Blame Women (Disproportionately) for the Collapse of Western Civilization

THE GREATEST GIFT

Human history has basically been the struggle for freedom.  And it has been a struggle against two things:

1.  Natural elements or "limitations" (such as starvation, thirst, disease, famine, cold, heat, predators, etc.)

and

2.  Other humans.

The natural elements that limit human freedom have been fought against (and largely won) with advances in technology, agriculture, economics, and science.  We've eliminated starvation and thirst through agricultural technology, cured diseases through medicine, and though we have yet to unlock the secrets of immortality, the majority of people today do not spend their time searching for a clean water source or worrying about where their next meal is coming from.

However, whereas "natural limitations" to human freedom can be solved through vaccines, technology, and other cures found in the physical world, the human-induced limitations to freedom (called "tyranny") cannot.  By their very nature they are human, which means in "eradicating" humans would wipe us all out, tyrants and innocents alike, leaving no human history to speak of.  Thus, instead of "simple" solutions such as vaccines, farming methods, economic advances, etc., the solution to human tyranny has been 6,000 years of

blood
toil
slavery
war
tears
torture

and other incalculable amounts of human suffering.

However, slowly, but surely human kind has made advances in pushing back the tyranny that once enslaved us all.  First it was fighting against the warlords and tribal chieftains who merely enslaved entire tribes for their own enrichment and pleasure.  Then it was against religious theocracies who, again, merely used deities and the threat of hell (or burning at the stake) to enslave entire populations for their own advancement.  Monarchs and kings were nothing more than glorified warlords who were "benevolent" enough to let their peasants participate in the euphemism of slavery called "serfdom."  And even today, after billions of gallons of human blood has been spilled we have outright dictators and despots who, again, use their people as cattle to live high off of.

But still, after all of this, some humans have managed great advances against tyranny.  And after many wars, reformations, revolutions, Magna Carta's, and constitutions, a genuinely free society in the form of Western Civilization formed, arguably with the United States of America as its most refined product.  For the first time in history humans can do what they want, say what they want, believe what they want, but above all else, be entitled to the vast majority of the fruits of their labor.  They are no longer slaves to a tyrant, slaves to a theocracy, or serfs to a king.  They are their own masters who self govern themselves.  And it is this - that man has freed himself from not just nature, but other men - that is the pinnacle achievement of human kind.

This freedom, which has cost more than anything else in terms of human blood, time, toil, suffering and sacrifice, is the greatest gift humans have ever given themselves.  In letting people keep the majority of the proceeds of their time and have agency over their own lives humans have made the most incredible of advances over the past 300 years (which is roughly when freedom started to become prevalent in Western Civilization).  We have solved hunger, we discovered automation, we discovered electricity, we achieved flight, we've eradicated disease, founded computing, unlocked chemistry, and a million things more, all of which have allowed us to create lives for ourselves that are so amazing and rapidly advancing they were incomprehensible to merely a single generation before.

It is the proverbial finger free men can give the past 6,000 years of tyrants.

But all of this, ALL OF IT, hinges on one thing - that people are allowed to remain free and be entitled to the vast majority of their own production and be the masters of their own lives.  And if we lose that, we lose everything.

Enter in women.

WOMEN

Women, in a historical context, of course have always been here.  They are a part of human history as much as any man.  However, they are not the primary actors, participants, or determiners of human history, largely in part because of biology and nature's "natural tyrants."  Women are physically weaker, thus less prone to wage war and participate in battle.  They also are the ones to get pregnant, again physically limiting what they can do in a world largely ruled by "might makes right."  They also are more nurturing, psychologically predispositioning them to stay at home and rear the children.  And they also have boobs (which if you didn't know) was nature's kind of authoritative way of saying, "Yeah, you're the one who's going to stay off the battlefield and rear the children."

This is not to belittle or besmirch the role of women in history (of which there are many examples of women in history).  It is however to point out that the vast majority of human history has been determined and made by men.  Consequently, this greatest gift of freedom, that was so hotly contested for over these past 6,000 years, was bought and paid for by the deaths, blood, toil and suffering of hundreds of millions, if not, billions of men.  Additionally, it is men who have availed themselves of this freedom, well beyond that of women.  The VAST majority of all scientific advances have (once again) been discovered through the mental sweat and toil of men.  And while we can all certainly rush to point out the occasional female scientist or inventor, this fact is blatantly apparent, even today, where the majority of STEM students are men, and the majority of "social work" majors are women.

The point, however, is not a competition as to "who created what" and what the sex ratio of corpses were on history's battlefields.  The point is this freedom, and the commensurate AMAZING technology and INCOMPREHENSIBLY easy life that came with it, was available to both sexes even though men largely earned it.  And with these amazing advances in technology, life got so easy (in historical terms) that humans no longer had to worry about the natural tyrants that historically oppressed them (disease, starvation, sanitation, etc.), but could now focus their efforts on much lesser problems.

What were these problems?  Well, more of the sociological variety.

Egalitarianism
Education
Health
Family
Crime
Psychology
Etc.

However, a very interesting one was the issue of women's suffrage and equality.

Previous to this, and admittedly by nature, women were just plain not allowed into the management and leadership of society.  Men had paid the price, literally, in blood, sweat, and toil, and it was laughable at the time that women would have a say in economic and political affairs.  However, with technology (invented by men, afforded to them by the freedom they paid a dear price for), pressing matters such as war, famine, disease, etc., were becoming less and less frequent.  Additionally, labor saving devices created by the industrial revolution (*COUGH*, MEN!) allowed women not to be anchored at home, as well as allowed them to work, earning a keep just like men.  Furthermore, it wasn't as if raising children and maintaining a home was not work itself.  Ergo, there was a good and compelling argument to consider letting women have the vote.  And so, in 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified in the United States and women were allowed to vote.

However, whatever the logical, economic, philosophical, not to mention, MORAL reasons there were to let women vote, you cannot deny there would be HUGE consequences in literally DOUBLING the voting population to include a group of humans who are biologically, psychologically, mentally, and emotionally different than men.  And the primary fear that would result from such a dramatic shift in voting rights is that the world's greatest gift humanity gave to itself (freedom) would be undone.  Women would vote for more state intervention, reinstating the human tyrants, essentially undoing what hundreds of millions of men had fought for over the past 6,000 years.

Of course, on the face of it, this is laughable.  No doubt such concerns were scoffed at during the early days of women's suffrage, just as they would be today.  Why would women CONSCIOUSLY vote themselves and the rest of humanity back into tyranny?  Who wants to be ruled by a dictator?  Who wants to slave away for the government?  However, if we are to look at the empirical data and see how women have handled the responsibility of voting we see that is PRECISELY what they're doing.  And there is sadly no debate about it.

Again, the vast majority of human history has been a struggle for freedom from its oppressors.  It has been minimizing the government that lords over them and maximizing the individual.  It has been allowing people to keep the majority of the fruits of their own labor and control over their destiny.  And the way you can tell whether somebody in Western Civilization is for freedom or not is quite simply this:

Do they vote for more government?
Or do they vote for less?

This further simplifies into the direct actions of:

Do they vote left?
Or do they vote right?

Do they vote labor?
Or do they vote conservative?

Do they vote democrat?
Or do they vote republican?

And while admittedly, there are certainly flaws with ALL political parties, it is the voting action that belies the intention of the individual.  And women's intention has been for more government, a larger state, and less freedom.

Unfortunately, the data is not perfect as it only goes back to the Eisenhower administration (and please provide me better data if you have it), but it will suffice.  The best data I could find on voting patterns for women is the presidential Gallup Poll that measures the lead (+) or deficit (-) democrat candidates had among men and women.  (This graph takes a bit of thinking to understand, but for the sake of simplicity it's best to read it as (if there's a positive sign) men/women like the democrat +X or (if there's a negative sign) men/women hate democrats -X.)

But regardless of the complexity and shortcomings of the chart, the point is very clear.  Women prefer a larger state and less freedom to men.

However, within this chart there are two other important observations.

One, (you have to read the numbers, not just look at the right column) originally women actually preferred the republican candidates over men, especially during the Eisenhower administrations.  They even preferred the ugly Richard Nixon over the hot and handsome John F. Kennedy in 1960 (though not by much margins).  It wasn't until 1972, and especially 1976 did women switch to preferring a larger state.

Two, this switch accelerated rapidly from 1976 to 2012, going from just an 11 point preference over men for a larger state to a full 20 point preference with Obama's second election.

This doesn't make a lot of sense since if women were supposed to be the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for Western Civilization, then why did they wait a full 50 years to start voting in a larger state?

The answer may be found in a study conducted by Dr. John Lott and Dr. Lawrence Kenny. 

Just because women were granted the right to vote didn't mean they all went to the polls that day in 1920.  A lot stayed home.  A lot voted the way their husbands told them.  Some of them still didn't find it their place or right to vote.  It takes about a generation or so for different groups of people to fully avail themselves of the franchise.  This makes a lot of sense in that if you add roughly 50 years to 1920 you get 1970 where women voted "in force" and showed their true "pro-government colors."

But while this may explain the increase from Gertrude voting in 1924 to Janis Joplin voting in 1972, it doesn't explain the increasingly passionate love-affair, nay, stalker-like-obsession women have had with the government from 1972 to today.  Why are women increasingly fanatic about having a larger government?

Well the answer can also be found in the dates.  1972.  Feminism.

While the Susan B. Anthony's of the 1890's wanted the right to vote, own property, and sign legal contracts, the radical feminists of the 1970's were nothing but outright marxists who cowardly hid behind their genitalia claiming it caused sexism and thus entitled them to a lifelong government check.  While for the most part they could be written off as such, unfortunately they largely got into a key position in society that would further influence future generations of women to come.  The only place that would take them.

Academia.

And it was from our colleges, universities and other educational institutions that feminists have very successfully convinced two full generations of young girls (Gen X and the Millennials) to vote against freedom and for an increasing state.

Now I could go on measuring the various ways women vote for tyranny over freedom, but the point is that for whatever reason they do.  And worse, increasingly so.  They vote for the government at the expense of the individual.  They vote for dependence rather and independence.  They vote a government check before a paycheck.  And while we can sit here and debate about whether that's the price we have to pay for equality, or that maybe men were wrong this entire time, and that maybe its time for a different approach, they ARE doing precisely what we feared.  They are undoing what all of human history fought for these past and painful 6,000 years.  They are undermining freedom.  They are destroying Western Civilization.

The question is whether we as a people, both male and female, love the freedoms afforded to us by the countless sacrifices of countless generations before us enough to have the courage to merely state this fact.

THE COSTS OF NAIVETY

But while women (as a group) tend to vote for tyranny, the question is whether they do this consciously.  Whether they do it maliciously.

Do women wake up every morning, licking their chops saying, "I can't wait to bring down Western Civilization today!"

Or are they just naive, blissfully believing the sweet lies politicians tell them about free education, free health care, free child care, free food, free housing and free everything?

The answer is rather clear.

Very few people are genuinely evil and wish bad things upon others.  And we can safely say that the majority of women are NOT evil people who wish to destroy the best development of human history.  And though there are some genuinely evil people who DO wish to destroy and harm others (feminists and SJW's) the vast majority of women are well intentioned, caring people.

The problem, however, is you can be the sweetest woman with all the best intentions in the world.  If you're naive or ignorant to the point you're wrong, you'll still have the same effects of being an evil, malicious person out to cause damage.  Thus, whether out ignorance or evil, society is going to pay the exact same price no matter what your intentions.  And so, as women vote and make other decisions in life about how the country should be run, Western Civilization suffers because of their ignorance and naivety.

The first and most obvious of these is money.

Money is not the root of all evil or some kind of tool of control of evil capitalists.  It is your time.  It is your life.  It is what you get in exchange for forfeiting a fraction of your FINITE life in the form of labor.  You then use this "root of all evil" as a means to SUPPORT YOURSELF and KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE.

The freedom of speech is one thing.
The freedom of religion is another.
But the freedom to be entitled to the majority of the money you make is the most important freedom as it is your LIFE.

But women think nothing of voting in tyrants who want to take it.

Readers of my blog are already intricately aware of the amount of money governments take from their citizens every year.  They are aware of government spending to GDP.  They are aware of government debt to GDP.  They are aware 70% of the state's budget goes to income redistribution.  They are aware of the difference between a million and a trillion.

Your average Western Civilization female voter is not.

You average female voter is a by product of her evolution, environment, genetics and upbringing.  And therefore your average female voter is stuck in "stage one" thinking where she:

1. Wants to solve a problem, but
2.  Doesn't know how much it will cost, but
3.  Doesn't care because she never looked at the budget anyway because
4.  She thinks "the government has unlimited money" because
5.  She really doesn't know the difference between a million and a trillion

so

6.  Votes for more government spending anyway.

The problem is she LITERALLY does not realize that money just doesn't come from "poof" out of nowhere.  And she CERTAINLY does not understand how the government just "printing off more money" would result in hyper-inflation.  Thus, in a very naive and child-like way, she will do what is logical to a 7 year old.  Vote for more government money, consequently voting the country that inch further into tyranny and enslaving us all that micro-second more in taxes.

Now, you multiply this times 150 million women, over the course of now four generations and you get what we're all familiar with.  Debt to GDP of 110%.  Government spending as a percent of GDP of 40%.  Slowing economic growth, etc.  But the larger point is the relationship between women voting and government is not merely one of more "socialists" being elected, but increased government spending which DIRECTLY lessens the amount of money and TIME we have to ourselves.

Unfortunately, the costs female naivety does not stop at a simple increase in our tax bill.  The consequences cascade horribly from there.  For in voting for an ever increasing government, you by default crowd out the people it governs.  And with government accounting for now 40% of GDP


















"something's gotta give."

The first thing that gave was men, specifically in their role as fathers, husbands, and heads of households.  Previous to women's suffrage and the massive expansion of government, men were the nucleus of society and the economy.  It was around a man families and society were raised.  And it was his economic production that supported them all.

However, as women voted in more and more social spending they effectively replaced men with the government.  It was no longer the man who brought home the bacon, but the mailman who delivered the government check.  It was no longer dad who would feed the kids, but the EBT card afforded to you by Barack Obama.  And it was no longer father who paid the mortgage and kept a roof over the family's head, but HUD and their section 8 housing.

Soon women started asking the question 1970's feminists were dying them to ask all along:

"Why do we need a man?"

And sure enough 73% of black women, 51% of Latinas and 28% of white women agreed.  Why did they need a man?  And those respective percentages of women went forth and had illegitimate children thinking a government check was a superior substitute to a father.

Sure enough, without purpose or agency in life, and their birthright as a man taken from them by a government check, more and more men lost all hope and started checking out of society.  They started marrying less, working less, substituted real women with porn, and lived vicariously through video games.  They were no longer the strong and intrepid men like their WWII ancestors, but unincentived lifeless men with no direction and purpose.  And with the economic nucleus of Western Civilization disheartened to the point of inaction, economic growth started to slow.

With the engine of Western Civilizaiton sidelined from their original roles of fathers and husbands, the next chip to fall was, naturally, the family.  Without a father around the American family started to disintegrate.  There were of course pre-ruined families called "single parent" home, denying children from birth the right to a stable nuclear family.  But even those children "lucky" enough to have been born to a husband AND wife, only stood a 50/50 shot of having a normal childhood as half of all marriages ended in divorce.

The wife wasn't "haaaaaapppyyyyy"
And she needed to "fiiiiiind heeerselllllffff"

and the feminists were there egging them on every inch of the way.

Sure enough more than half of all children born from the 1970's on would be brought up in non-stable, non-nuclear families.  And while this may have been championed by feminists and other true enemies of Western Civilization, it took a devastating toll on those children who were the future generations of America.  Depression, suicide, crime, debt, divorce, alcoholism, nearly every single social and psychological ailment you can think of is positively correlated without having a stable, nuclear family to be brought up in.  Alas, not only did half of America's future endure this, it left such a bad taste in their mouths the smart ones said, "never again," swearing never to have children, tanking the birthrate and putting an end to American families.

This relates closely to the third domino to fall, lost sovereignty. 

Since leftist politicians (as well as rightists) want to stay in power, they will do whatever they can to ensure they are in control of the government.  This not only means bribing the naive portion of the population with "free everything," but it also means sacrificing the nation itself.  As long as these tyrants don't have to work real jobs they, will do whatever they can to stay in power.

Enter in immigration.

I find three things cute, endearing, and ironically tragic:

1.  The "refugee crisis" going on in Europe
2.  The illegal immigration debate in the US and
3.  The rape epidemic in Sweden

In all three cases men and women, rightists and leftists alike, are against, if not aghast at what is happening in their respective countries when it comes to immigration (and well, that whole rape thing).

In Europe nearly everybody is against the allowance of 2 million "refugees," but their governments still allow it to happen.

In the US 76% of democrats are against illegal aliens and amnesty, but again, our government allows it to happen.

And in Sweden, ahhhhh, lovely socialist, very pro-feminist Sweden.  There's a "bit" of a rape epidemic going on due to the immigrant Muslim population there.  But nobody dares grow the balls to kick them out in fear of being accused of racism.

Now in all three cases the women, I presume (and especially in Sweden), are against these immigrants coming into their respective countries.  However, even with broad support from people all across the political spectrum the governments (leftists ones mind you) ignore the desires of their people and let these immigrants in knowing full well they will never return to their countries of origin.

Why?

Because it will keep the left in power.  It will expand and ensure future government control.  Those are all future leftist voters who will demand future leftist politicians.

Alas, this is the perfect example of how women's naivety deals another blow to Western Civilization.  Even though women are generally against illegal immigration (and I would presume also rape), they never get past stage one thinking of:

"Well the democrats/labor/left is for children/the little guy/the poor/the old/fluffy bunnies, so I'm going to vote for them."

But then are surprised when leftists like Tony Blair or Jack Kennedy sell the sovereignty of their nation to foreigners who plain don't care to adhere to Western Civilization, if not outright hate it, so they can ensure they and their party remain in control of the government.

Again, it doesn't matter what women's intentions or expectations are when they vote.  If they vote for the wrong people the effects will be the same as if a malicious and evil person, intent on destroying the country, voted.  And allowing a people from a culture that is non, if not anti-Western Civilization is arguably the final blow to the long term survival of Western Civilization.

THE SOLUTION

To be frank there is none.  This entire post is merely one for posterity wherein I will be able to say "I told you so" for the rest of my life, as well as an exercise in philosophical and theoretical thought.  The left is too heavily funded, well too positioned in education, media, government, and the universities, and have done such a great job of brainwashing women that there will never be a significant percentage of women that will wake up and heed the points I've made above.  Additionally, (in a comedic, but still 100% truthful sense), in the wise words of Bill Burr,

"Women are surrounded by this tornado of misinformation [about how great they are], and nobody corrects them because we want to f#ck 'em!"

However, if we are serious about not throwing away the best gift humanity has ever given itself, and we do not wish to dishonor the untold number of men who paid incalculable prices over the past 6,000 years, we need to look at who has the right to vote.

The obvious solution is to rescind women's suffrage.  The various leftist political parties in western nations would never recoup from such a loss and we could very easily enact (or rescind) the legislation necessary to put Western Civilization back on the fast track.  However, this is not the answer.  If we rescind women's right to vote, then why not blacks?  If not blacks?  Why not Jews?  If not Jews, why not dashingly handsome half-Irish economists with a penchant for video games and motorcycle riding?  That road merely goes back to the tyranny we're wishing to stave off.

The answer lies in the founding principle of Western Civilzation - Merit.

Admittedly, I've been very hard on women in this treatise (but rightly so).  However, while the majority of women do vote against freedom we all know women personally who are not naive, who do not vote with their hearts, who are not stuck at stage one thinking, and actually do know the difference between a million and trillion.  We know women who DESPERATELY love their husbands, desperately love their children, and take the time to study the finances, economics, and politics of this nation before ditzily casting off their vote for the politician who promises them the most money.  Concurrently, we also know blacks, hispanics, asians, Jews, Madagascarians, gays, eskimos, Indians, Muslims, agnostics, Catholics and lesbians who also earn their keep, study the country's finances, and also desire to vote for freedom and against the state.  Ergo, we cannot rely on mere physical traits or religious beliefs, but rather whether they are contributing members of society who have EARNED the right to vote, not merely "spat out of a vagina within the US' borders."  And there ARE ways to do that, some of which have already been done.

For example, in the embryonic years of the United States you not only had to be a white male to vote, you also had to own property.  The founding fathers had this requirement because not only did they not want blacks or women to vote, but because they also didn't want stupid white men to vote!  You couldn't just have been "born a white male."  You also had to prove you could work and manage your finances accordingly that you were a productive member of society.  And requiring ownership of property was a proxy for that hurdle.

However, while that may have had the intended effect in 1790, today we have the technology that a much better and much more meritorious voting franchise can be given - taxes.

Very simply, if you want to vote you need to have paid taxes.

If you collect a government check.  No.
If you're on EBT.  No.
Are you on TANF?  No.
Disability?  No.
Social Security?  No.
Housing assistance?  No.
Attending a state university and getting a subsidy from the taxpayer?  No.

You MUST BE a contributing member of this society, paying into the government to have a say in how the country is ran.  You must NOT BE a parasite collecting a government check making you by definition a ward on the state.  This discriminates against no one, but ensures those who are paying for the government are the ones determining how it is managed, and is thus far in my economist's mind of thinking the best way to award the right to vote.

Of course, sadly, as I said before, this is all academic.  Too many people who are too vested in the demise of Western Civilization already have the vote.  And too many people (both men and women) are just plain too damn stupid, ignorant and naive to listen to reason, evidence, logic, and reality.  But let it be said and noted that when Western Civilization finally collapses, when Rome v. 2.0 falls, when humanity's greatest gift to itself is taken away it was the female voter and her naivety that was disproportionately to blame.  And those 6,000 years of human pain, suffering, sacrifice, blood and war was undone by 60 years of childish, spoiled, petulant feminism.

Enjoy the decline.
_________________________________
http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
My Books
Amazon Affiliate

The Big Short

As you know there is a movie coming out about the housing bubble called The Big Short.  However, for the new readers you may not know that it was the housing bubble that led the ole Captain to his writing career and his first book "Behind the Housing Crash."

If you were interested in the goings ons of the finance and banking industry back then I cannot recommend a better book.  Not because I wrote it, but because it is that good. 

Anyway, if you wanted to throw the ole Captain some coppers consider picking up "Behind the Housing Crash."

The Great Matt Baldoni Breaks in His New Guitar

If you didn't know, Matt had a guitar custom made in his honor.  Figured some of you (particularly of the female persuasion) would like to see him break it in:

Robert Stacy McCain, Father of Six

Schools feminist-communist 19 year old who obviously has no father.

(I love the picture of the feminist vs. McCain's children.  Tell me who is living the happier childhood?)

Warm Fuzzies

Ahhhhh.

Daughters Don't Need No STIIIINKING Fathers!

As we all know, father's are completely unnecessary and unneeded.  They are obsolete given government checks have arrived.

But I'd love to see a government check pull off this.

EMERGENCY PREDICTION: Peanutizeme.com Accused of Transgenderism

It is a prediction that is too easy to make and one I'm going to do here, because if you can predict people it means you understand them perfectly and know what drives them.  And the SJW's, specifically of the transgender variety, are going to go apeshit over the website "Peanutizeme.com"

Why?

Well, psychologically speaking they're worthless people (not transgendered people, I'm talking the SJW's who are going to protest this) and so they offer nothing of worth to society.  However, just because they're worthless doesn't mean they want people to know that.  Their egos are too big and fragile for that.  Ergo, they constantly search for fake injustices to lash out at in a heroic and crusaderist way making it seem they offer something to this world.  Of course they're just lazy, spoiled brat children who whine constantly and nobody in the real world likes, but that's what psychologically drives them.

But more specifically, THIS is going to make them see red:

See, for those of us who are normal, we are going to harken back to our childhoods during the 60's, 70's, and 80's and say,

"OH CUTE!  I can become a Charlie Brown character!"

But the valueless parasites of our society will purposely look past the fun and innocent intent of this site and attack it because (once again) these people are worthless and need to fabricate faux meaning in their lives.

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge the SJW shitstorm hasn't happened yet.

But it will.

Oh, it will.

Enjoy the decline!

Today's Office

Remember kids!  If you go to school, get good grades, go to college, heed baby boomers, and follow your heart...

You'll never ever see this in your entire life

There Is No Such Thing as "Market Failure"

"Whatever happens, happens."

         -Spike Spiegel

"Market failure" (depending on which economist you ask on which day) is when the market "fails" to provide the optimal outcome for society.  It is NOT at its peak efficiency, NOT delivering the most utility to the people, NOT delivering its maximum goods and services, and therefore is failing the population.

This then gives rise to the call for (wait for it!) "government intervention."

You see, with this magic medicine called "government intervention" we can repair the market, making it efficient once again.  So we lower interest rates here, jack up taxes there, perhaps regulate or deregulate an industry (again depending on which economist you ask and what time zone he's in), and POOF!  All better.

Historical examples of market failure are:

The Bank Panic of 1907
The Great Depression
The Stagflation Days of the 70's
The Dotcom Bubble and
The Housing Bubble

Those gosh darn stubborn economies of those times just weren't behaving like they were supposed to damnit!  And by gum, the federal government had to go in there and set things right either through inventing a central bank, or implementing the New Deal, price controls, massive expansionary fiscal policy, or good ole fashioned trillion dollar bailouts.

Immediately, leftists, socialists, internventionists, Keynesians, and other varied sorts of parasites are quick to point out the recovery that invariably ensued after these market failures.  And if you were to dare ask "well, what if we just left the market alone" they all hold hands and sing in a cappella that old, standby classic tune "It Would Have Been Worse If We Did Nothing."

But while we can debate (impossibly) about whether or not intervention in these various financial crises accelerated recovery and remedied "market failure," I want to pose a different argument that is much less theoretical, much more logical, and simply one of definition.  And that is calling into question if there can even be a thing called "market failure."

While true theoretical economists can debate about the technical definition of it, the operational definition of market failure, the one we have witnessed in the real world, has been one not of "a non-optimal use of resources," but rather "the government should prevent bad things." 

Great Depression?
FDR will blow billions (by today's standards trillions) on the New Deal.

Inflation?
Nixon will just simply institute "price controls!"  See, all better now!

Great recession?
Bush will bail out the banks, while Obama will piss away thrice that amount on poor unproductive people.

But the problem in having the government "just prevent bad things" is that it is antithetical to a free market.  The nanosecond the government intervenes the market is no longer a market, but a hybrid, that neither operates nor behaves as it normally would if it were completely void of government interference.  Ergo, if the government is constantly intervening, we never get around to finding out if there is such a thing as market failure or that markets can, and will, inevitably heal themselves no matter how severe the "failure."

The real issue, however, is not whether governments should intervene to prevent "bad things from happening."  It's an issue of pain avoidance and speed.

Very much like slowly peeling versus rapidly ripping off the bandaid, most humans are cowards and fear the immense and immediate pain of the rip.  Therefore they prefer "government intervention" in the form of taking the time to gently and meticulously peel the bandaid away.  However, this only delays the inevitable, amortizing the pain over a much longer time period than had you just ripped the bandaid off.  But in either case, the bandaid would have come off and you would have gone out to play as you normally would anyway.

Regardless, the exact same scenario played out with the Great Recession.

We COULD HAVE let markets work their magic.  CRUSH the bankster scum that deserved to have their fortunes and careers destroyed.  Let the banks fail teaching them a lesson they'd at least remember for a generation.  Have the financial system go into disarray, and send the economy into a much deeper and harsher recession than we endured.

But prices would have dropped rapidly.
Assets would have become cheaper.
Labor much cheaper as well.

And soon it would be profitable once again to start ventures, business, companies anew, bringing about a quick end to the economic recession.

Instead (again, the cowards that we Americans have become) wanted to believe the lies and poppycock of an "intelligent affirmative action hire Harvard man" who assured us he would pull the bainaid off slowly, and gently, and if there was going to be any pain it would be those rat bastard rich people.  And so, now 7 years later (of still-significant economic pain mind you) we are FINALLY getting back to (what can at best be charitably called) "normal" in terms of unemployment, jobs, economic growth, and income....A place we could have been at 6 years ago had we just bit the bullet.

The point is not one of whether Barack Obama's, FDR's, Bush's, Nixon's, or any other presidents' fiscal policies were correct.  The point is that if left alone, the economy would have recovered just fine without government interference. Ergo, "market failure" does not really exist.  But our fear of paying the full price for our economic sins, and our naivety to think politicians can some how "wash them away" does.  And that, my fine young junior, deputy, aspiring, official, or otherwise economists, is the true definition of "market failure."
_______________________________________
 

http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/

I Ask, Did the Victims Vote Left?

Because voting left is doing the right thing and that's all that matters.

Guess I'm in the Plot Line for Day By Day

Actually made an appearance in Day By Day!  Didn't know I'd be part of a plot line!

If You Think the Millennials are Wimps

Just wait for THIS generation to circle 18 times around the sun.

Replacing Husbands With Government Checks

Actually, the father COULD be reached for comment, but he was in Chicago.

Regardless, this is what happens when the leftist dream is installed where women trade boring, reliable, employed husbands in for sexcapades with multiple losers and government checks.

Something's Funny With Silver

New sponsor everyone, but it's not so much a product, but a show and a site I think those of you interested in investing may like.  Future Money Trends.

Ken sent me a sample of one of the shows and though certainly has a guy plugging his services, the discussion about silver was interesting.  Don't know if you've tried to buy silver in the past couple of weeks, but it's GONE, OUT!  And I don't mean the funny money paper silver, I mean the real thing.

Oddly though, the price keeps going down making for some interesting market economics.

Regardless, download or listen to the show and see if you don't like it.

"Sales vs. Profits" - A Tutorial for Dude Brahs and Gold Diggers

Made It to Day By Day!

Everything is coming up Milhouse apparently today!

"You Don't Have a Real Job"

Glendon Cameron had me on his show and the conversation was not only one of the better ones, but just gut bustingly funny and something I think "Clarey Podcast" listeners would very much appreciate.  Also a heavy dose of two "older brother" type guys discussing wisdom that would help out younger brothers.

Days of Wine and Roses Are Over

A good piece by Mumia over at AVFM.

Book Review: Pushing Rubber Downhill

You can find the book here.

Alex is Hiring at Academic Composition

Remember, the job isn't not exciting but it pays AND IT CAN BE DONE FROM HOME!

Academic Composition is looking for more help with marketing. All you need
to do is post ads on Craigslist. You will get five dollars per lead and
given that mid-terms are right around the corner for most students, you
will be generating plenty of leads.

We will provide you with the advertisements to post and all you have to do
is create a new email address, link it to ours and then use it to set up a
Craigslist account.

Do keep in mind that CL expects you to post in your geographic region. So,
if you reside within a 300 mile radius of a major university, your ads will
do quite well.

Email us for more details. Here are some testimonials from people who have
been posting for us for well quite a while now!



""Long story short the guy's cool. You merely do what's asked and I assure
you he ALWAYS pays. I got into this in September i believe and as I said
the guy's been cool from the start. I have no problems with him, wish I
could put this on my resume! Haha. My experiences from the start have been
just fine, and I've no complaints." Lawrence, Texas

"I've been posting for Aleksey since October or so last year.  He always
pays on time for the full amount.  In fact, usually within minutes of me
sending him an invoice.  I've never had an issue with the guy with regards
to post amounts, invoice amounts or payment timing. " Sean, Calgary

"I think this is a great gig. I have been paid on time with no problems.
It's easy money, although last week I got no leads at all, but I think
that's because it was spring break for most college students. I think the
leads are starting to come back though, my last ad had 3 responses.
" Jose, Dallas

"I've been posting ads on CL for Alex for the past few months and
everything has been going great. He pays quickly via paypal when you send
your invoice and you're able to track the leads that your ads generate.
Posting ads for Academic Composition is a great way to make a bit of easy
money on the side. " Evan, San Francisco

""Aleksey Bashtavenko's Academic Composition is known for its high quality
services, cheap prices and trustworthiness. I, as a worker for example was
given the task of posting Craigslist and Kijiji ads and waiting for people
to reply to these ads. Once I amassed a certain number of people, I would
always tell Aleksey and that same day I would get paid. Yes, you heard that
right, that same day I was paid, almost instantly. Every week was like
this, all I had to do was let Aleksey know and boom the money was on my
Paypal account, within 1 to 2 hours!!!!

If you don't believe I can show you my payment proofs, just email me at
petaraki95@gmail.com and I'll send them to you.

Overall, this is a very trustworthy organization and with that, I would
like to say thanks to Aleksey Bashtavenko because if it wasn't for him, I
wouldn't have my beer money!!!! ;)"

Nenad, Vancouver



Aleksey Bashtavenko
Academic Composition
Owner & Principal Writer
(540) 300-1253
academiccomposition@gmail.com
www.academiccomposition.com
www.linkedin.com/pub/aleksey-bashtavenko/25/7b8/323/

Interesting

Very interesting.

Episode #112 9-21-15

In this episode

Cappy podcasts from his Jeep while on security
Strategies of patrolling and staying awake
Nobody likes shitty art
Minneapolis taxpayers to PERMENANTLY fund shitty art
DraftKings is the epitome of douche

AND MORE in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

The Father Could Not Be Reached for Comment

We don't need no STIIIIINNNNKING fathers!!!!!

Manpoints

Women CEOs

I am all for women becoming CEOs through merit.  But this is just hilarious where they say women-heades S&P 500 companies "perform great" and immediately follow it up with a chart that proves the opposite.

Why I No Longer Trust Academic Studies

Arguably the single largest concern I have about the economics "profession" is that the data we use to analyze and study economies of the past has been corrupted and tainted by political forces.  Not only because this means there are nefarious political forces at work, more than happy to stunt the economic growth of a nation for their own gains, but because without REAL and ACCURATE data we will be unable to achieve the ultimate goal of economics - unlimited wealth and riches for everyone.

This has not only given rise to sites such as "Shadow Stats," but has also made me question the data I'm using in my own research.

Can I trust the FRED database?
Do I dare trust the figures posted by the BEA?
Has Obama's latest affirmative action hire corrupted the BLS data?

It makes me question the economics profession as a whole as it becomes increasingly obvious the profession is failing to increase economic growth, not to mention blatantly whoring themselves out to socialist politicians.

The problem, however, is one of a submarine without a sonar.  How exactly do you analyze and research economics, society, politics, government, etc., without reliable data?  And the truth is you have to go back to logic, reason, and common sense because you have nothing else to go on.

But this brings about a problem on its own.  Especially if you are arguing against leftists when it comes to wealth redistribution and freedom.  For while you are using reason, logic, and common sense, the left has a virtual monopoly on "academic research," and all the "empirical" data that comes with it.  This allows them to simply point to bogus "studies" that "show" your wrong, when the most basic of common sense knows you're right.

To reconcile this I do two things.  One, I still do empirical research.  What I've found is that there are so many sources of economic data out there that they can't all be manipulated to serve (and consequently hide) a political agenda.

Can they tweak GDP?  Sure.
Can they revise the methodology of unemployment?  Of course.
Can they fabricate lower inflation figures?  Yes.

But then they also measure labor force participation, the DOE measures electrical consumption, and I can see the stock markets inflating (showing you there IS inflation in this economy) using those as proxy and alternative economic measures to know the "official ones" don't paint the most accurate picture.  In other words, if you dig deep enough you can still find the truth.

Two, I simply dismiss any research coming out of academia.

Of course, this seems the coward's and hypocrite's way out, but academia has been so corrupted it's laughable to think THEY provide real, accurate, and truthful data.  All one has to do is step back, wipe their eyes clean and look at what academia has become and ask what is more likely.

First, academia is more biased to the left than journalism.  It is chock full of society's lazy and ego-addicted adult children.  This means they can't just collect a government check, but need some kind of "faux career" where they play "make believe intelligent adult" and thus become professors, diversity counselors, chancellors, and other worthless persons.  However, since they avoid any type of real work, they need to constantly validate their existence in order to get a check.  And since the private sector insists on getting something of value in return for its money, they CONSISTENTLY vote for state intervention, forcing the tax payers to finance their entirely fraudulent and unnecessary industry.

You may find my description of them a bit harsh, but there is NO doubt they are biased and have a huge incentive to fabricate data to show a mandate for an increased state.

Second, related to the first, have you ever seen an academic study that concludes there should be LESS government involvement?  Have you ever seen a study that shows we should LOWER taxes?  Again, step back, look, and think.  Isn't it ODD their solution to EVERYTHING is "more government money?"  The pure lack of (ahem) "diversity" in their recommendations should prove academics and their studies are worthless.

Third, a conflict of interest.

Since many of these "academics" aim to solve the world's social problems, what happens when those social problems are resolved?

The answer - they lose their jobs.

Ergo, just like charities, their real goal is NOT to ever solve the problem, but stretch it out, propagandize it, and demand ever more resources to TREAT it.

This is why global warming is now "climate change."
This is why the bold faced lie of "the wage gap" persists.

Because "environmental science majors" and "women studies professors" dare never to admit they've solved the problem because then they'd have to grow up, become adults, and get jobs in the real world.

And final, the childish insanity that academia and academics have become.

You can't go a week without some veritable psychopath who some how got a professorship advocating the most insane of things.  Calling for the death of white males.  Claiming everything is rape.  Or (typically Berkeley) offering the most retarded of classes ever. 

Academia is NOT the valid institution it once was back in the 1950's, but an insane asylum for society's spoiled and psychotic adult children who offer nothing of value or worth to society.

Of course, me calling professors and academians names doesn't make it so.  I could be wrong after all, and they could all be 100% on the up and up.  100% honest researchers with the utmost of integrity, and I'm just an angry ideologue who doesn't like the fact their (COUGH COUGH) "empirical" research proves my world view wrong.

Well, enter in this little gem. 

Apparently, in an attempt to test the validity of psychological studies, researchers (real ones) were only able to replicate the same result of only ONE THIRD the original studies.  And this suggests proves what I've been saying all along, confirming my suspicions.

The social sciences, especially in academia, is bunk.

It's BS.

It's all a lie and not to be trusted.

Perhaps, at some point in time in the past these studies were valid.  Perhaps back in those "hated" 40's you could trust your professor.  But given the circumstantial evidence of childish insanity at our universities, their outright and total leftist bias, not to mention the study above, today academia and the professors that populate them are

liars
charlatains
thieves
ideologues
and
parasites

on society.

You want society to advance?  A really good first step would be to eliminate all taxpayer financing and funding of higher education.  But right now let's just settle on not believing one "study" let alone word that is ever uttered out of the mouths of these worthless academians.
_____________________________________________________


http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/

Boy Ain't That the Truth

Never seen Hillary Clinton depicted so well in a political cartoon.

Genuine Journalism - Why You Should Never Advertise on Facebook

From one of our Agents in the Field.  Some outstanding research and TRUE journalism on just what a fraud it is advertising on Facebook.

This explains why I have over 300 likes for The Black Man's Guide Out of Poverty, but effectively no increase in sales.

Minimum Wage, Seattle, McDonald's, Robots, and Basic Guaranteed Income

If anybody starts blathering on about basic guaranteed income or their fears that "robots will take all the jobs" please just show them this:

Japan Closes Its Liberal Arts Colleges, and We Must Do the Same

The "Humanities" and "Liberal Arts" offer nothing of value to society that can't be gotten for free at your local library.  Worse, they destroy generations of youth by impairing them with socialist indoctrination and hate.  There are very few things on this planet more evil, destructive or worthless as liberal arts colleges:

Episode #111 9-15-15

Cappy and DT from The Black Brigade discuss:

IDing hot chicks in high school before they became hot
"Armchair Alphas"
Cappy's hate for humanity reinforced
1980's "death metal" zombie shirts
What economic production would be without idiots
http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/enclosure/2015-09-15T12_40_26-07_00.mp3
AND MORE

in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast 

Also visit our League of Extraordinary Podcasters!

Chris Bechtloff
Uncie Bern Bern
Kerry Lutz 

How I Accidentally Became Alpha

I didn't notice it at the time, but it was arguably the first time I stood up for myself and said, "No."  I was sick of busting my ass off, doing 10 times what the local frat boy douche was doing, and if he could get laid while daddy paid for him, his booze, his roofies, his rent, his insurance, and his condoms, then the least any girl that had an interest in me could do would be to fuck me.  I was by all measures and manners a better man than most on campus, but if any girl dared to insult me by saying,

"Lets you and me have a relationship where we cuddle, you pay for shit, spend what rare free time you have with me, but I'm not going to reward all your supreme-kick-ass-edness with sex, but merely my presence,"
 
sorry sweetheart.  Don't care how blue your eyes are.  Go fuck yourself.
 
And it was this transformation that made me the "accidental alpha."

This is a repost from 2013.  Been playing catch up and working on some major projects before winter sets in.  New posts will be forthcoming next week.

Why Davis Aurini is Better Than Your 401k: AKA Micro-Equity Investments

I faced a problem I never had before in my life. 

After investing in

silver, guns, bullets, iodine pills, my house, even body armor,

and

after trying my best to blow the remainder on my version of “hookers and blow” (American west road trips),

for the first time in my life I actually had money left over to

invest in an IRA.

Now many of you know my personal opinions about IRA's, 401k's, RRSP's and other retirement plans.   Not only do I fear the risk they will be confiscated like they were in Argentina, Bulgaria, Poland, and more recently Cyprus, but I also plain just refuse to pay the current prices being demanded in today's stock market.

Today I am expected to fork over $23 for $1 in earnings, which in actuality only entitles me to a paltry 2% dividend yield (ie- the only REAL rate of return, not the magic paper “capital gains” everybody fawns over).  And forget bonds as they're offering rates of return as paltry as stocks. 

So where, precisely, is the Ole Captain supposed to park his money?

Why, Davis Aurini of course!

At first you may be scratching your head, wondering if Davis has started a new corporation you can invest in or if he's selling himself into slavery.  But there is a very good reason I invested in Davis Aurini instead of an IRA.  And if I go through some of the numbers you will most likely be guaranteed to agree with me.

First, I didn't invest in “Davis Aurini.”  I hired him to do a project for me.  Specifically, I paid him $1,000 to record the audio book version of “Bachelor Pad Economics” because not only does he have the voice for it, he is a pro and I know he will get the job done.  So it's not like I bought his servitude for the next couple of months and get a percentage of his future earnings.

Second, that investment will likely give me a rate of return that will beat out all the investment pros in Wall Street, Peter Schiff, Warren Buffett, and anybody else who has an impressive track record.  If my audio book sales of Worthless is any indication, I can expect to clear $120 a month in audio book sales of “Bachelor Pad Economics.”  50% of which I pay out to Aurini for his work.  This nets me $720 per year and thus a 72% annual rate of return.  Again, beating out the majority of Wall Street professionals by far. 

And, third, this is nearly 100% under my control.  Unlike stocks, bonds, REIT's or other securities, I'm not throwing my money into some large multi-billion dollar corporation with 100,000 employees and millions of moving parts, effectively casting my fate to the wind.

I pay Davis.
Davis records the book.
We upload the files.
I market the book.
Collect underpants.
Profit!!!

In short, I am getting an infinitely higher rate of return for a microscopic fraction of the risk and it's all thanks to our Canuckian friend, Davis Aurini.

Now, naturally, while a 72% rate of return is phenomenal, on a meagerly principal investment of only $1,000 it's not going to bring about early retirement.  Additionally, I am well aware that I am in a unique position able to hock my wares leveraging Davis and the internet to realize this 72% rate of return.  But eccentric as my investment strategy is, there are lessons for your everyday Joe when it comes to investing.  Lessons you may want to heed.

First, the market is so overvalued for anybody looking into government sponsored retirement plans it's just not worth it.  For the past four decades trillions of dollars in retirement money has been flooding the stock market driving up prices WELL above what the earnings and dividends warrant.  You throw in the added 2-4 trillion dollars recently in QE money and ZIRP-financed corporate buybacks, and the stock markets no longer reflect an investment opportunity, but irrelevant numbers that speak more to inflation, government policy, and central banking policy than earnings, profits, dividends, and future growth.

Second, this then forces the SAVVY investor (ie-one who looks at rates of return and not just “super happy funny magic capital gains on paper”) to look at alternative investments.  Ones that provide higher rates of return and compel you to part with your money.  But since the public markets are horrendously overvalued, it is the private markets we must look at.

Peer to peer lending.
Lending money to friends.
Investing in a small business.
Taking a crack at entrepreneurship yourself.
Crowd funding.
Hiring out the Davis Aurini's of the world.
And other forms of “micro-equity investing.”

This isn't to say these investments are not without risk, or that you wouldn't risk straining and alienating friendships violating Shakespeare's “neither a lender nor a borrower be.”  But the public markets are so overvalued that the only real investments that are worth a damn are these private, micro-equity, entrepreneurial type investments. 

Third, these returns are typically so much higher than the rates of return you realize in public investments that they more than pay for the tax benefits you passed up on in 401k's, IRA's, etc.

You didn't get to write off your IRA contribution at the tax rate of 20%?
Good thing that small, private investment pays 30%.

That Roth IRA would have grown tax free at a whopping annual rate of 8%?
Good thing your private investment grows at 20% more than offsetting any capital gains tax you'd have to pay.

Admittedly, there is no guarantee that your private investments will more than compensate for the opportunity costs of tax benefits that come with government endorsed retirement plans, but the difference between returns can be that wide.

Fourth, as I mentioned before, control.

I can't go to Apple's corporate headquarters and talk to their limp-wristed CEO.
You can't go to Starbucks and chat with their American-hating, leftist CEO.
And neither of us have the connections nor the money to vote in even ONE member of the board of directors to reflect our interests.

However, if I lend money to my friend to purchase a rental property, I can put it in the contract that I have significant say and control over the management of that property.

If you invest in the horse farm down the road (though I'd advise against that), you can stop in and check in on the employees to ensure they're doing whatever it is that makes horse farms profitable (glue).

And if we pay Davis to record audio books for us, and instead find out he's blown it all on Weasel Whiskey, we can both go down there and bash his knee caps in.

Again, when you “invest” in a modern day, publicly traded corporation, you are merely casting your financial fates to the wind.  Micro-investments you can wield considerable control over.

Fifth, the risk of confiscation. 

All the government has to do is flip a switch and your 401k, IRA, Roth or not, is now part of Obama's or Trudeau's “Wealth Equalization Happy Bunnies Act.”  All those digital records of you having that hard-saved $540,000 in your RRSP is “poof!” gone, or (a la Cyprus) 50% of what it used to be.  And the reason why is because it's so easy since it's nothing but digital and electronic records.

But a duplex you've gone halvsies in with your buddy is NOT a digital record the government can just “take.”

Those silver coins are not the “Silver ETF” the government just took 25% of, but physical silver coins that are in your physical possession.

And that book deal Davis and I signed is not sitting on some broker's account where the SIPC can just come in and nationalize 75% of.  It's an accord between me and Davis.

Admittedly, these investments are not as liquid as say the easily-confiscatable stocks, bonds and other publicly traded securities, but you never invested in them for their liquidation.  You invested in them for their RATES OF RETURN.  Which leads us to the final point,

Sixth, you are actually INVESTING.

Understand that buying stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc, in your IRA or 401k is NOT investing.  The “investment” happened long ago when those companies issued the original shares or stock or bonds, took the proceeds and then invested that in property, plant, or equipment.  After that it is nothing more than secondary “investors” trading very expensive baseball cards in the forms of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.  You buying your “Vanguard Index Fund” from somebody else on the NYSE does NOTHING to increase the amount of investment in the country.  You merely traded cash for stocks and they, stocks for cash. 

In other words, the rate of return is going to remain the same.  The company will still be just as profitable and pay the exact same amount of dividends regardless of how many times you exchange your Pokemon cards stocks.  The only real difference is if you're paying an ever-increasing amount more for that same string of future dividend payments (which nearly 100% of everybody is).

Contrast that with investing personally in either entrepreneurial ventures, micro-equity investments, peer-to-peer lending, etc., where that transaction ACTUALLY IS INVESTING, not only providing you a rate of return, but creating something of value, not to mention, likely hiring people in the process.

Again, I admit that not everybody is going to have an entrepreneurial idea at their doorstep, waiting to be financed, that provides a 72% rate of return.  And I know it would take multiple of these micro-equity investments to compile an adequate portfolio that would support a retirement.  And I also am aware that managing all these investments will take time and labor, unlike the convenience of merely setting your monthly auto-pay to mindlessly invest in the S&P 500 Index fund in your 401k.  But here's a dirty little secret…

That's what investing has always been.  

Financing individuals who had great ideas or were reliable risks you would personally lend to.  Not this mindless zombie 401k clergy BS that the sheeple are sucking down whole, flooding the stock market with trillions in IRA monies because “retirement.”

So if you want to continue on, worrying about how you're “only getting 1.3% in your CD's” or “Oh nosies!  The Fed raised interest rates by .0000005% and the markets crashed!”

Fine.

But if you want to invest, may I suggest my good friend Davis Aurini?
 ________________________________________________

http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/

Your College Job This Year

Alex is hiring.

Thank you all for your support, Academic Composition has grown a lot
because of you. This summer, we received plenty of help with regard to
both, writing papers and posting ads on CL. With your help, we were able to
expand the ranks of our writers and regular marketing contractors.

Despite this, we still need to replace one of our main full-time writers
who has gone off to law school. Although several applicants already look
very promising, we just cannot get enough help for the Fall semester. Quite
easily, we could well hire at least five full-time writers and dozens of
part-timers by the end of the year.

Our average full-time writer earns around $3,000 per month and our CL
part-timers easily bring in $200-400 per month with less than 10 hours of
work. The most regular marketing associates have the potential to earn over
a $1,000 per month in near future within 30 hours of work: that doesn't
even amount to a full 8 hour day per week.

For all of you who have already contacted us, please keep in touch. Most of
our clients will be back in school within a couple of weeks, the
high-season is just around the corner and it will soon be opportunities
galore.
Aleksey Bashtavenko
Academic Composition
Owner & Principal Writer
(540) 300-1253
academiccomposition@gmail.com
www.academiccomposition.com
www.linkedin.com/pub/aleksey-bashtavenko/25/7b8/323/

Seattle's Lazy..errr... "Poor" Get What They Deserve

Ahhhhhh warm fuzzies.  And on Labor Day no less.

Psychology is Bullshit

An excellent take down of pseudo science known as psychology by Mr. Aurini.

From Beartooth Pass

Discovered after 2 years my phone has a "panoramic" photo function.  Served me well on top of Beartooth Pass in Montana.

Geek Out with The Bechtloff Whilst Cappy's in Billings

Making my way back home and posts will go back to a regular schedule.  And they're going to stay that way. The traveling will be done for practically the rest of the year.  In the meantime may I recommend you tune into The Bechtloff's latest podcast where he talks about murders in Chicago, SJW's, video games, comics and more in his hilarious and engaging demeanor. 

A Revisitation of Scarcity and Why It's a Good Thing

A classic from a couple years back that reminds us that without scarcity there is no value.

World Reserve Currency and the Collapse of the USD

Was a guest on Jason Hartmann's show.  Had a very enjoyable chat about all things economic and "world reserve currency."

Greetings from Lake Coeur d' Alene!

Remember to Enjoy that Decline!

Episode #106 9-7-15

Cappy podcasting from the road.  This time in Seattle where he interviews his friend he's crashing with (about some rather crass topics) and James Cue of "recovering MGTOW" fame about why he left MGTOW and focused instead of self-improvement.

The Christian Hour with Chris Bechtloff

Chris is getting serious about putting together weekly (Saturday night) podcasts that last on average about 3 hours.  This is a "short one" but he has guests on as well as his insights that make for a gut-busting funny broadcast.  Consider tuning in.

Fed Interest Rates Have No Effect on the Economy

Since the day you were born and your parents put an economics textbook in your hand, it was just "known" that lowering interest rates helps boost the economy.  Specifically, "the interest rate" the Federal Reserve controls (also called the Federal Funds Rate) was our monetary policy savior in case the economy looked like it was going to go into recession.  Ergo, in combination with expansionary fiscal policy, "lowering the interest rate" would help put people back to work and defeat the hated "business cycle" forever.

Or maybe not.

For before I hop in my car and head out to Seattle, I decided to do a little research in aiming to make some pre-made very Cappy economic posts.  And one thing I wanted to see was if the federal funds rate had ANY correlation or effect on economic growth.

It does not:

This concludes your pre-made Very Cappy post of the day.
_________________________________________________
 


http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/

Whilst Cappy's Away, Uncie Bern and Davis Will Play

To cover the Cap until the point in time I return consider visiting our good friends Davis Aurini and Uncie Bern.  Bern has his latest podcast out (AND HE INSTALLED A STAT COUNTER!)  Send him lots of traffic so you can show the love.

And Davis, believe it or not, actually got a REAL podcast, not a YouTube channel you're all supposed to rip the audio off of.

Accounting for Inflation as a Tax

I will say it again for the cheap seats, it doesn't matter how much money a country has.  It's how much stuff it can produce.  This is the beginning lesson I would always start my economics class with because not only does it simplify economics incredibly well, but it's true.  It is the stuff your country produces that determines its economic success, not the amount of money it prints.

However, an interesting, but simple thought crossed my mind.  Why haven't we ever incorporated inflation into the federal tax rate?  The money IS controlled by the government/fed and since stuff is the only thing that matters then inflation SHOULD DEFINITELY be considered when attempting to calculate one's level of taxation.

Of course we need to define things (so leftists can disagree with semantics instead of grow a spine and deal with the argument) but I think you'll find the results interesting and of course enraging.

First the TRUEST measure of the overall tax rate of a country is taking TOTAL government spending at ALL levels of government (state, federal and local) and then dividing it by the country's total economic production, GDP.  Now leftists will argument it should be REVENUE as a percent of GDP because people don't pay the full effective rate at which governments spend.  We borrow money from other people and in running these deficits we provide an effective lower rate of taxation.

Which is true....for now.

Because in the end that debt has to be paid back with either:

1.  Future taxation or
2.  Printing off money/inflated away (which again is nothing more than indirect taxation)

So true and intellectually honest economists look at what has to be paid, now and into the future, to see what the real rate of taxation is.

Second, there is not a lot of data about total government spending (including both federal, state and local) that goes back significantly to provide a decent historical look. Ergo, I used only federal data which goes back to 1960.  Still, if you want to be ever so rough about it, tack on another 15% GDP for state and local (47% for California and New York) and you'll get a rough proxy of total tax rates when we include the diluting effects of inflation on our currency.

Finally, what is "inflation?"  If you're a Keynesian you (once again) stumble over yourself to cite the CPI.  But if you're a technical person you would look at the money supply as any increase in the numbers of dollars, by definition dilutes those already in currency lessening their purchasing power (arguments about what is sitting in banks vaults as capital and not currently in circulation in the larger economy duly noted).

Regardless, when you do the math looking at the annual increase in the M2 money supply (orange) and add it on top of the federal tax rate as a percentage of GDP (blue) the results are quite interesting.

When "inflation is considered you can see it is at times a VERY significant tax, sometimes being even more costly that state/local taxes.  The oil embargo/inflation days of the 70's and early 80's are very noticeable as well as the jump in the money supply during the financial crisis.  And when you tack on the roughly 15% state and local tax, you're looking at a total government take of about 42%-45%.

Thankfully, the inflation tax (like debt) is a deferred tax that future generations will get to deal with.  The US is once again VERY lucky to be the world's reserve currency and we're also very lucky that pretty much any other significantly sized economy is in worse shape that we are.  This makes the US dollar a "safe haven" for people who are not so much worried about the value of a dollar, but just want a currency perceived to be more stable than their own.  This effectively "ships" US dollars overseas where they can no longer cause inflation in our domestic economy and why is your Apple product still costs as cheap as it does.

But don't worry, either through future taxation or inflation, the aforementioned rates above WILL be paid, and quadruply so by future generations who were nearly completely innocent.
____________________________________________________________

http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/