Thursday, June 14, 2012

There Should Be No Profit in the Stock Market

If you were like me when you were younger, you had questions or observations about economics, philosophy, finance, etc., that were so simple that you PRESUMED you were wrong.  Your logic was too simple, it made too much sense, and the real world around you (at that time) was providing evidence to the contrary of your observation.

However, I've studied economics long enough, lived long enough, and thought all my founding and consequential theories through to the point I've realized that one of my innocent observations back when I was in college was actually correct, and no, my logic was not flawed.  And that observation was:

There should be no profit in the stock market. 

I came to this observation when I was thinking about "market efficiency" - the concept that a market would price in all known data and information into the price of a stock, thereby reflecting its true value. If this is true, then prices would be bid up or down to the point the stock would have a "fair" value, leaving no room for profit or arbitrage. 

What triggered this original observation was the "investment philosophy" that over time the S&P 500 has historically provided 10-12% annualized rates of return (depending on whether you account for dividends or not).  I found that odd because 10-12% per year is a sizable premium over inflation. If markets were truly efficient, that margin of return would attract more and more money, flooding the market until the real rate of return was 0%.  This would initially result in prices being driven up (becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy as those increases in prices would result in higher returns), but inevitably stock prices would reach an "equilibrium" point where the dividends and profits of a firm would attract no more money and prices would stabilize resulting in no future capital gains. 

I originally theorized why the market kept going up for reasons similar to why we have a underfunded pension crisis - poor assumptions made on the part of actuaries.  Specifically, the market was failing to account for population growth and longevity of people.  So when Henry Ford started Ford, investors thought "we can sell these things to all 50 million Americans" failing to look into the future where the market in 100 years would NOT be 300 million Americans, but 3 billion people in 1st and 2nd world economies.  That growth was never factored into prices back then.

I also theorized that the S&P 500 index is always "fresh."  Meaning that it is a self-selecting and de-selecting index, getting rid of companies that either fail and are obsoleted through technological advancements, while bringing in the new, up-and-coming companies.  This "survival of the fittest" aspect of the S&P 500 means companies that grow the most to become the largest and most "successful" companies in the US ensure positive rates of return.  And not just positive, but these new companies and the technologies they bring into the world capitalize on larger and entirely new markets made from whole cloth (Apple for example with its electronic doo-daddery). 

However, while this explains why there has been (historically) considerably higher-than-inflation rates of return, it still doesn't debunk my theory there should be no profit.  All it shows is that the market failed to be efficient and underestimated technological advances and population growth.

There is, however, a very interesting chart that speaks to this.  Robert Shiller has created, among many other charts, this one which I find very telling:


It is the 10 year average PE ratio vs. their 20 year annualized returns for 5 separate periods or "vintages" throughout the history of the S&P 500.  What it shows is that people are actually OVERLY OPTIMISTIC when it comes to their expected rate of return.  Companies with very high PE ratios provide lower returns than companies with very low PE ratios, never delivering the profits they were promising. 

This is counter to what I thought was the case.  If people were underestimating the market, then higher PE ratio companies would result in higher returns.  But here, it shows we are overestimating the market. Admittedly, following the "survival of the fittest" aspect of the S&P 500 Index, a lot of those dots in that chart that had high PE's are no longer with us today and thus their statistical representation is moot.  The S&P 500 jettisoned them once they got too small or went bankrupt.  This, however, does not change the fact people's psychologies remain overly-optimistic.

Sadly, this is as far as my thinking and statistics have gotten me.  I know intuitively that if the stock market were TRULY efficient, it would reach an equilibrium point in terms of pricing resulting in 0% capital gains (which, consequently, would DESTROY the entire US retirement industry).  However, my best guess would be the answer lies somewhere in the market failing to account for population growth, underestimating technological advances, or just plain failing to account for increase in disposable income (though that factor will soon be going away).

Any ideas lieutenants?

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

"Probably Nothing"


Oh, you crazy socialists, promising yourselves everything.  When will you learn you need production to pay for everything?

Hey, you crazy kids enjoy that decline!

Williston Boy Flowers

So a girl in the office gets a bouquet of flowers.
I remembered, she JUST HAD flowers on her desk about a month ago.

So I inquire, "Didn't you just get flowers last month or something?"

She says, "Yes, I did."

I asked, "Well, why?  Are you particularly good to your husband?"

She says, "No, he's working the Bakken oil field and he sends me flowers every month."

I said, "Really?  That's awfully nice of him!"

She says, "Well, I'm not the only one.  "Amy" also gets flowers every month from her hubby and he works in Williston too."

I just wanted to point that out for all you aging 30 something NYC Sex and the City, EPL girls out there who are chasing "Mr. Big."  Just so you know you totally made the right decision passing up on those "loser" "blue collar hicks" and sticking to your guns to find that guy who makes 6 figures and has his MBA.

Because these guys also make 6 figures, but they DON'T have their MBA.

And a girl musn't lower her standards now, musn't she?

Canadians Have Crusaders Too

And just like their American cousins, I ask, "why are none of them good looking?"

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Applying the "Well Rounded" Argument to Fathers

To test whether somebody really believes in their own ideology or are just picking and choosing from different ideologies to suit and excuse their lifestyle choices or outright hypocrisies, you simply have to look at whether or not they apply their presumed ideology and its tenets universally.

For example the environmentalist types who claim nature should be untouched.  Don't pick up that raccoon, if it was meant to die, it will die.  Don't prune the deer population, nature will take its course.  Of course when it comes to humans, we're not part of nature.  And instead of letting us progress and advance as we would unopposed we have to "cut back on our consumption."  "Stop emitting greenhouse gases."  "Save the planet."  Or, on the other side, if famine or plague occurs in some part of the world now we ARE to intervene (which I'm not necessarily against - just pointing out the double standard).  We're not left to evolve like our woodland creature friends naturally.  Oh no, we're different, we're special, we have to artificially stop our progress, evolution and advancement to the point "Idiocracy" is no longer a mockumentary.

Another example is religion and global warming.  IN GENERAL leftists are usually anti-religion.  They mock and ridicule it.  Oh you fool for believing in a big bearded fellow in the sky.  But they'll sure swallow whole all the global warming, environmentalism and "Gaia" BS - failing to note it's nothing more than a religion itself, if not, even worse, just a fad.

And then there's the "social liberal" argument (which I'm for) where we want MAXIMUM social freedoms.  Don't tell us what to do and how to do it...as long as it pertains to abortion, smoking pot, and gay marriage.  But if it comes to letting people own guns, having a heater in a bar, or driving a 12 cylinder, gas-guzzling sports car, by god, those aren't RIGHTS!  Those are tools of fascism and tyranny!!!  You can't have THOSE rights!  Again, the hypocrisy shines through.

However, while doing a little philosophisizing whilst hiking in the mountains I had another epiphany.  An observation of yet another instance of hypocrisy where a group of people advocate one thing, but then completely disregard their advocation when it comes to an issue personal for them. - the DESPERATE need to be "well-rounded."

In general (though not always) people who tend to be for forcing kids to take college classes they don't need under the guise of "it will make you well-rounded" tend to be of the liberal stripe.  Not always, but most of the time.  These same people, however, are also more likely advocate single-parenthood (mother or father, it doesn't matter, but we'll focus on single moms because that's where the majority of the hubbub is focused).  They not only advocate it, but celebrate it and champion it.

But my little economist brain is having a hard time trying to reconcile something.

If you want to force children to take prerequisite college classes so you can milk them for more money...errr.....um..."to make them well rounded" wouldn't you also then be a strong advocate in recommending children be brought up with fathers in order to make them also "well rounded?"

I mean, if the purpose of becoming "well-rounded" is so you can interact and more fully engage society, you would think having a male role model early on in life so that you may effectively interact with half the population would be VERY important.  That having SOME experience or knowledge about how the other half of the population acts dishes up more well-roundedness than the Marxist drivel in Uber-Mandatory Freshman English Lit?  Additionally, why wait till you're 19 to get "well-rounded?"  With a father in the household, BAM!  Your lessons in well-roundedness commence immediately.  And you get a much more diverse, more well-rounded education than what the colleges serve up.  You can learn to change oil, develop a work ethic, self-supportation, independence, self-reliance, charm girls (or conversely) know what those young naughty boys are thinking.  College prereq classes are so homogenous with their commie-centric horse-blinder focus, they can't hold a candle to the diversity and well-roundedness a father can provide..

Naturally of course I'm partially joking, but the hypocrisy still exists.  And my target is NOT to criticize people who bring children into this world without fathers (or mothers, for that matter).  But rather to shine a light as to what's really going on.  Understand the majority of people who are forcing you kids to take college prerequisite classes do not do so because they truly believe "it will make you well-rounded."  If they believed that and put so much importance and emphasis on it, then they'd also advocate not bringing children into this world in single-parent conditions.  Because you want to talk about NOT being well-rounded?  You want to talk about being maladjusted?  You want to talk about a genuine disadvantage due to a genuine lack of well-roundedness?  It isn't because a kid can't cite Dworkin or didn't read enough Noam Chomsky.  It's because that kid didn't have a father and is completely dysfunctional when it comes to interacting in the real world.

No, the reason you're being forced to attend classes that are of no benefit to you is because they want your money.  You look at the people who benefit most from billions of dollars being spent every year on worthless prereq classes, 9 out of 10 times it's a liberal academian who is deathly afraid of the private sector or working in the real world and has found a little fiefdom by forcing you kids to take his/her worthless and mind-numbing class.  You also get the joy of buying his $300 38th edition book (because the 37th edition just won't do) "Post Modernity Social Dynamics Under New Rubric and Paradigm Analysis of Sexist Misogyny."  It has nothing to do with your education or making you "well-rounded."

Besides, the truth is, if you have friends, interests, a cool father and just a curiosity in life, you are already well-rounded and don't need any "adjustments" by your collegiate indoctrinators.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Lawyer Trolls

Short version - scumbag lawyer files frivolous lawsuit against "The Oatmeal."

His readers respond by donating $60,000 to his cause

When I'm sued, I hope the Cappy Cappites will come through for me the same.  In the meantime help out "The Oatmeal" because it's people like him, SDA, Blazing Cat Fur, and even myself, that pay the price tolerating DB lawyer trolls while we write to protect freedom and expose tyranny.

Fathers "Optional"

I know the skin of the drum is pretty worn out, but I'm going to say it again as long as idiocy like this continues:

Children need fathers (and to be intellectually honest, mothers).  If you bring children into the world without one (mother or father), you are the epitome of selfish.  You are putting yourself and your own greedy desires to have children ahead of the children you so wish to bring into this world.  You really don't care about the child, you care about HAVING a child like "having" an SUV or "having" a manicure.  A physical item that is nothing more than a thing to you, not a human being.

Now I know that finding "the perfect man" (emphasis on "perfect," not "good") is quite a bothersome chore, and besides, "the lord will provide" one anyway, so you don't have to worry about it, but it is my humble prediction the young (and now, not-so-young ladies) will come to rue their decision to go it alone and become a "choice mom."  First, I believe they will COMPLETELY underestimate how much it takes to rear and bring up a child.  Both in terms of finances and labor.  They will get into the ring with a the little tyke and soon realize they really do need a tag-team partner to wrestle the challenge of bringing up a kid.  Second,  I also predict they will not realize until it's too late just how severely they've torpedoed their chances of finding a guy in the future.  It's one thing if you're a widow.  That would hardly faze a man if you're looking to date, if anything it would beget pity.  It's even one thing if you're divorced with one kid with one ex-husband.  I'll even say it's "one thing" if you have multiple kids from multiple dads.  But if you had a kid purposely with no intention of ever having a father you might as well claim you have Ebola, are a manic depressive and are prone to bouts of physical violence.  That will send any quality men SCREAMING in a mad dash away from you.

I'm not expecting things to change.  The importance of fathers and husbands have so been dwindled, and the "nobility" and "heroism" of single-motherhood (however it comes about) so championed it's no shock the "non-marrieds" are piling up.  I just have one question to ask about a missing variable in this entire equation-

won't somebody please think of the chilllllldreeeeennnnn?

The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan

I love truth.  It's such a wonderful thing.  It makes you sane, helps you make better, more effective decisions and it irks all the right people.  But what I really love about truth is how some people seem to have a huge problem with it.  How they'll desperately try to ignore it, rationalize it away, or just plain deny it as if they had a choice.

"The sky is blue."

"No it's not."

"Communism and socialism has failed."

"No it hasn't."

"Children need fathers."

"No they don't - sexist!"

I take great entertainment value in watching people lie to themselves as day after day, night after night, the real world delivers anything from minor cuts to crushing blows to their fragile "reality" and how they desperately scramble to find some some kind of explanation, ANY explanation or rationalization why they're still right, and the real world is wrong.

Now we could go on for hours about the many and varied people who choose to ignore reality and mock them mercilessly:

-Liberal arts majors who voted for Obama, joined the OWS movement and still can't understand why they don't have jobs.

-All the aging women who KNEW they could "have it all," with mocking boys in their youth to boot, who sing in chorus "Where have all the good men gone."

-The union members of now bankrupt cities and municipalities who won't be getting everythign they were promised in terms of pension, because, well, the money just plain ain't there.

But today I'm going to talk to you about something that affects all of us, is very important, and only the smart people will realize what I say is deadly serious and very much real, while the delusionals of the world caught up in American Idol or how thin Michelle Obama's arms are, will be aghast at what I have to say and will no doubt pull from the inventory of "ist" names to call me.

The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan.

"What is the Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan" you ask?

Well, it's a very simple plan.

Instead of socking away $400 a month into your IRA or 401k, spending hours of your life managing it, spending thousands of dollars on various managerial and advisory fees, only to have the government either outright confiscate it or inflate it away you instead spend the small nominal fee of...

33 cents.

Why 33 cents?

Because 33 cents is the price of a single 45 caliber bullet.  And with that bullet you can permanently retire yourself.

Now a lot of people will be shocked with such a statement.  How dare I suggest euthanasia (which, when I was younger thought was "youth in Asia" and had NO idea what people were all up in arms about) as a viable retirement plan.  But, if you're so open minded (as I know many of you liberals claim to be) perhaps you can read on and realize that The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan is probably a much better plan than your 401k.

First, consider the fact that the VAST majority of people are just plain not saving up enough for retirement.  In the consulting I do, I have a never-ending line of 58 year old people coming up to me and saying,

"I'm 58 and just finished paying off my 4th child's doctorate in French Literature.  I have a house that's underwater, and I'd like to start planning for retirement.  I'd like to retire at 62.  What should I invest in?"

I tell them the politically correct thing (you'll have to work till you're 80), and then they go to Edward Jones or Charles Schwab to see if they can find somebody to lie to them (remember what I told you about how distasteful truth was to some people?)

And forget old people, young people don't stand much of a chance either.  With no employment prospects, $50,000 in student debts, and an unemployment rate of 8%, even if they wanted to save for retirement they can't.  They need all of their money NOW to simply make ends meet.  And (to add further mockery to this stupid retirement system we have) even if they did have the money, what?  They're going to invest in an overpriced stock market with a P/E of 24 because TRILLIONS of dollars of baby boomer money has flooded the market, making it a bad deal to begin with?

Regardless of the reasons why, most people will PLAIN NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR RETIREMENT and THEY NEVER WILL.  So why bother saving up in the first place?

Second, don't think Big Daddy government is going to come and bail you out.  I don't know if you've noticed this whole Greece thing going on, but no matter what previous generations of Greeks promised themselves in terms of retirement or medical benefits, if the money ain't there (guess what!)

IT AIN'T THERE!  (curse you evil truth!!!!)

Did you see any of the articles about how the hospitals are running short on vital drugs?  Funny how that works given the government "decreed" they were "entitled" to all that free health care.  Let me let you in on another little tidbit of "uncomfortable truth."  If there's no money in it for the private sector to create those drugs (say like you regulate or tax pharmaceuticals to death), then it don't matter what who promised who what - there ain't no drugs and you're going to die no matter what you were promised.

Third, let's put a very positive spin on this (and I am not exaggerating or being facetious).  Realize the majority of your expenses you incur (or more likely, the taxpayer incurs) in terms of your living and health care expenses come in the last 6 months of your life.  The premise of The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan is that you would us the 45 caliber bullet to off yourself before then, saving society hundreds of thousands of dollars NOT TO MENTION saving you the 6 most miserable months of your life.  Now macroeconomic benefits aside (like  no government debt, booming economic growth, improved health care through innovation, and yes, dare I say it, longer life expectancies, but don't let this concept confuse you), there is a huge advantage to this - the fact you don't have to save up for retirement in the first place if you're willing to work as long as you can and participate in The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan when the time comes.  That money can instead be spent on the years of your life WHEN YOU CAN ENJOY IT!

I remember, VERY CLEARLY, trying to save money into a IRA when I was making $23,000, commuting 120 miles every day for work and living downtown.  Now I'm cheap, but my life had NO FRILLS.

Once I realized that having lifelong employment in America like a 1960's Japanese Keiretsu was laughably impossible, I forgave myself of the responsibility to "do the right thing" and invest in a 401k.  For the first time in my life I "let go," went out, got drunk, tried sushi, stay at hotels (as opposed to sleeping in my car at a wayside) went on trips and enjoyed life.  The other option was to continue to live in poverty, have no fun, and have what meager savings I had stored up in a 401k confiscated in "2020 National Wealth Redistribution Financial Solvency Patriotism Act."

The single best thing about The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan is you get to enjoy the ONE life you're given on this planet and don't have to worry about spending the resources to extend your life when you can't enjoy it.

Fourth, you will not be a burden on society.  I know hippies who never studied economics love to sit there and yell from their Depends,

"I contributed to the system and I deserve my government benefits!!!"

epically failing to realize they voted in things like "The Great Society" and other programs that blew away the money they "socked away" for retirement, and now literally demand future generations to become their slaves.

You don't have to become such ignorant hypocrites.  You can live your life, contribute as long as you can, and the second you realize you might become a parasite upon society, take yourself out.  I know that sounds harsh (because we've all been told to ignore the 600 Pound Reality Gorilla in the room), but it IS altruistic.  Certainly more altruistic in demanding and voting that OTHER people pay for the charities you wanted them too over your live and then voting to have other people take care of you.

Finally (and here's that damn truth and reality getting in the way of things again), you really don't have a choice.  Bar some spectacular economic growth and a true revolution of the economy, the money and resources plain isn't going to be there to make good on all the promises pot smoking commies back in the 50's, 60's and 70's made to themselves, future generations, all humans in the world, not to mention, pay back the debts we've currently accrued.  This once again revisits our buddies in Greece who are "entitled" to "Zymorgopentothol (tm)," but the fine men and women were taxed so much to death at Zymorgopentothol, Inc, they decided no longer to supply Greece with that life-saving drug.  You will have to make the choice to continue living in a desperate, painful state, or ending it mercifully (and cost-effectively) yourself.  I do not wish to be so pessimistic, cynical or macabre, but I'm not.  I'm really not.  That's going to be the REALITY for a lot of people.  And if you don't believe me, or think I'm just engaging in sensationalism how about for once YOU do the leg work and look up the finances of social security, medicare, medicaid, the federal government and general economic statistics of the US?  YOU run projections, make calculations and theorize and predict where the economy will go.  YOU prove me wrong and tell me where the magical money is going to come from to pay for everything everyone promised themselves.

Because again, I thoroughly enjoy and anticipate the crazy rationalizations, excuses and explanations delusional people come up with so they can keep believing in Lala-Land.  And until I execute my own Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan, one of the main forms of entertainment I'll have (in addition to hiking mountains, smoking cigars, playing video games, riding motorcycles and working as little as I can) is watching you fans of socialism, communism and "free" health care blow trillions of your own dollars on private retirement programs that will not only be confiscated later, but never compare to my 33 cent program.

And you wouldn't want to deprive me of that entertainment, would you?

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Not a Sociology Major

From our Married Agent in the Field.

Ben Hurs of The Manosphere

Follow the logic on this:

Married men who work and have stay at home wives are causing "HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENTS" for women at work.

What I really love, though, is how they use the phrase "pockets of resistance to the "gender revolution"" (yes, double quotes were needed because of their stupidity)

"POCKETS????"

Apparently they don't see the Ben Hurs of The Manosphere mobilizing millions of men every month.

hat tip

Saturday, June 09, 2012

Three Web Sites To Destroy Big Education

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if I ever have to hire somebody I will give them equal weighting to Khan's Academy classes as "real" ones from a university.

This of course assumes I'm in a position of power - HA HA HA HA!!!

Regardless, you will visit these three sites and improve yourself.

You will conform.

You will obey.

Compliance is mandatory.

Lake Angeline

Had day 2 of my second trip to the Big Horn Mountains.  It was rainy, cold, snowing, sleeting, hailing AND lightning today at Lake Angeline, for all 14 miles of it!  I decided to reward myself with a Captain American cupcake.  And yes, I bought it because it had a free Captain America ring embedded in the frosting (see bottom).













If America Had Kept Going...

We would have been on Mars in the 1990's and probably introducing a hospitable atmosphere to the moon.

Now we create dead cat helicopters.

Enjoying the Decline!









Won't Some Please Think of the Children

chillllllldreeeeeennnn

Friday, June 08, 2012

Why Ruin a Good Time?

I'm amazed how some people are just jealous of their friends and can't let them have a good time.

Let's show people how open minded we are and how we are definitely for our friends having a good time.

Vote yes  (obviously of course).

ht

Thursday, June 07, 2012

The 2nd Most Arrogant Assumption You MUST Make

I have said it before, and I'll say it again, when you keep failing at a particular task the only person to blame is you.  You tried, you failed, and therefore the blame is solely on you.  You need to go back, train more, try harder and keep failing until you succeed.

This rule or "law"  or whatever you want to call it, is simply commonsense.  You are the independent variable.  You are the one that needs to improve.  You are the sole entity to blame if there is failure

...except in life there are two rare instances where you will NOT be to blame.

One of those instances is for the young and now full-grown adult men who in their youth failed time and time again when it came to interacting with the opposite sex on social, romantic or sexual grounds.  You tried, you failed.  It's your fault.

You tried, you failed again.  It's your fault.

You trained, tried harder, failed harder.  It's your fault.

You changed tactics, experimented, tried really hard, and failed really bad.  It's your fault.

You went all out, trying crazy new tactics, rehashing old ones, put yourself in your best physical shape, invested thousands of man-hours, burned millions of calories and failed even more spectacularly than Lehman Brothers.  It's your fault.

And after anywhere from 10-25 years of failure (depending on how independent minded you were), you inevitably started daring to ask a VERY arrogant question:


"What if there's nothing wrong with me, but something wrong with everybody else?"

Understand why this is a very arrogant question.  For something to be wrong with EVERYBODY ELSE, and NOT wrong with the SOLE INDIVIDUAL implies:

1.  You are somehow brilliant or very special.
2.  You are also so brilliant you are smarter or better than everybody else
3.  Something has universally infected other people, while sparing you, putting you into "black helicopte,r" conspiracy theory territory.

At first you fight this thought that let this possibility enter your mind.  And you go back to banging your head against the drawing board to try another thousand slight permutations or variant of approaches to attract some lass.  But in the end, by the sheer volume of approaches, experiences, experiments, self-inflection and years of human life spent trying to "succeed" at this challenge, your mind is tortured into forcibly accepting the only remaining explanation:

"No, there's nothing wrong with me.  There IS INDEED something wrong with everybody else on a societal level.  Don't know what it is, but by god, it's not me!"

Some people call it taking the red pill.  (I, however, think to go through the torture yourself and have the courage to make this assumption WITHOUT the benefit of The Manosphere to lay it all out for you, deserves some other title - but that is an aside, NOR is it meant to belittle people who did take the red pill).  Whatever we decide to call it, once we entertain this arrogant assumption, it is amazing how everything falls into place and makes sense.  NOT because it conveniently benefits us or merely excuses and rationalizes our failures in the past.  But because IT DOES EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.

It's akin to fighting on the ground, having no idea where whose lines are, getting shelled left and right, being driven insane by chaos, and then magically being transported to a command center where you have crystal clear satellite imagery with friendlies being tagged with beacons and enemies being tagged by heat signatures, AND proving your hunches were indeed correct all along.

It just took you the arrogance to make such an assumption to get this bird's eye view and save your sanity.

Now, focus all we want on The Manosphere, that is not the topic I'm talking about today.  For there is going to come the time many of you, if not all of us, are going to have to man-up again and once again question,

"Is it me, or is there something wrong with everybody else?"

but in a different sphere.

And I'll give you a hint - this has nothing to do with the sexes.  Women will have to ask this question too because we're all going to have the honor of being in the same machine-gun strafed boat here.

Anybody get it yet?

Bueller?  Bueller?

Alright, I'll tell you.

We're ALL going to have to gin up the courage to ask this question when it comes to our relationship with employers:


"Is it me, or is there something wrong with the employers in the US?"

Again, the two issues parallel each other very closely.

If you have a hard time being reliably employed, you have failed.  There MUST be something wrong with you.

You try working for multiple employers, try multiple tactics, you'll still fail.  Therefore there MUST BE something wrong with YOU.

You try really hard, volunteer to work more, take on different projects, suggest new ideas and innovations.  You still fail (hell, you'll get punished for thinking of new ideas).  Therefore there MUST be something wrong with you.

And dare you start to suggest or theorize there's something structurally, fundamentally, or universally wrong with employers, corporate America and our current system of employment/labor market, then you are just (fill in the blank)

....not a team player
....a disgruntled employee
....a slow learner
....somebody who just doesn't "get it"
....a bad employee
....somebody who's just lazy

Never mind you are willing to work hard.

Never mind you did all the right things, got the right degree, got the right certification.

Never mind you came up with ideas that would have saved the company money, or crushed the competition, or heck, saved the entire US economy.

No, there's most DEFINITELY something wrong with YOU, and those crafty HR "generalists" with their scripted "pure-extract of inane" interview questions will be able to smoke you out without you knowing it (even though they themselves have gone through three divorces, 47 failed relationships, host 3 cats as pets, and are the world's worst judges of character).

And, much like you were veritably forced to have the arrogant epiphany about courting when you were 25, you will have to come to the same arrogant conclusion about the realities of the labor market and employer-employee relationships in America.  And just like me and a handful of people that have gone before you, you will realize once you make this assumption, you'll see employment and employers for what they are and hereafter be able to make better decisions.

Of course, humility and modesty may intimidate you from making such an arrogant assumption.  However, permit me to make several observations about corporate America that may convince you that there is indeed something fundamentally dysfunctional about modern day employers and that, no, you're not a bad employee, and no, you're not insane.

First, let's look at HR.  I could write a book about HR, but we'll instead focus on the fact that HR is dominated by women which cannot be overlooked and draws many parallels between The Manosphere "world" and the "working world."  Much like dating, women are predisposed to believe that they are the prize and you are lucky if you get the honor to date her.  You have to do all the leg work, you have to beg and plead, and if you prove yourself worthy, you will be rewarded with a date.  Applying for a job is the exact same.

HR operates from this exact same premise - that the job is the prize to be won and that you should be honored to even be considered for the position.  Matter of fact you should thank her for pelting you with inane questions that have nothing to do with the job or the industry.  What they fail to realize, in both instances, is it is a two way street.  Not only do applicants need jobs, but companies need labor.  Yes, they can take some arrogant liberties with an Obama-induced 8+% unemployment rate, but now that I've taken the "employment red pill" I sit in awe when an HR interviewer asks me with naked arrogance

"So why do you want to work here?"

as if it's a given I want to work there.

When I reply in a deadly serious tone

"Money."

the look on their face or the silence at the other end of the phone is hilarious.  But it still proves my point.  They PRESUME you are the one at a disadvantage and are the one bargaining from a position of weakness.  When in reality, you are merely the other and equally important side of the coin.

Regardless, the point is not whether unemployment breeds arrogance on the part of employers, it's the fact we have to endure something as stupid as the "HR screening interview" in the first place.  None of the questions have any predictive value as to the future performance of an employee.  The "best" answers are lies and the furthest thing from the truth.  The person conducting the interview is typically clueless about your profession and anything involving math.  It does nothing to find and detect the best candidate.  And, no, you're not insane for thinking the same.  So don't fret it when "HR" doesn't call back.  They were never going to in the first place.

Another aspect of HR is that it's "wishlist" for qualities and traits in a candidate for a job is equally impossible as the typical Ameircan woman's "wishlist" for qualities in a man for courtship.  I've spoken of it before, but when they're asking for 5 years experience in a software that has only been on the market for 3, you might as well be asking for a bad boy alpha motorcycle riding preacher, who's an animal in the sack, but only after you're married, who's also rich, but never married, and no children, but wants to take care of your 3 children from 4 other guys.

Again, you're not insane when you look at the list of requirements, do some quick math, and realize in the 6 billion people in the world, 1/8th of a person would qualify.

Second, abandon HR and look at the management in general of companies today.  Corporate America is no longer headed up by hardened, WWII vets who are ready to propel corporate America to new levels of greatness.  It's headed up by hippie Baby Boomers, followed by the ranks of Gen X middle management.  The psychology that comes with this is nothing as simple or logical as achieving greatness, or revolutionizing industries, or simply going out, kicking ass and taking names.  It's been replaced by people who are more concerned about maintaining the status quo so they can keep their jobs.  To run the firm or their division as their own personal fiefdom.  And so when a logical, young whipper snapper like you comes in with new ideas, innovations and creations, understand the reason you're getting fired is NOT because your ideas are "wrong" or "stupid," but because they've exposed just how inefficiently the company or division has been managed and your ideas are likely to result in the layoff of the unnecessary fat - ie - your boss and 40% of upper management.

Third, never discount that fact that unlike you and me, the majority of Americans are HORRENDOUS managers of their own personal finances.  They racked up debts going to college.  They racked up credit card debts in their 20's.  They had kids they can't afford.  Ergo, they literally cannot afford the luxury you have to speak out and say,

"Hey, that's a horrible idea!  If we introduce that product, then our product will kill 30,000 infants and shave 100,000 kittens!"

No, they have to shut up, not rock the boat, because they need food on the table and little Jimmy needs braces.

Because of the financial mismanagement of the majority of Americans, understand corporate America has the luxury of employing millions of yes-men and yes-women.

Oh, you may be right.

And yes, you may save the company in the end.

But you are rocking the boat with your bachelor and bachlorette ways.  And if an employer has the choice between hiring somebody who asks difficult and reality based questions, or somebody who is a slave to their debt, and therefore will never question management, they're going to go with the psychologically defeated automoton every time.

And finally, let's not forget that American employers are spineless.  They stand for nothing.  They fear everything.  And instead of adhering to some code of morals or ethics, they instead cower and fear the slightest bit of criticism in fear they may lose .0003% market share.  This allows people like lawyers, sue-happy employees, sexual harassment filers, protestors, nepotists, crusaders and the like to essentially make it impossible for a corporation to hire anybody with a brain or slightly opinionated personality.  They hire robots, automotons, preferably the heavily indebted type, as they are the ones with the least risk.

Of course, they're the ones with the least amount of creativity and leadership and innovation, but hey, at least we're not getting sued.

In short, the strategy of American employers is no longer that of achieving excellence or dominance in their field.  It's no longer going out, doing your best, kicking ass, taking names and crushing the competition.  It's one of self preservation and retaining what little fiefdom they have.  If you ask any major (or minor) US company what their "growth strategy" is, it's not to create new and amazing products that will obsolete the competition.  It's an amazingly lame, "grow the company outside the US while we bribe congress with our lobbyists to introduce legislation that will give us an edge against our competitors."

Now, you combine all these veritable psychoses that are governing US employers and ask yourself one simple question - can a normal person, with logical thought and the desire to work hard and succeed ever possibly stand a chance to survive in an environment like that?  You have a dying domestic labor market where everything is outsourced not just to save money on labor costs, but to lower lawsuit/sexual harassment risk.  You have people being promoted not based on their intelligence, ideas, innovations or observations, but by the fact they're enslaved to the company because they indebted themselves to the point they literally had to sell their soul and financially whore themselves out which makes them "obedient" (the most sought after trait in America).  You have the primary gatekeepers to employment staffed by the world's ditziest, dumbest people asking questions that have nothing to do with employment, effectively turning away any true leaders, thinkers, innovators, in exchange for somebody who can provide the best rehearsed answer to "have you ever had a difficult situation with an employee?  how did you solve it and why?"  And the entire thing is being managed by lazy, incompetent aging brats who are so talentless they cannot create their own job security, but instead they must stifle any potential usurpers by maintaining the status quo.

If you consider that, you can't POSSIBLY think there's something "wrong" with you or that somehow you're a bad employee, which only proves my previous case.

Understand, and understand well, that there is nothing wrong with you.  You did your best, you did the right thing, you made the right choices, and that's all you can do.  If your career is not heading the way you would have liked by now, understand it's not your fault.  Even if your boss or former boss lectures you about how you didn't do this minor thing right, or criticizes you on some nebulous grounds of you not having the right "attitude" or not being a "team player," assuming you did the right thing and tried your best, chances are it's more of a criticism of themselves and their inability to lead or make decisions, than it is a legitimate criticism of you.

Yes, this is an arrogant assumption.  And yes, it takes a lot of bravado to make such assumptions.  But all one has to do is look at the current economic state of the US and realize that is the empirical evidence that you are right.  Because if the US economy was booming and US corporate domestic sales were booming,  then, yes,  you would PROBABLY be in the wrong - the leaders of the various institutions of the US are probably doing something right by the fact the economy is doing well.  But since the economy is craptastically stagnant, and the government bankrupt, for employers and various leaders to have the gall to blame their inadequate and incompetent leadership on their employees is laughable.  For them to tell you during review time, "well, you really only earned an "average" rating despite your 60 hour work weeks" is hypocritical.

Thankfully, you have the choice as to whether or not to believe them.  If you choose to, realize this is doing nothing more than believing a lie.  It won't help you in your long term future success, if anything it will hurt you because you are basing your decisions of a falsehood.  However, if you choose not to, and realize they're nothing but a bunch of ass-kissing, brown-nosing, debt-enslaved suits, you will be able to make better decisions about who you want to work for, what kind of work you are WILLING to tolerate, and (as I've found out) you TELLING them what you are and are not going to do.  It's counter-intuitive, but just ask any girl which guy gets more success:

The compliant yes man who asks her "whatever you want to do dear."

Or the motorcycle bad boy who dares to tell the girl one word , "no."

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

$700 Billion in Dating Wealth Transfers

Dalrock had an interesting piece about a woman who had 50 dates in 6 months, and another who had 100 dates in a year, but still couldn't find "the right guy."  Naturally he focused on "choice addiction" whereas my biased mind wandered in the realm of economics.

"How much money are guys forking over for these girls?  I mean, how much in non-taxable income is that?  It's certainly significant!"

So off to the Excel spreadsheet I went to do some very rough back-of-napkin economics.

Most women, we will admit, do not get 100 dates a year, let alone 50.  But I think it's safe to say the average woman will have 10 dates a year.

The dates I estimate cost more than the $5 el-cheapo movie you could afford in college, vs. the $120 fine wine and dining night out when you're in your upper income tax bracket.  Let's say $50 just for s's and g's.

But wait!  Women do go dutch sometimes!  Yes, "sometimes."  I'll say 20% of the time based on personal experience (unless somebody can cite a government database that tracks this), netting out a $10 per date subsidy by the dutch going dames.  Net cost to the guy per date $40.

How many years does the average woman date?  Well in the olden days, maybe 5-10.  But given dating starts around 14, average age of first marriage is 28, so 14 years.  BUT WAIT!  Let's not forget divorce, allowing people to pleasure of going out dating again!  7 year itch, plus 28, woman is back on the market at 35, 20 years until she's 55 and more or less off the dating market forever.  14 + 20 = 34.  Let's just call it 35 to account for the R-Hamster Effect.

So in the end, the average woman can expect to get $14,000 over the course of her life in free food, movies, drinks and other forms of entertainment.  I actually think that's a little low, but I'll just stick with my methodology.

Final factor to account for is the number of women dating at any given moment.  I'm too lazy to look up demographic data and population distribution over age.  Let's call it 50,000,000 or 1/3 the current female population.

Total bill = $700 billion.

Sound about right?

My question is whether or not we ought to start factoring in these income and wealth transfers when calculating the "wage gap."

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

I Told You Law Degrees Are Worthless

When you major in the liberal arts you have three options after you graduate;

1.  Work at McDonalds
2.  Get a masters in your field and work at McDonald's
3.  Go to law school and then still go work for McDonald's.

The concept that being a lawyer is a sign of success is ancient history belonging to the days of the 1930's.  Today all you liberal arts majors went to "law school" because you knew you could avoid math there and now there's a flood of you hitting the market.

Look, I know you blew $150,000 on a law degree, but could you maybe spend $13 of that and at least find out why you can't get a job as a lawyer?

19 Drinks, But No Responsibility

*Heavy sigh*
To quote Tom Leykis, "Yes, I can leave my car running with the doors open in Stockton.  Is it illegal for somebody to steal my car.  Am I an idiot for leaving the car running with the doors open?  Yes."

Wait wait!  I know!  let's have a "slut walk!"  That'll solve the world's problems.

Hat tip.

Your Child is NOT Your "Legacy"

Of the common lies told to you by people scared of life (which I will make a post on later) one of them is that somehow there is value or importance in carrying on a name or leaving your genetic material behind in the form of a child.  And commonly I am asked when people find out I had a vasectomy;

"Don't you want to leave a legacy behind?"

I look at them funny, because I'm curious what they believe the definition of "legacy" to be.  So obviously, it's time for another lesson.

Understand simply doing what an estimated 50 billion humans have been doing for the past 2 million years (breeding) is nothing great, nothing grandiose, and nothing special.  I don't care how many "baby showers" there are or how many trillions of dollars are spent, or how precious you think you're little baby is.

Humans are INCREDIBLY common

INCREDIBLY numerous

and none of us in the universal sense are special.

Having said that though, what I don't understand is when people have a kid, in terms of their own personal legacy they seem to forfeit their individuality and any dreams they may have had, and instead focus on the child.  Now understand I am NOT saying that if you bring a child into the world, your first and foremost responsibility should not be that child.  It should be.  What I'm saying is the instance a couple has a child, it's as if 100% of their own personal achievements now have no meaning.  How so many people now pride themselves off of simply bringing another human being into the world, and then like a tired runner, "eh, that's far enough.  I've exercised enough for the day."

Forget climbing Mt. Everest. 
Forget starting that company.
Forget white water rafting in Colorado.
Forget the 3 month vacation in the south of Europe.
And forget that book you always wanted to write.

My life is defined by my ability to test the temperature of Gerber food.

Now, before I go on, I want to discern very clearly what my criticism is here.

It is not "having children."  It is not, "whooping up the DINK lifestyle."  It is not "mocking people who have children."

It is a genuine question of curiosity - "What changes in people when they have a kid that they now think their legacy is limited to, defined by and embodied in that kid?"

Or another way to put it,

"Why does the focus of one's personal legacy go to another human being?"

Now I can't answer these questions (but I welcome other people to try), but what I can do is refocus people's thoughts as to what truly is going to be your legacy, because "legacy" is not what you "feel" it should be.  It's going to be what it IS.

In short your legacy is YOURS.  YOU will determine YOUR legacy, not your child. It will be your mark on this planet, how you did unique and interesting things specific to you, and how people will remember you by.  The fact you had a kid does NOT affect your legacy, simply because they're so common.  Having kids is nothing special.  But starting a company IS special.  Working on art or rebuilding old cars IS special.  Writing music, climbing mountains, competing in sports, writing books, heck, there was a guy on "The Tonight Show" who took bird droppings and made jewelry out of them! Those things ARE special.

And the reason I bring it up is really not to mock people who have the ho-hum life and can't understand why I don't want to carry on a last name or leave some of my genes behind.  It's to wake those people up and say, "Hey, buddy, I know you have a kid.  But you also have your own unique and interesting life.  What do YOU want to do with it?  You can't just want to sit around all day doing the same ol', same ol' all the time.  You can't think your only purpose in life was to bring that kid into the world?  Because, by default logic, what's his/her purpose?  Merely to do the same?"  

And it's not even that having a legacy is a mutually exclusive event with having children.  If anything it's a complimentary event that enhances both your lives through hobbies.  How great would it be to rebuild a classic car with your dad?  Or build kites from scratch?  Or brew beer together?  Or...um...do whatever girly things moms and daughters find interesting.  Having a true legacy will only benefit your child.

Of course, maybe I'm being too optimistic for the average American family today.  I picture chemistry sets, go karts, writing books, working in the garage on inventions and other 1950s-esque scenes in my mind with a clean cut father with a pipe in his hand passing on his wisdom, skills and inventions.  Perhaps I should just accept the average "legacy" will be "your father like baseball" and "your mother liked reading Harlequin romance novels."

Monday, June 04, 2012

Advertising on the Tom Leykis Show

As some of you may or may not know, I ran a spot for "Worthless" on the Tom Leykis Show.

Tom's show is no longer on radio, but on the internet, and for those of you familiar with "Blog Talk Radio" and other such formats, you know the jury is still out whether or not a "radio show" can be done over the internet.

Well, I'm here to tell you that not only can it be done, but that I also believe internet-based radio shows will prove to be more revolutionary and effective than most people would imagine.

First, Tom's first month back on the air got him a listenership of 400,000 people.  That is amazing because even when I had a "regular" talk radio show, I think I got 3 or 4 people to tune in. 

Second, his audience is not relegated or limited to FCC regulations or contracts or syndication.  It's available to anybody in the world, period.

Third, because it's internet radio, and there is comparably lower costs to launch an internet show than there is a regular radio show, people like you and me can afford advertising and reach a similar, if not, larger audience.

As proof, your humble Captain spent a mere $500 on getting one month's worth of advertising on The Tom Leykis Show.  I spent THREE TIMES that amount on a LOCAL, NON-PRIME TIME regular radio show for my first book.  The results?

I had $1,500 in sales the month my spot ran on The Tom Leykis Show.

I sold a whopping 6 books when my spot ran on the regular radio show.

Now there is much more to advertising on internet based radio shows, as I believe it will play a vital role in the future of The Manosphere (and post you will NOT want to miss), but for now, understand one simple thing:

The Tom Leykis Show, as far as I can tell, is the single biggest asset entrepreneurs such as you and me have.

Did all my sales come from Tom's show?  No, of course not.  Many of you have been kind enough to promote "Worthless" and I sincerely appreciate it.  But I certainly made my money back, meaning advertising on the Tom Leykis Show is a wise investment.

If you haven't done it, go there now and e-mail Gary or call 818-52-RADIO.

They did not pay me or ask me to do this.  This is a genuine endorsement of his show.

Sunday, June 03, 2012

Politically Incorrect Recession Medicine

I told you it was politically incorrect.

File your complaints with somebody else for not listening to my warnings.

Seven Brothers Lakes

I revisited the Big Horn Mountains this weekend on account they are really tall mountains whereas the Black Hills are much shorter.  Hiked to "Seven Brother's Lakes."  Only saw 6 of them.  However I did see a moose and a beaver. 

Remember kids, you can work and pay taxes, or you can just umm....not.



















Nice Suit

I've been catching up on my full DVD series "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."  Among the many other things I like about the show, the fashion is one of those things.  Thought this suit looked incredibly sharp.


Crusders are Jerks

Crusaderism is a psychological disease I discovered long ago.  Oh, mock me if you will, and claim, "how can you, an economist, have a gall to say you discovered a psychological disorder?"  But in due time, a real psychologist will discover it, give it some kind of official name, and then people will say,

"Ha!  THAT???  POTUS Cappy discovered that about 50 years ago!"

However, since I've pointed out crusaderism and explained what it is, more and more people are being able to identify instances of it and are starting to see the deadly serious ramifications. 

One of these not-so deadly ramifications is that crusaders are indeed jerks.

The tone of the article is one of "surprise" or "shock."  To find out that people who participate in crusades are also highly correlated with being a jerk.  People who study crusaderism, however, would not find this surprising at all.  The reason why is that crusders are, if anything, incredibly selfish and lazy people.  They put themselves first and find easy ways to give themselves self-worth and value.  I won't go into detail, but you can see all the detail about crusaderism here, but take two people as an example:

The urban, masters degree intellectual who shops at Whole Foods.  Does s/he have a masters in engineering?  no.  Probably a masters in art history or something like that.  Drives a Prius, doesn't have a real job, relies on the taxpayer in one way or another for his/her income.  KNOWS deep down inside they majored in sociology because they are too lazy to do math, and don't really contribute anything of value to society.  AND SO by "going green" (which takes nothing and avoids math) they can claim not only are they doing something of value, they are superior to you cretins that shop at Wal-Mart.

vs.

The humble Asian student who is studying electrical engineering.  S/he works hard, drives a beat up Toyota, studies advanced mathematics and electronics everyday, will inevitably build the processors to the computers on the GPS on the urban masters candidate's Prius, but can't afford as of yet a Prius, let alone overpriced food at Whole Foods or Starbucks.  They go on to get a great job at Unisys, they pull in $250,000 and are then accused of being evil rich people that must pay more in taxes for the urban masters degreed dweller to "help" poor people or "the chillllldreeeeennnnnn."

Quite frankly, who would you rather hang out with?  Obviously the poor Asian kid because they are intellectually honest.  They are true to themselves.  They are real men and women of strong moral caliber and you can expect them to treat you with the same courtesy.  The other person is just an intellectually dishonest hypocrite and cover it up as much as they try with "buying the right food" or "driving the right car" or "voting for the right candidate" their personality will still shine through and show them to be the assholes they genuinely are.

hat tip

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Amazing

Absolutely amazing.

My brain has so been brainwashed to see things differently in the past via black and white films that even though I KNOW the human eye 100 years ago saw the same colors, people and landscapes I do today, I can't imagine people 100 years ago seeing anything besides black and white...or my dad seeing anything that wasn't tinted 1970's yellow.

Still, click on the pictures.  My favorite is the dog.  It shows things have not changed at all with dogs.

GDP Yield Per Dollar in Education Spending

Permit me a chart that will probably go down in Cappy Cap history as one of my more important ones:


Now lend me your ears, especially you "the children are our future" hypocrites who have no shame in abusing the children when it comes time to protecting your overpaid jobs.  I want to make sure your ear drums burst.

WE SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY ON EDUCATION!!!!!!

Period.

End of discussion.

Truth as truth can only be told.

Of course, I can't assume that everybody reading this post is a regular Cappy Cap reader and therefore doesn't need a hand-holding explanation of the chart above, so let me explain to you in simple terms the wonderful economics lesson the above chart tells us all and the ramifications of it.

The above chart is quite simple.  It shows us "GDP Yielded per Dollar in Education Spending."  Or, in other words, "How much GDP is produced for every dollar we spend on education."

It is a measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of our education system in that it essentially shows us our return on investment in education.

Notice in the olden days we could expect that for every dollar we "invested" in the precious little children, we could expect about $32 in economic production in return.  It peaked during WWII where we almost doubled that rate of return, and even during the great depression it had a trough of $21.  But still the average was reasonably high.

In the 50's our ROI for education averaged in the upper $20's, but then in the 60's it started a very measured and deliberate decline.  This decline continues today where we get LESS THAN HALF OUR OLD SCHOOL RETURN - $14.52.  The cause of this decline I presume was that blessed, wonderful and highly ineffective "Great Society."

Whatever the cause, the fact still remains that education has been suffering a phenomenon economists like to call "Diminishing Marginal Utility" or "Diminishing Returns."

Or in English - "We ain't getting our bang for our buck."

It is here, no doubt, liberals, leftists, socialists, communists and other economic parasites will try to change reality, redefine words, and tender touchy feely arguments that are not based in reality or logic.  However, for those people, allow me to do you the favor of tendering your arguments for you because I know you so well because I know your ulterior goals and motives:

1.  "Well education isn't all about the money.  It's about becoming a well-rounded person.  It's an experience" etc. etc. touchyfeelygarbage, touchyfeelygarbage.


2.  "People don't get an education just so they can go and work.  They do it so they can enhance their intellect and lives.  You don't want a bunch of dumb people running around the country, do you?  You want a place where everybody is smart like us in San Francisco or New York."

But, if you can stand to be as open-mined and as intelligent as you hypocrites all claim you are, permit me not a counter-argument, but reality.

1.  BS.  The amount of money students, their parents and taxpayers spend on education, you damn well better believe money matters.  When people blow $100,000 on a college degree, unless you're some spoiled pampered brat whose parent can afford it, you are CRIPPLING YOUR ECONOMIC FUTURE.  Liberal or conservative.  Capitalist or parasite. Your political ideology and naivete does not matter as that $100,000 in student debt will destroy you and your future regardless.

2.  The government (which means me and the dwindling percent of the population who actually produce something on value in this country) pay for 75% of all educational spending.  That's right, other people are paying for the majority of your education.

READ

WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND A RATE OF RETURN

AND

WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT OUR MONEY IS SPENT WISELY ON DEGREES AND EDUCATION THAT LEADS TO GENUINE ECONOMIC PRODUCTION AND NOT FINANCE SOME BLEEPING HOBBY DEGREE LIKE SOCIOLOGY, WOMEN'S STUDIES AND WHATEVER OTHER DEGREES YOU LEFTISTS PURSUE THAT ARE VOID OF MATH, RIGOR AND PURPOSE.

Of course, ultimately, I know this is not a debate.  I know that this is falling on deaf ears which relegates this post for posterity.  Debates require both sides to have theories, but no proof or evidence, which results in speculation, logic, thought and an attempt to convince the other person to see it their way.  Debate also requires intellectual honesty of both parties.  This is instead one of two things:

A psychological problem in which people who "argue" otherwise simply are psychologically impaired and cannot accept fact, data, statistics or truth (aka-ignorance, delusional).

Or

A problem of evil.  Where people who "argue" otherwise know full well I, and millions of others are right, but know to indignantly feign disagreement so they can continue to unfairly milk the system for their advantage at our expense.

And so for those of you who are evil, know that you're not fooling any one.

And for those of you who are ignorant, know that we no longer care to discern between the two because the costs to us are the same.

From Our Muslim Agent in the Field

If there is a price tag to replacing fathers and husbands with government checks, this is it.

But that's alright.  Remember, we don't need no stiiiiiiiinking fathers!

Besides, think of all the social work jobs criminals create for all those women majoring in "psychology" or "social work."  Why, if people were responsible and stayed at home to take care of their children, then children wouldn't grow up to become criminals and then we wouldn't have all these social work/government program jobs.  And we can't have that now can we.

Hey, you crazy kids enjoy that decline!

Friday, June 01, 2012

Now Those Are Classy Dames

Ha-YOOOOOGE language warning!

However, INCREDIBLY funny, only to be outdone by its wittiness and its macabre acknowledgement of reality.



Enjoy that decline, boys.  Keep on enjoying that freaking decline!