GREAT strategy and would be hypocritical if they dared to judge against a person employing their own tactics. So the solution is obvious.
They want to make you jump like a well-trained puppy dog to get an MBA.
You have self-respect.
So why don't you employ the services of Academic Composition to throw it right back in their hypocritical faces and "outsource" your pointless, meaningless, commie-socialist-professor-enriching make work so that you can get your MBA and ultimately get on with your life?
Society, boomers, academia, corporate America and every other institution is aiming to fuck you over,
why not fuck them back?
Hire the services of Academic Composition and play their equally foul game. It's the least you can do to play their own game.
(PS - Academic Composition is looking to hire! Do you have that worthless masters degree that your indoctrinators told you would be the salvation and your gateway to freedom and happiness? But instead is an albatross of student debt? Well, fuck the system back and help write papers for other students! make money AND screw back the system that screwed you over!)
Business experts applaud it.
Democrats love screwing over their union base by destroying jobs for it.
And every American loves nothing more than forcing Asians to slave away to make their latest Apple product for it.
But you know where the REAL cutting edge of outsourcing is?
Outsourcing your worthless prerequisite classes forced on you by the Big Education Industrial Complex.
Do you REALLY need to take 10 courses in
common sense
diversity
CSR
and other leftist claptrap bullshit?
no you don't.
But your higher education indoctrinators demand you do so they can employ further worthless scum such as themselves and enrich themselves in the process.
Why don't you fight back with a tool they themselves use?
OUTSOURCE your worthless hoop jumping classes to Academic Composition.
Academic Composition will write the pointless, purposeless papers you don't want to, let alone have the time to in order to prove to those souless corporations that you're worth hiring. Besides, corporations believe outsourcing is a GREAT strategy and would be hypocritical if they dared to judge against a person employing their own tactics. So the solution is obvious.
They want to make you jump like a well-trained puppy dog to get an MBA.
You have self-respect.
So why don't you employ the services of Academic Composition to throw it right back in their hypocritical faces and "outsource" your pointless, meaningless, commie-socialist-professor-enriching make work so that you can get your MBA and ultimately get on with your life?
Society, boomers, academia, corporate America and every other institution is aiming to fuck you over,
why not fuck them back?
Hire the services of Academic Composition and play their equally foul game. It's the least you can do to play their own game.
(PS - Academic Composition is looking to hire! Do you have that worthless masters degree that your indoctrinators told you would be the salvation and your gateway to freedom and happiness? But instead is an albatross of student debt? Well, fuck the system back and help write papers for other students! make money AND screw back the system that screwed you over!)
Baby Sitting the Banks
Like always, an epiphany struck when I was innocently sitting at my bar in my town. I don't control when these things happen, but it did, and now I'm forced to document said epiphany before I forget.
Rewind about 3 years ago where I was in the dumbest state of the union, Wyoming. There as an "assistant vice president" working at what was then MATHEMATICALLY AND FACTUALLY the second worst bank in the state, I entertained degenerate applicant after degenerate applicant looking tosteal "borrow" money from the fed our beloved shareholders.
One guy wanted a truck equity loan.
Another wanted a home equity loan on his tetanus-infested trailer.
A third tried to pass on a fake check
And let's not forget Casper's finest citizen asking me for a "Gas loan" so he could drive to Denver to visit his "grandson who was in the hospital."
I was in the midst of it and didn't realize it, but the fact the bank I worked for had such a bad reputation that banks were sending literal bums to us should have told me that management was so desperate and so inept that we were entertaining such idiocy as "truck equity loans" and making loans to trailer trash. But add another factor I didn't realize until now because I was in the thick of it.
OCC compliance.
When I moved to the company's "headquarters" my job went from commercial lending to one of federal compliance. The bank was so shittacularly managed before that they were now under audit and had the federal regulators down their throats. And so I got to see, upfront and personal, each and every new regulation, requirement, dictate and demand that came from the authorities.
At first I was angry at these regulations. They were petty, idiotic, and so time consuming they made it so the bank could not be profitable. We had to do monthly updates on our "problem loans." We had to write reports proving to the feds that we were actively working on dealing with our problem loans. I had to fill out 13 pages of paperwork to get the taxpayer (that's you) guarantee on loans we made to Bubba the Incestuous Trailer Trash Hick on his Goat-Screwing farm. And that's just a fraction of needless time-consuming hurdles we had to deal with. But so petty and onerous were the regulations, I was convinced they were doing it out of spite. That way up top of these various departments were leftists, democrat types that wanted to "stick it to the banks," and that's what I was thoroughly convinced of.
But then I got to thinking as I look at the now polished off tumbler glass of Rumpleminze and reminisce aboutScrewyourcousining Wyoming.
The feds weren't being the typical "inefficient" government bureaucracy unconscious of their crippling regulations.
And the feds weren't being vindictive ideologues punishing those "evil bankers."
The feds were actually 100% completely right in doing what they were doing.
They were baby sitting what was once an incompetent and piss-poorly managed bank.
Naturally the old guard was fired and replaced with a turn around team. This team was focused on getting out from underneath the federal regulators with the sole goal of becoming a state chartered bank allowing them to have a shot at being profitable (though lending to trailer trash, Goat Screwing Farms, and the burgeoning Teenage Single Parent market will likely prove that difficult). But none of that changed what the federal regulators had to deal with.
View it from the regulators' eyes.
You had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression caused by the most galactically stupid bankers in the history of the world. These bankers and the management of the banks were SOOOOO incomprehensibly inept that they were literally like dealing with children. The only problem is these "children" were at the vital cross-roads of the US economy and that was the banking system. The lifeblood of this or any other economy was being ran by the most idiotic incompetents in the world. Soon enough, their reckless lending came to roost and when their idiocy was exposed either through audits or the news, the feds had to have been saying circa 2008
"Who the fuck is in charge of this operation? What the fuck is going on? How dumb can you possibly get?"
And naturally, the consequence was one where a house full of feral children ultimately come to heel - through a tyrannical, powerful, heavy handed disciplinarian.
In the end, the petty regulations, the constant updates, and all the seemingly pointless requirements regulators were (and still are) forcing on banks were not out of malice, pettiness or politics. But rather necessity because of the unrivalled incompetence and stupidity of bankers and the banking industry. And the fact for once I actually agree with federal regulations and regulators, crippling and choking off our financial services industry, is a testament to the true ineptitude of those genuine USDA 100% fucktards currently in charge of our banking system today.
Rewind about 3 years ago where I was in the dumbest state of the union, Wyoming. There as an "assistant vice president" working at what was then MATHEMATICALLY AND FACTUALLY the second worst bank in the state, I entertained degenerate applicant after degenerate applicant looking to
One guy wanted a truck equity loan.
Another wanted a home equity loan on his tetanus-infested trailer.
A third tried to pass on a fake check
And let's not forget Casper's finest citizen asking me for a "Gas loan" so he could drive to Denver to visit his "grandson who was in the hospital."
I was in the midst of it and didn't realize it, but the fact the bank I worked for had such a bad reputation that banks were sending literal bums to us should have told me that management was so desperate and so inept that we were entertaining such idiocy as "truck equity loans" and making loans to trailer trash. But add another factor I didn't realize until now because I was in the thick of it.
OCC compliance.
When I moved to the company's "headquarters" my job went from commercial lending to one of federal compliance. The bank was so shittacularly managed before that they were now under audit and had the federal regulators down their throats. And so I got to see, upfront and personal, each and every new regulation, requirement, dictate and demand that came from the authorities.
At first I was angry at these regulations. They were petty, idiotic, and so time consuming they made it so the bank could not be profitable. We had to do monthly updates on our "problem loans." We had to write reports proving to the feds that we were actively working on dealing with our problem loans. I had to fill out 13 pages of paperwork to get the taxpayer (that's you) guarantee on loans we made to Bubba the Incestuous Trailer Trash Hick on his Goat-Screwing farm. And that's just a fraction of needless time-consuming hurdles we had to deal with. But so petty and onerous were the regulations, I was convinced they were doing it out of spite. That way up top of these various departments were leftists, democrat types that wanted to "stick it to the banks," and that's what I was thoroughly convinced of.
But then I got to thinking as I look at the now polished off tumbler glass of Rumpleminze and reminisce about
The feds weren't being the typical "inefficient" government bureaucracy unconscious of their crippling regulations.
And the feds weren't being vindictive ideologues punishing those "evil bankers."
The feds were actually 100% completely right in doing what they were doing.
They were baby sitting what was once an incompetent and piss-poorly managed bank.
Naturally the old guard was fired and replaced with a turn around team. This team was focused on getting out from underneath the federal regulators with the sole goal of becoming a state chartered bank allowing them to have a shot at being profitable (though lending to trailer trash, Goat Screwing Farms, and the burgeoning Teenage Single Parent market will likely prove that difficult). But none of that changed what the federal regulators had to deal with.
View it from the regulators' eyes.
You had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression caused by the most galactically stupid bankers in the history of the world. These bankers and the management of the banks were SOOOOO incomprehensibly inept that they were literally like dealing with children. The only problem is these "children" were at the vital cross-roads of the US economy and that was the banking system. The lifeblood of this or any other economy was being ran by the most idiotic incompetents in the world. Soon enough, their reckless lending came to roost and when their idiocy was exposed either through audits or the news, the feds had to have been saying circa 2008
"Who the fuck is in charge of this operation? What the fuck is going on? How dumb can you possibly get?"
And naturally, the consequence was one where a house full of feral children ultimately come to heel - through a tyrannical, powerful, heavy handed disciplinarian.
In the end, the petty regulations, the constant updates, and all the seemingly pointless requirements regulators were (and still are) forcing on banks were not out of malice, pettiness or politics. But rather necessity because of the unrivalled incompetence and stupidity of bankers and the banking industry. And the fact for once I actually agree with federal regulations and regulators, crippling and choking off our financial services industry, is a testament to the true ineptitude of those genuine USDA 100% fucktards currently in charge of our banking system today.
Reversing the Economic Argument
In being a preacher's son forced to go to parochial school, what information went into my little toddler brain was very controlled and very deliberate. Therefore, like all young children who don't know any better, my brain was limited in it's capacity to fight against what my lizard brain knew was lies, deceit, and sometimes outright mental abuse because it was confined and structured by "facts" that were not facts at all. Things like "I will go to hell if I sin," "If you don't love Jesus you will go to hell," and "the Bible is truth." There are literally thousands more instances of these false facts that religious people use to restrict people's brains, but the larger point is that in getting a young child to agree to false premises, you effectively handicap that individual from ever legitimately arguing against, let alone, challenging the religion. In other words, in a very cowardly way, you fool the child into thinking that s/he can only debate or argue against the religion by using ordained and approved religious techniques. And therefore instead of questioning something as fundamental as proof of god or how precisely a guy nailed to a plank of wood forgives you for putting a snake in Suzie Jone's desk never comes to the forefront as you are instead too busy trying to parse and interpret bible passages.
But a funny thing happened to me today as I was riding my motorcycle around Lake Pepin. I had one of those epiphanies where the light just shot on, forcing me to pull over and take notes so that I would not forget it. And that epiphany is;
You can apply the exact same observation to economics.
As I've aged and become more experienced, I start to realize just how much of a fraudulent study economics is. Not because economics isn't important. Not because there isn't some serious important issues that economics addresses. It's not even that the secret to riches for all does lay within economics (it does and it is what ultimately drives my eternal passion for economics). But rather how the field's self-proclaimed experts have turned it into nothing more than self-serving political bunk. It is no longer simply about the "efficient allocation of resources" or "maximizing the wealth of people" but rather idiotic concepts like the Phillips Curve, running advanced (and ultimately flawed) economic models, fretting about things like the liquidity trap, drawing idiotic foursquare games for "prisoner theory," and the hundreds of other temporary and fleeting relationships that have been observed in the past 60 years that the economist academians trump out and treat it as if it were a real science when in reality it is a constantly changing art as it is human psychology that underpins it all.
And thus my case for "reversing the economic argument."
I tried to read a paper by Paul Krugman once, and while he no doubt probably adhered to Keynesian theory to the letter, in the end none of it made sense and my mind started to wander. Not only because it was boring, but because experience has told me something that complex would ultimately be debunked by Occam's Razor. I don't care how many charts he threw up, I don't care what latest version of "Ricardian Equivalence" he was using, let alone the empirical data to prove it, in the end if you step back and look at it, it was nothing more than a pastor using the bible to further confirm Christianity. In otherwords, economics has becomes so focused on itself as a study, has put on such horse-blinders, its clergy has lost sight of its original and more important goal and now study it for its own sake.
Therefore, if you truly want to understand (or disprove some things about) economics, I argue going backwards. I argue going outside the study. I argue applying some basic, simple logic and factual testing to see if this increasingly complex "field" even makes sense anymore or is merely a circle jerk for wanna-be mathematicians just like religion is for most clergymen.
For example, a simple question I have, is WWII the only data point the Keynesianism can point to in history where it worked? And if so, why the hell did we base the entire western world's governance and economic policies on something so ill-tested?
Another, precisely whose brilliant idea was it that government should intervene period? Who precisely died and made you economic king giving you authority to "provide incentives" or "boost demand curves?" Since when was it the government's and politician's responsibility to MANAGE people? (I'll tell you who. One sick, power-hungry, totalitarian, that's who).
And though I am certainly very political, shouldn't we be concerned when the likes of Krugman call Republicans racist or we start claiming that 100% purely politically moves such as "diversity" have some kind of inherent value? i.e. - why is politics allowed to enter, let alone corrupt economists and their views?
I could go on, but these simple questions are identical to the basic, logical questions we need to ask (but aren't allowed to) of religion.
First, where's your proof of god? Oh, you don't have any? Then why with the threatening of little children with hell?
Second, explain to me the guy on the plank of wood and the snake in Suzie Jone's desk?
Third, did Adam have a belly button?
And fourth, how is stealing money from productive people and giving it to parasitic people a "winning" long term and sustainable economic strategy?
In the end, if you reverse the economic argument you'll see our modern day economists are no different than those "idiot" clergymen they mock for having equally idiotic, fanciful, and self-serving beliefs.
Enjoy the decline.
But a funny thing happened to me today as I was riding my motorcycle around Lake Pepin. I had one of those epiphanies where the light just shot on, forcing me to pull over and take notes so that I would not forget it. And that epiphany is;
You can apply the exact same observation to economics.
As I've aged and become more experienced, I start to realize just how much of a fraudulent study economics is. Not because economics isn't important. Not because there isn't some serious important issues that economics addresses. It's not even that the secret to riches for all does lay within economics (it does and it is what ultimately drives my eternal passion for economics). But rather how the field's self-proclaimed experts have turned it into nothing more than self-serving political bunk. It is no longer simply about the "efficient allocation of resources" or "maximizing the wealth of people" but rather idiotic concepts like the Phillips Curve, running advanced (and ultimately flawed) economic models, fretting about things like the liquidity trap, drawing idiotic foursquare games for "prisoner theory," and the hundreds of other temporary and fleeting relationships that have been observed in the past 60 years that the economist academians trump out and treat it as if it were a real science when in reality it is a constantly changing art as it is human psychology that underpins it all.
And thus my case for "reversing the economic argument."
I tried to read a paper by Paul Krugman once, and while he no doubt probably adhered to Keynesian theory to the letter, in the end none of it made sense and my mind started to wander. Not only because it was boring, but because experience has told me something that complex would ultimately be debunked by Occam's Razor. I don't care how many charts he threw up, I don't care what latest version of "Ricardian Equivalence" he was using, let alone the empirical data to prove it, in the end if you step back and look at it, it was nothing more than a pastor using the bible to further confirm Christianity. In otherwords, economics has becomes so focused on itself as a study, has put on such horse-blinders, its clergy has lost sight of its original and more important goal and now study it for its own sake.
Therefore, if you truly want to understand (or disprove some things about) economics, I argue going backwards. I argue going outside the study. I argue applying some basic, simple logic and factual testing to see if this increasingly complex "field" even makes sense anymore or is merely a circle jerk for wanna-be mathematicians just like religion is for most clergymen.
For example, a simple question I have, is WWII the only data point the Keynesianism can point to in history where it worked? And if so, why the hell did we base the entire western world's governance and economic policies on something so ill-tested?
Another, precisely whose brilliant idea was it that government should intervene period? Who precisely died and made you economic king giving you authority to "provide incentives" or "boost demand curves?" Since when was it the government's and politician's responsibility to MANAGE people? (I'll tell you who. One sick, power-hungry, totalitarian, that's who).
And though I am certainly very political, shouldn't we be concerned when the likes of Krugman call Republicans racist or we start claiming that 100% purely politically moves such as "diversity" have some kind of inherent value? i.e. - why is politics allowed to enter, let alone corrupt economists and their views?
I could go on, but these simple questions are identical to the basic, logical questions we need to ask (but aren't allowed to) of religion.
First, where's your proof of god? Oh, you don't have any? Then why with the threatening of little children with hell?
Second, explain to me the guy on the plank of wood and the snake in Suzie Jone's desk?
Third, did Adam have a belly button?
And fourth, how is stealing money from productive people and giving it to parasitic people a "winning" long term and sustainable economic strategy?
In the end, if you reverse the economic argument you'll see our modern day economists are no different than those "idiot" clergymen they mock for having equally idiotic, fanciful, and self-serving beliefs.
Enjoy the decline.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The Economist the Captain Consults
There are a handful of economists I follow, let alone defer to their authority. Obviously, Sowell and Williams are two, but Jerry Robinson, who you may not have heard of, is a third. And this is the reason why. Jerry has an ability to explain advanced economic concepts simply and clearly. And I'd like to see another economist explains de-dollarization in Russia better than him.
Daddy's Little Princess Syndrome
I will be coming out with another video ripping apart all the "fathers" that brought up and sent forth their spoiled princesses into our dating ranks back in the day and highlighting the destruction they caused, but in the meantime, I think it's about high time we define and explain some of the risks of bringing up a "Daddy's Little Princess"
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
When Sons Won't Listen to Their Fathers
A humbling review of Bachelor Pad Economics where the father bought his son the book, but can't get that damn horse to drink the water.
Don't worry, poverty will cure that.
Don't worry, poverty will cure that.
Obama by the Numbers - Debt and Deficit
Continuing on with our empirical series of measuring the performance of the presidents' economic performances, we look today at debt and deficit.
And this is such a slam dunk I don't really think we need to delve too much into the details.
Without a doubt, Obama is the biggest spend-a-holic making Reagan's deficit spending in the 80's (which the left at the time screamed bloody murder) look like austerity v. 2.0.
The natural economic criticism would be that with the world's largest Keynesian stimulus, why the poor economic performance that is on par with GW's? It's like taking five Viagra pills and only lasting 3 minutes. Of course, cynical economists such as myself know when you piss away the stimulus on the dregs of society for Obama Phones, make-work government social programs, unneeded community centers, global warming research, and single-mom mania, it shouldn't be a surprise the money wasn't invested in capital goods, manufacturing, or any real investment, resulting in zero future economic growth.
Naturally, when you piss away deficit money, you do two things. One, increase the amount of debt, and two, you do NOT grow GDP. This then results in an increasing amount of debt relative to the actual economic production being produced:
Of all the statistics we could look at the presidents, it is this one, debt and deficit, that not only defines the Obama presidency, but one of the few ones I would claim is completely owned and the fault of the president. Conservatives at least berated Bush for his (then) egregious spending, but the left is completely silent at the crippling deficit spending of Obama, because like him, they are ideologues and in general hate this country. Any spending that goes to them and their causes AND harms the country's finances at the same time is a two-fer in his and their eyes. Call me cynical, but I'd glad change my tune if I saw proof of the left actually loving this country, rather than hating it and trying to destroy its culture and traditions.
And this is such a slam dunk I don't really think we need to delve too much into the details.
Without a doubt, Obama is the biggest spend-a-holic making Reagan's deficit spending in the 80's (which the left at the time screamed bloody murder) look like austerity v. 2.0.
The natural economic criticism would be that with the world's largest Keynesian stimulus, why the poor economic performance that is on par with GW's? It's like taking five Viagra pills and only lasting 3 minutes. Of course, cynical economists such as myself know when you piss away the stimulus on the dregs of society for Obama Phones, make-work government social programs, unneeded community centers, global warming research, and single-mom mania, it shouldn't be a surprise the money wasn't invested in capital goods, manufacturing, or any real investment, resulting in zero future economic growth.
Naturally, when you piss away deficit money, you do two things. One, increase the amount of debt, and two, you do NOT grow GDP. This then results in an increasing amount of debt relative to the actual economic production being produced:
Of all the statistics we could look at the presidents, it is this one, debt and deficit, that not only defines the Obama presidency, but one of the few ones I would claim is completely owned and the fault of the president. Conservatives at least berated Bush for his (then) egregious spending, but the left is completely silent at the crippling deficit spending of Obama, because like him, they are ideologues and in general hate this country. Any spending that goes to them and their causes AND harms the country's finances at the same time is a two-fer in his and their eyes. Call me cynical, but I'd glad change my tune if I saw proof of the left actually loving this country, rather than hating it and trying to destroy its culture and traditions.
Agreeing With Liberal Girls Will Not Get You Laid
A bit of helpful advice for our hipster and liberal brothers on campus:
Monday, June 09, 2014
Book Review - A Christian Man's Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century
Thankfully, a GUIDE.
A man who wrote a GUIDE and didn't call it a BOOK.
He called it a GUIDE, and that's precisely what it is, a GUIDE.
I read Don Riefstahl's new book, "A Christian Man's Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century" on my way down to Kansas City. I was able to finish reading the entire tome before reaching Missouri because it is a short, succinct guide. As it's title suggests, it's for Christian men and it addresses love and marriage.
To be truthful (which Christians appreciate) it is NOT reading material for any veteran or experienced reader of The Manosphere for the past 2 years. It summarizes some basic information, tenets, philosophies and laws that have been discovered and repeated adinfinitum on The Manosphere. However, it's intended audience is NOT that of those exeprienced Manospherians. It's market is for two distinct set of Christians:
1. Men of all ages who have yet to wake up and unfurl the brainwashing "churchianity" has forced on them
and
2. Young Christian boys who are about to hit puberty and are in for a world of hurt unless somebody gets them this information right quick.
In short, two groups of people who have NEVER heard of the Manosphere or been introduced to its ideas but desperately need them.
The major problem I personally have with the guide is what makes it most marketable - it's for Christians. Ergo, it cites scripture and bases some of its arguments on the word of God. I personally don't believe some of the conclusions (women submit and serve your husbands, etc.) or other bits of advice that come in the book, but it isn't intended for people like me. It's intended for Christian men. Therefore, if they are true believers in the scripture, they will appreciate this tailor-made guide for their religion.
Naturally, anybody who cites scripture is lambasted in the secular community as a sexist, neanderthal who is foolish enough to believe in god (while oddly silent about radical Muslim's treatment of women). However, the biggest push back many Christian men face comes from within their own church which has been more or less hijacked by political correctness, feminism and cultural marxism. This puts many Christian men and boys in a very confusing spot. Do they follow the teachings of Christ and the word of God, or do they kowtow to the screaming Christian women who want abortion, pick and choose passages from the bible that convenience them, divorce frivolously and seem to use Christianity as a mere pharmaceutical to scratch some kind of psychological or social itch they have?
In short, your average secular man whose brain has not been encumbered by religious indoctrination does not need this book. The first few chapters are so elementary and apologetic they actually made me wince. But if you look at it through the lens of a brainwashed Christian boy who's not only been fed all the leftist feminist BS from secular society, but also the emasculating "churchianity" BS from his church you can understand the introductory and kid's glove nature of the book. Therefore, even though I wouldn't recommend it to any of my secular friends, I do recommend this short, brief and succinct book be put in as many hands of your Christian friends as possible.
A man who wrote a GUIDE and didn't call it a BOOK.
He called it a GUIDE, and that's precisely what it is, a GUIDE.
I read Don Riefstahl's new book, "A Christian Man's Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century" on my way down to Kansas City. I was able to finish reading the entire tome before reaching Missouri because it is a short, succinct guide. As it's title suggests, it's for Christian men and it addresses love and marriage.
To be truthful (which Christians appreciate) it is NOT reading material for any veteran or experienced reader of The Manosphere for the past 2 years. It summarizes some basic information, tenets, philosophies and laws that have been discovered and repeated adinfinitum on The Manosphere. However, it's intended audience is NOT that of those exeprienced Manospherians. It's market is for two distinct set of Christians:
1. Men of all ages who have yet to wake up and unfurl the brainwashing "churchianity" has forced on them
and
2. Young Christian boys who are about to hit puberty and are in for a world of hurt unless somebody gets them this information right quick.
In short, two groups of people who have NEVER heard of the Manosphere or been introduced to its ideas but desperately need them.
The major problem I personally have with the guide is what makes it most marketable - it's for Christians. Ergo, it cites scripture and bases some of its arguments on the word of God. I personally don't believe some of the conclusions (women submit and serve your husbands, etc.) or other bits of advice that come in the book, but it isn't intended for people like me. It's intended for Christian men. Therefore, if they are true believers in the scripture, they will appreciate this tailor-made guide for their religion.
Naturally, anybody who cites scripture is lambasted in the secular community as a sexist, neanderthal who is foolish enough to believe in god (while oddly silent about radical Muslim's treatment of women). However, the biggest push back many Christian men face comes from within their own church which has been more or less hijacked by political correctness, feminism and cultural marxism. This puts many Christian men and boys in a very confusing spot. Do they follow the teachings of Christ and the word of God, or do they kowtow to the screaming Christian women who want abortion, pick and choose passages from the bible that convenience them, divorce frivolously and seem to use Christianity as a mere pharmaceutical to scratch some kind of psychological or social itch they have?
In short, your average secular man whose brain has not been encumbered by religious indoctrination does not need this book. The first few chapters are so elementary and apologetic they actually made me wince. But if you look at it through the lens of a brainwashed Christian boy who's not only been fed all the leftist feminist BS from secular society, but also the emasculating "churchianity" BS from his church you can understand the introductory and kid's glove nature of the book. Therefore, even though I wouldn't recommend it to any of my secular friends, I do recommend this short, brief and succinct book be put in as many hands of your Christian friends as possible.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
Book Review - The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch
In my bug out bag I have one AR15, one pistol, iodine pills, ammo, a compass, maps, hand-powered radios and flashlights, a tent, and many many other things. Add to that now "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Society from Scratch" by Dr. Lewis Dartnell.
In short this book is a how to manual to "reboot" society should a destructive event occur wiping out most of humanity and our technological advances along with it. It immediately caught my attention as I have often thought about this in terms of
"OK, I made it to my safe zone and survived, now what? I'm just an economist. I don't know anything about farming, agriculture, and only have a very basic understanding of chemistry and science. How would I rapidly as possible make the remainder of my life the least-labor intensive as possible?"
And this book addresses precisely that.
In an amazingly efficient manner, Dr. Dartnell boils down in a "Civilization"-video-game-Gantt-Chart way what key technologies should and CAN be recovered from the basic tools we'd have available in a post-apocalyptic world. With these basic "key" technologies, we can "leapfrog" other technologies recreating in a matter of two generations that took humankind 10,000 years to create the first time. While the topic is somber and morose, the book is actually quite encouraging, even hopeful, as it explains in a way the average person with average intelligence can understand how to scratch out a reasonably comfortable existence from the ashes of collapsed society.
There are of course drawbacks in taking on a task as broad as this. I didn't see a recipe for toothpaste. He doesn't provide specific instructions (measuring out units of ingredients to create say, gun powder) that will force some trial and error in the future. And he covers the construction of various machines in a general manner, providing no blue prints. The reason for this is obvious, the book would be 5,000 pages long. However, while it may take 4 months to perfect the ratio of the three ingredients to make gun powder, that is infinitely shorter than the 6,000 years it took civilized Chinese to discover it the first time.
In short, the book is a must for survivalists in that most survivalists do not merely wish to survive, but believe in life and believe in the future no matter how dire it may be. And to ensure there is a better future should a collapse occur, having a score or two of these books on the planet will indeed help reboot society and rapidly return the world to the standards of western civilization.
In short this book is a how to manual to "reboot" society should a destructive event occur wiping out most of humanity and our technological advances along with it. It immediately caught my attention as I have often thought about this in terms of
"OK, I made it to my safe zone and survived, now what? I'm just an economist. I don't know anything about farming, agriculture, and only have a very basic understanding of chemistry and science. How would I rapidly as possible make the remainder of my life the least-labor intensive as possible?"
And this book addresses precisely that.
In an amazingly efficient manner, Dr. Dartnell boils down in a "Civilization"-video-game-Gantt-Chart way what key technologies should and CAN be recovered from the basic tools we'd have available in a post-apocalyptic world. With these basic "key" technologies, we can "leapfrog" other technologies recreating in a matter of two generations that took humankind 10,000 years to create the first time. While the topic is somber and morose, the book is actually quite encouraging, even hopeful, as it explains in a way the average person with average intelligence can understand how to scratch out a reasonably comfortable existence from the ashes of collapsed society.
There are of course drawbacks in taking on a task as broad as this. I didn't see a recipe for toothpaste. He doesn't provide specific instructions (measuring out units of ingredients to create say, gun powder) that will force some trial and error in the future. And he covers the construction of various machines in a general manner, providing no blue prints. The reason for this is obvious, the book would be 5,000 pages long. However, while it may take 4 months to perfect the ratio of the three ingredients to make gun powder, that is infinitely shorter than the 6,000 years it took civilized Chinese to discover it the first time.
In short, the book is a must for survivalists in that most survivalists do not merely wish to survive, but believe in life and believe in the future no matter how dire it may be. And to ensure there is a better future should a collapse occur, having a score or two of these books on the planet will indeed help reboot society and rapidly return the world to the standards of western civilization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)