I love it when college graduates never paid attention to economics class:
Sunday, March 09, 2014
The Captain Beats Out Ivy League Schools' Economics Departments
At an Ivy league college I took two semesters of economics - "micro" and
"macro" economics, all of which turned out to be crap. Wish I saved
some money on those courses, as well as some sanity, and read this book instead.
Well, that is because the Ivy League's economists are not gifted with SAEG (TM).
Regardless, yes, my book is only $27 ($10 on Kindle) while two Ivy Plague econ classes will probably set you back $10,000 and 200 braincells.
Well, that is because the Ivy League's economists are not gifted with SAEG (TM).
Regardless, yes, my book is only $27 ($10 on Kindle) while two Ivy Plague econ classes will probably set you back $10,000 and 200 braincells.
A Short Man is Like a Fat Woman
The LADIES (Bill Burr emphasis) over at Return of Queens came up with an explanation of their scale of attraction for men on a scale of 1-10...
well...OK,
they ATTEMPTED to come up with a scale of 1-10, but being the lovely females they are, nothing is ever so simple. Their attraction to males is a bit more multi-faceted for a simple linear scale, so it became a list of "do's and don't's" instead. Perhaps not as simple as us men were looking for, but helpful nonetheless.
However, one of the best bits of advice was about short men, specifically, how women are just not attracted to them, and this needs to be expanded a little more for the benefit of our shorter brothers.
If you were like me and every other boy/man in America, you were brought up believing what your parents and teachers told you - that women would like you for you and just be yourself blabbity blah blah blah. You were also maybe told women preferred dark, TALL, men, but that was the extent to which height was addressed. And thus you were sent out into the world, thinking your height was no serious disadvantage. That like you, women weren't bigoted against people shorter than them and just as you were comfortable dating a girl taller than you, women would be comfortable dating men shorter than them.
Oh, how wrong you were. For while not addressed or talked about much, height is arguably the number one thing women look at. And I would go so far to say they are repulsed by shortness on a level almost as much as men are repulsed by fat.
While I have seen no studies, anecdotally there is enough data a study doesn't have to be commissioned. It is usually the case women are shorter than their partner. Only during my "ballroom dancing prime" was I able to score taller girls (and they would usually not stick around). And we can of course take what the ladies at ROQ are saying at face value. But if there is a case study that proves the "shortness handicap" it is my much more ripped IT counterpart. This "friend" is basically me on steroids and improved in every other category.
He makes six figures
He is an infinitely better mechanic than I am
He is a computer genius
He races cars and rides motorcycles
He's way more ripped than I am
Has a nicer house
Has a nicer car
Has a higher networth
oh, and
he is an accomplished dancer AND musician.
You could not really improve a human more.
But, alas, he is 5'9", and that's where he "fails." Matter of fact it was a conversation we had about a month ago that prompted me to look at shortness as such a handicap, and the ROQ piece confirms it. You can be the most accomplished man in every aspect of your life, superior to most of your competitors, but if you're short, you might as well be that "fat girl with a *great* personality."
So what is a short guy to do?
Well the primary purpose of this post is to at least MAKE YOU AWARE of your handicap. I do this NOT to berate you or make you feel bad, but to improve your chances with women. A soldier that goes into battle unaware of his greatest weakness or operating on false information is going to fail compared to a soldier that DOES know his greatest weakness and makes decisions accounting for it. So if you are short (I would say 5'10" or shorter) REALIZE and ACCEPT women are just not going to be as attracted to you.
Don't listen to what your parents say
Don't listen to what your friends who are girls say
Don't listen to what society says
If you are working out, interesting, good looking, and doing everything "right," if you're short THAT is the reason you are failing with women, just like FAT is the reason woman will fail with men.
Second, well while a fat girl can always lose weight (well, according to science and biology anyway, HAR HAR HAR!), a short man simply cannot increase his height. There is no "solution" to height.
Correct, so, like the ladies at ROQ point out, you are merely going to be relegated to shorter girls.
This is alright because, again, men really don't care that much about height. And there's plenty of short girls around. The problem is (as many online dating profiles will show you) short girls are just as picky as their taller female counterparts when it comes to the height of men. Profiles are abound of 5'1" girls DEMANDING a man 6'0" or taller. This "height spread" combined with the fact taller men aren't going to turn down a girl based on height, pushes short men out of the "height market."
Regardless, you're just going to have to "aim low" and not bother approaching taller girls.
Third, lie.
Do women put on makeup?
Do women wear clothes that adjust their shape?
Do women wear heels?
Women lie all the time about their appearance, so the least you can do is lie about your height.
Of course, this isn't Gattica, so how do you lie?
Pull a Prince and get some platform shoes. Nothing 4" or anything as drastic as that, but an additional 1.5" will still look like a "normal" shoes, but mayhaps give you that edge you need.
Fourth, charm. I am a student of Walter Matthau because the man did not look like Steve McQueen, but still managed to be charming. It won't fully compensate for being short (as my IT doppelganger has shown), but a devastating charm can add a couple inches in height.
Finally, if push comes to shove, Asian and Latin countries. Women in these countries tend to be short. And of course this is doing no service to our Asian or Latino brothers, but sorry guys, all's fair. If height is pushing you out of the taller-Anglo/Scandinavian/basketball-player market, you'll just have to go to cultures where women are biologically shorter.
Whatever strategy or strategies you choose to pursue, the key lesson to pull from this is to realize just what a severe handicap being short is for a guy. It's not a "minor" inconvenience. It's not "something shallow girls insist on." It is a genetically hardwired preference of women, neither to be berated or shamed. It is a law, and a law you need to abide by.
well...OK,
they ATTEMPTED to come up with a scale of 1-10, but being the lovely females they are, nothing is ever so simple. Their attraction to males is a bit more multi-faceted for a simple linear scale, so it became a list of "do's and don't's" instead. Perhaps not as simple as us men were looking for, but helpful nonetheless.
However, one of the best bits of advice was about short men, specifically, how women are just not attracted to them, and this needs to be expanded a little more for the benefit of our shorter brothers.
If you were like me and every other boy/man in America, you were brought up believing what your parents and teachers told you - that women would like you for you and just be yourself blabbity blah blah blah. You were also maybe told women preferred dark, TALL, men, but that was the extent to which height was addressed. And thus you were sent out into the world, thinking your height was no serious disadvantage. That like you, women weren't bigoted against people shorter than them and just as you were comfortable dating a girl taller than you, women would be comfortable dating men shorter than them.
Oh, how wrong you were. For while not addressed or talked about much, height is arguably the number one thing women look at. And I would go so far to say they are repulsed by shortness on a level almost as much as men are repulsed by fat.
While I have seen no studies, anecdotally there is enough data a study doesn't have to be commissioned. It is usually the case women are shorter than their partner. Only during my "ballroom dancing prime" was I able to score taller girls (and they would usually not stick around). And we can of course take what the ladies at ROQ are saying at face value. But if there is a case study that proves the "shortness handicap" it is my much more ripped IT counterpart. This "friend" is basically me on steroids and improved in every other category.
He makes six figures
He is an infinitely better mechanic than I am
He is a computer genius
He races cars and rides motorcycles
He's way more ripped than I am
Has a nicer house
Has a nicer car
Has a higher networth
oh, and
he is an accomplished dancer AND musician.
You could not really improve a human more.
But, alas, he is 5'9", and that's where he "fails." Matter of fact it was a conversation we had about a month ago that prompted me to look at shortness as such a handicap, and the ROQ piece confirms it. You can be the most accomplished man in every aspect of your life, superior to most of your competitors, but if you're short, you might as well be that "fat girl with a *great* personality."
So what is a short guy to do?
Well the primary purpose of this post is to at least MAKE YOU AWARE of your handicap. I do this NOT to berate you or make you feel bad, but to improve your chances with women. A soldier that goes into battle unaware of his greatest weakness or operating on false information is going to fail compared to a soldier that DOES know his greatest weakness and makes decisions accounting for it. So if you are short (I would say 5'10" or shorter) REALIZE and ACCEPT women are just not going to be as attracted to you.
Don't listen to what your parents say
Don't listen to what your friends who are girls say
Don't listen to what society says
If you are working out, interesting, good looking, and doing everything "right," if you're short THAT is the reason you are failing with women, just like FAT is the reason woman will fail with men.
Second, well while a fat girl can always lose weight (well, according to science and biology anyway, HAR HAR HAR!), a short man simply cannot increase his height. There is no "solution" to height.
Correct, so, like the ladies at ROQ point out, you are merely going to be relegated to shorter girls.
This is alright because, again, men really don't care that much about height. And there's plenty of short girls around. The problem is (as many online dating profiles will show you) short girls are just as picky as their taller female counterparts when it comes to the height of men. Profiles are abound of 5'1" girls DEMANDING a man 6'0" or taller. This "height spread" combined with the fact taller men aren't going to turn down a girl based on height, pushes short men out of the "height market."
Regardless, you're just going to have to "aim low" and not bother approaching taller girls.
Third, lie.
Do women put on makeup?
Do women wear clothes that adjust their shape?
Do women wear heels?
Women lie all the time about their appearance, so the least you can do is lie about your height.
Of course, this isn't Gattica, so how do you lie?
Pull a Prince and get some platform shoes. Nothing 4" or anything as drastic as that, but an additional 1.5" will still look like a "normal" shoes, but mayhaps give you that edge you need.
Fourth, charm. I am a student of Walter Matthau because the man did not look like Steve McQueen, but still managed to be charming. It won't fully compensate for being short (as my IT doppelganger has shown), but a devastating charm can add a couple inches in height.
Finally, if push comes to shove, Asian and Latin countries. Women in these countries tend to be short. And of course this is doing no service to our Asian or Latino brothers, but sorry guys, all's fair. If height is pushing you out of the taller-Anglo/Scandinavian/basketball-player market, you'll just have to go to cultures where women are biologically shorter.
Whatever strategy or strategies you choose to pursue, the key lesson to pull from this is to realize just what a severe handicap being short is for a guy. It's not a "minor" inconvenience. It's not "something shallow girls insist on." It is a genetically hardwired preference of women, neither to be berated or shamed. It is a law, and a law you need to abide by.
Saturday, March 08, 2014
Saturday Night Linkage
If you're going to stop smoking, don't do it cold turkey. Somebody tell Aurini.
I love happy endings. Don't you?
I will put a slightly different, but related spin on this. Men will always find a way to say yes, women will always find a way to say now. This is one of the many reasons for the earnings gap.
I am better than your kids.
Cat fight amongst liberal women. Moewroar! In short this heffer is upset white women are using belly dancing which is I guess the preserve of Arab women. I find it laughable because no man would want to see that oil tanker belly dance.
I love happy endings. Don't you?
I will put a slightly different, but related spin on this. Men will always find a way to say yes, women will always find a way to say now. This is one of the many reasons for the earnings gap.
I am better than your kids.
Cat fight amongst liberal women. Moewroar! In short this heffer is upset white women are using belly dancing which is I guess the preserve of Arab women. I find it laughable because no man would want to see that oil tanker belly dance.
Friday, March 07, 2014
Friday Night Linkage
Average is average.
You are not a "bright young woman" if you are majoring in early childhood education. You are a babysitter.
Nomad Capitalist radio is back with it's first episode of 2014.
A tale of two grandmothers, one traditional, one careerist. Guess who won at the game of life!
You are not a "bright young woman" if you are majoring in early childhood education. You are a babysitter.
Nomad Capitalist radio is back with it's first episode of 2014.
A tale of two grandmothers, one traditional, one careerist. Guess who won at the game of life!
Target Fires Their Affirmative Action Hire
Former Target CIO Jacob, [female] who holds an MBA, began her career with Target in 1984 as an assistant buyer in Target’s department store division, Dayton’s, for two years. She was hired by Target in 2002 as director of guest contact centers, and named vice president, guest operations in 2006.
Emphasis mine.
Question lieutenants, economists, agents in the field and chillllldlren!
Why would a large corporation promote a person with
NO IT experience,
an "MBA,"
and an expertise in "guest services"
to the CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ROLE??????
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Oh, that's right! It begins with an "A" and ends with "ffirmative Action!"
Well at least they had diversity at Target Corp and that's definitely worth a cool billion!
hat tip
Emphasis mine.
Question lieutenants, economists, agents in the field and chillllldlren!
Why would a large corporation promote a person with
NO IT experience,
an "MBA,"
and an expertise in "guest services"
to the CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ROLE??????
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Oh, that's right! It begins with an "A" and ends with "ffirmative Action!"
Well at least they had diversity at Target Corp and that's definitely worth a cool billion!
hat tip
A True Story About Communism
From our Son of a Communist Worker in the Field:
Communism is the application and enforcement of flawed socialist economics by firing squad.
To illustrate let me tell you a true story of what happened to my mother on a Kolkhoz (state farm) in the former Workers Paradise.
My mother was assigned to a dairy farm, to help milk the cows and other duties as befitting a farm girl. The farm had a quota which was to be picked up and delivered to the milk processing plants. As long as the cows were healthy and happy, the quota was maintained.
One day, however, the cows got sick and milk production dropped to less than half the assigned quota. A few days later the commissars came by to investigate. The commissars refused to accept the fact that the cows were sick and accused the farm manager of stealing the milk. My mother said that he just went white as a sheet. They also threatened the manager and half the staff, including my mother with execution if the thefts didn't stop.
The manager said that he would take steps to ensure that from now on full quota would be delivered on time.
Of course the cows were still sick and couldn't provide the volume of milk required to fulfil the quota.
The solution? Simply top up the half empty milk containers with well water and voila, quota met.
Socialism, Communism Fascism and Nazism are all branches of the same tree and ALL are EVIL.
I want all the little spoiled brat American children who live off of the innovations and savings and (now) credit/borrowings capitalism created/allowed for to pay attention.
The least of your problems will be that you can't afford the iPhone 7 when your ignorance manifests itself in something similar to the USSR. And there will be no better deserving generation than the OWS'ers.
Oh well, Enjoy the Decline!
Communism is the application and enforcement of flawed socialist economics by firing squad.
To illustrate let me tell you a true story of what happened to my mother on a Kolkhoz (state farm) in the former Workers Paradise.
My mother was assigned to a dairy farm, to help milk the cows and other duties as befitting a farm girl. The farm had a quota which was to be picked up and delivered to the milk processing plants. As long as the cows were healthy and happy, the quota was maintained.
One day, however, the cows got sick and milk production dropped to less than half the assigned quota. A few days later the commissars came by to investigate. The commissars refused to accept the fact that the cows were sick and accused the farm manager of stealing the milk. My mother said that he just went white as a sheet. They also threatened the manager and half the staff, including my mother with execution if the thefts didn't stop.
The manager said that he would take steps to ensure that from now on full quota would be delivered on time.
Of course the cows were still sick and couldn't provide the volume of milk required to fulfil the quota.
The solution? Simply top up the half empty milk containers with well water and voila, quota met.
Socialism, Communism Fascism and Nazism are all branches of the same tree and ALL are EVIL.
I want all the little spoiled brat American children who live off of the innovations and savings and (now) credit/borrowings capitalism created/allowed for to pay attention.
The least of your problems will be that you can't afford the iPhone 7 when your ignorance manifests itself in something similar to the USSR. And there will be no better deserving generation than the OWS'ers.
Oh well, Enjoy the Decline!
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Thursday Night Linkage
What would Wendy Davis do? Oh, what this female politician just did! Again, women are HORRIBLE with money.
How do you tell you're on the way to learning the truth? When the Southern Poverty Law Center targets you and calls you a bigot.
The Truth About Abraham Lincoln - a heck of a podcast that changed my mind about the man and showed me how little slavery was part of the Civil War.
Man Ex reviews Bachelor Pad Economics and disagrees with me on a key subject. Remember, if you write a review, let me know!
Annnnnnd then I wonder if the youth even deserve saving. Bunch of brainwashed lemmings.
How do you tell you're on the way to learning the truth? When the Southern Poverty Law Center targets you and calls you a bigot.
The Truth About Abraham Lincoln - a heck of a podcast that changed my mind about the man and showed me how little slavery was part of the Civil War.
Man Ex reviews Bachelor Pad Economics and disagrees with me on a key subject. Remember, if you write a review, let me know!
Annnnnnd then I wonder if the youth even deserve saving. Bunch of brainwashed lemmings.
A Primer on Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism
I received an interview request from a student who was writing an economics paper. The questions I realized were probably questions many people had and though they may tangentially be educated about various economic systems a good introduction into the three man economic systems may be called for.
1. Can you define each of the three? Communism, Socialism, and capitalism. What are the differences?
There is debate between the definitions of all three. But traditionally the three fit along a spectrum from total government ownership of everything (communism) to technically the absolute absence of government (anarchy) “Socialism” fits in between where the government owns OR TAXES at a rate of around 50%. However, sometimes people refer to “socialism” as the same thing as “communism.” So when you are reading or talking about socialism, you need to know what context it’s in. Are they talking Sweden or Norway where 50% of GDP is taxed, or are they talking SOCIALISM as in a purely 100% totalitarian Marxist control of the economy.
2. Can you list examples of each? Can be modern examples or past examples.
Capitalism – Bermuda, Singapore, 1940’s America, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong
Socialism – Current day US, all of Europe, Canada
Communist – Venezuela, Cuba, Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, California (just kidding)
3. Are there any misconceptions that people have? If so why might people believe these misconceptions
Yes, absolutely. The reason people have misconceptions is because most people (Americans) are idiots when it comes to economics. They’re more concerned about Kim Kardashian than they are the US federal deficit. The most typical of these misconceptions is that the US is somehow a “capitalist” country or that China is a “communist” country. None of them take the time to study economics, tax rates, spending rates, etc., so most people are arguing from idiotic emotions rather than unbiased, cold, heartless facts and statistics.
4. How does government play a role in each? How does the citizen population play role?
Citizen population only plays a role in terms of voting. But the government plays a role based on how involved or how much ownership it has in an economy. If the government tax or spending rate is 50%+ of GDP, then it’s a solid socialist or communist country. If the government only consumes or spends 20% of the economy, then it’s a solid capitalist country.
5. Are there any flaws in each of them? What are they and can they be fixed?
This would take 10 books to answer. In short, the biggest flaw in socialism or communism is that it invariably ends up with more parasites than producers in the economy. Government spending and welfare freebies make it more attractive not to work than to work. Economic production collapses to the point it can no longer support itself and you get deficit spending, trade deficits, and inevitably countries cut you off and you collapse. Starvation and general economic crappiness ensues.
Capitalism, however, is not without its problems. Usually economic growth is so great it allows for one, even three, generations to live off of the work and backs of just one. Those successive generations lose the lessons of hard work, toil, and innovation. Consequently, the money runs out and you have spoiled little brats expecting a free handout. Also, capitalism is high susceptible to “crony capitalism,” wherein successful business use their money and lobbying power to bribe the government to pass unfair laws that advantage said people. The bank bailouts, Chesapeake Energy’s shutting down of the Keystone Pipeline, even the teapot dome scandal are all examples of capitalism becoming corrupt and thus “crony capitalism”
Both have their disadvantages, but crony capitalism has yet to kill 100 million people in peacetime through starvation.
6. Do some just work in theory and not in reality? If so why?
Yes. Communism is based in a (veritable) madman’s idealism (just look up the personal habits of Karl Marx). Capitalism is based in human nature by much more hygienic and sane 18th century philosophers. People are always greedy, always going to serve themselves, so why not build an economic system around it. Only idealistic idiots think about puppies and flowers and unicorns about “wouldn’t it be great if everybody made the same amount of money” blabbity blah blah blah. Besides, Marx and Smith are moot. There’s over 200 years of track records between the two ideologies. Socialist/communist countries have failed miserably compared to the capitalist counterparts.
North Korea vs. South Korea
East vs. West Germany
The US vs. the USSR
Communist China vs. Capitalist China.
Not to abbreviate or dumb down the life long economic argument, a system that allows its people to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor will result in people producing more fruit. You want to confiscate/steal/tax them, then you deter work and deter economic production. The fact this is even a debate shows how political forces have desperately tried to corrupt it.
7. Has a country ever switched to another system (ex. Communism to socialism, socialism to capitalism) ? If so why? Was it successful? Did it fail? What were the reasons for its outcome
Not drastically, but then again, I’m going off of the current knowledge I have now. A historian would know, but no examples are coming to me now. There are some instances (say the Baltics) that broke away from Soviet Russia and did quite well in the 90’s, but many of those countries reverted back to their socialistic tendencies and are in the crapper again. But anything as “drastic as that” is not available. Countries change slowly over time. So your best case studies are countries divided by socialism and capitalism a la the Koreas and E. vs. W. Germany.
8. Do these systems affect the quality of life, standard of living, or freedom?
Most certainly yes. All one has to do is compare South Korea standards of living vs. the North. East vs. West German standards of living. The comparison isn’t even close. The “most successful communist country” (USSR) only had 33% the standards of living the US did. About the only “socialist” successes are the Scandinavian countries . But even they had financial problems or (in the case of Norway) are lucky enough to have oil account for a full 25% of their economy. Those abberations aside you can expect most socialist countries to be a 2nd place/2nd rate western European country like Spain, Italy, France, etc.
9. Do factors such as corruption, poor leadership, geography, population, crime etc. affect these systems?
Oh, most certainly and this gets back to the issue of crony capitalism. Technically Russia today is a capitalist country. But that is only by stated tax rates. It’s so corrupt nothing else can get done. Corruption is largely a non-economic issue. If corruption has influenced and infected a country, then it’s economic policies are largely rendered moot. Africa is a perfect example of this. You and me and everybody else could debate the economic policies of Somalia all day. It doesn’t matter, because it’s a shithole that’s highly corrupted, highly war-torn and until you have the establishment of law, “economic theories” are truly first world problems that are not relevant to Somalia.
As for other factors (geography, population), not and Hong Kong, Singapore, the Caymans, etc. prove this. If you do not have corruption and a motivated AND MORAL work force, you can achieve anything. Sinapore’s and Hong Kong’s stratospheric rise in economic growth is proof you don’t need a ton of resources. You just need smart people motivated people, and honorable people. This is one of the best things about capitalism in that it allows people to achieve their best no matter what the geographic or natural resource handicaps are. Smart people always find a way to succeed, it’s an issue of whether a government will let them, or tax/steal from them so a politician can bribe poorer people to put him/her into power.
10. Why do some work for certain countries while others seem to work better for different countries
There are absolutely various sociological reason an economic system works better than not. For example the Scandinavian countries seem to do very well with socialism. But they are (at least for now) a homogenous society with a solid national identity. In the US it doesn’t work so well because, bluntly, there are various races and instead of focusing on talent, skill, and character, political lines have been drawn (primarily by the democrat party) to alienate and pose against different sex, creed, colors, religions, etc. So if you have a variable (like homogenous population), sometimes socialism “can” work. But once you get different groups of people in, then natural human envy takes hold and an argument for the transference of wealth of a “privileged” class to the “underprivileged class” occurs, consequently destroying the economy in the process.
11. Which one is better in your opinion? Why?
Capitalism. NOT CRONYcapitalism. But real capitalism.
And there is no opinion. It’s because it is what has helped serve and advance society and humanity the most. And the argument isn’t even close. Capitalism, free markets, free men have yielded more inventions, more advances, more drugs, more innovations, etc., than any socialist or communist nation has. It boils down to whether or not you’re going to let individual achieve their best and reaps the rewards of them achieving their best, or go some idiotic, whinny, wimpy, “woe is me I need other people’s money” route. Do you award the winners or losers.
Even the losers benefit from a capitalist society because the Steve Jobs and Jonas Salks and Wright Brothers are allowed to achieve their best, creating new innovations and creations that improve the standards of livings of EVERYONE infinitely more than mere income transfers and socialist parasitism can. It’s why North Korea today presumably spends all of its money on “the people,” but the poorest people of the US are richer than your average “rich” North Korean.
12. Can you give modern examples of each one?
Sure, North Korea, South Korea.
1980’s US vs. 1980’ USSR
East vs. West Germany
Monaco/Lichtenstein/Luxembourgh vs. All of Europe
Just look at history and ask yourself a simple question:
Do countries that allow their people to be free and keep the majority of the fruits of their labor result in higher standards of living, higher life expectancies, higher innovation, and higher economic growth
Or
Do countries that confiscate/tax 80% of their people’s production, to transfer it to people who don’t work or are as not efficient, result in higher standard of living, higher life expectancies, higher innovation, and higher economic growth.
The question is so simple it moots the entire “study” of economics.
1. Can you define each of the three? Communism, Socialism, and capitalism. What are the differences?
There is debate between the definitions of all three. But traditionally the three fit along a spectrum from total government ownership of everything (communism) to technically the absolute absence of government (anarchy) “Socialism” fits in between where the government owns OR TAXES at a rate of around 50%. However, sometimes people refer to “socialism” as the same thing as “communism.” So when you are reading or talking about socialism, you need to know what context it’s in. Are they talking Sweden or Norway where 50% of GDP is taxed, or are they talking SOCIALISM as in a purely 100% totalitarian Marxist control of the economy.
2. Can you list examples of each? Can be modern examples or past examples.
Capitalism – Bermuda, Singapore, 1940’s America, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong
Socialism – Current day US, all of Europe, Canada
Communist – Venezuela, Cuba, Soviet Union, North Korea, East Germany, California (just kidding)
3. Are there any misconceptions that people have? If so why might people believe these misconceptions
Yes, absolutely. The reason people have misconceptions is because most people (Americans) are idiots when it comes to economics. They’re more concerned about Kim Kardashian than they are the US federal deficit. The most typical of these misconceptions is that the US is somehow a “capitalist” country or that China is a “communist” country. None of them take the time to study economics, tax rates, spending rates, etc., so most people are arguing from idiotic emotions rather than unbiased, cold, heartless facts and statistics.
4. How does government play a role in each? How does the citizen population play role?
Citizen population only plays a role in terms of voting. But the government plays a role based on how involved or how much ownership it has in an economy. If the government tax or spending rate is 50%+ of GDP, then it’s a solid socialist or communist country. If the government only consumes or spends 20% of the economy, then it’s a solid capitalist country.
5. Are there any flaws in each of them? What are they and can they be fixed?
This would take 10 books to answer. In short, the biggest flaw in socialism or communism is that it invariably ends up with more parasites than producers in the economy. Government spending and welfare freebies make it more attractive not to work than to work. Economic production collapses to the point it can no longer support itself and you get deficit spending, trade deficits, and inevitably countries cut you off and you collapse. Starvation and general economic crappiness ensues.
Capitalism, however, is not without its problems. Usually economic growth is so great it allows for one, even three, generations to live off of the work and backs of just one. Those successive generations lose the lessons of hard work, toil, and innovation. Consequently, the money runs out and you have spoiled little brats expecting a free handout. Also, capitalism is high susceptible to “crony capitalism,” wherein successful business use their money and lobbying power to bribe the government to pass unfair laws that advantage said people. The bank bailouts, Chesapeake Energy’s shutting down of the Keystone Pipeline, even the teapot dome scandal are all examples of capitalism becoming corrupt and thus “crony capitalism”
Both have their disadvantages, but crony capitalism has yet to kill 100 million people in peacetime through starvation.
6. Do some just work in theory and not in reality? If so why?
Yes. Communism is based in a (veritable) madman’s idealism (just look up the personal habits of Karl Marx). Capitalism is based in human nature by much more hygienic and sane 18th century philosophers. People are always greedy, always going to serve themselves, so why not build an economic system around it. Only idealistic idiots think about puppies and flowers and unicorns about “wouldn’t it be great if everybody made the same amount of money” blabbity blah blah blah. Besides, Marx and Smith are moot. There’s over 200 years of track records between the two ideologies. Socialist/communist countries have failed miserably compared to the capitalist counterparts.
North Korea vs. South Korea
East vs. West Germany
The US vs. the USSR
Communist China vs. Capitalist China.
Not to abbreviate or dumb down the life long economic argument, a system that allows its people to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor will result in people producing more fruit. You want to confiscate/steal/tax them, then you deter work and deter economic production. The fact this is even a debate shows how political forces have desperately tried to corrupt it.
7. Has a country ever switched to another system (ex. Communism to socialism, socialism to capitalism) ? If so why? Was it successful? Did it fail? What were the reasons for its outcome
Not drastically, but then again, I’m going off of the current knowledge I have now. A historian would know, but no examples are coming to me now. There are some instances (say the Baltics) that broke away from Soviet Russia and did quite well in the 90’s, but many of those countries reverted back to their socialistic tendencies and are in the crapper again. But anything as “drastic as that” is not available. Countries change slowly over time. So your best case studies are countries divided by socialism and capitalism a la the Koreas and E. vs. W. Germany.
8. Do these systems affect the quality of life, standard of living, or freedom?
Most certainly yes. All one has to do is compare South Korea standards of living vs. the North. East vs. West German standards of living. The comparison isn’t even close. The “most successful communist country” (USSR) only had 33% the standards of living the US did. About the only “socialist” successes are the Scandinavian countries . But even they had financial problems or (in the case of Norway) are lucky enough to have oil account for a full 25% of their economy. Those abberations aside you can expect most socialist countries to be a 2nd place/2nd rate western European country like Spain, Italy, France, etc.
9. Do factors such as corruption, poor leadership, geography, population, crime etc. affect these systems?
Oh, most certainly and this gets back to the issue of crony capitalism. Technically Russia today is a capitalist country. But that is only by stated tax rates. It’s so corrupt nothing else can get done. Corruption is largely a non-economic issue. If corruption has influenced and infected a country, then it’s economic policies are largely rendered moot. Africa is a perfect example of this. You and me and everybody else could debate the economic policies of Somalia all day. It doesn’t matter, because it’s a shithole that’s highly corrupted, highly war-torn and until you have the establishment of law, “economic theories” are truly first world problems that are not relevant to Somalia.
As for other factors (geography, population), not and Hong Kong, Singapore, the Caymans, etc. prove this. If you do not have corruption and a motivated AND MORAL work force, you can achieve anything. Sinapore’s and Hong Kong’s stratospheric rise in economic growth is proof you don’t need a ton of resources. You just need smart people motivated people, and honorable people. This is one of the best things about capitalism in that it allows people to achieve their best no matter what the geographic or natural resource handicaps are. Smart people always find a way to succeed, it’s an issue of whether a government will let them, or tax/steal from them so a politician can bribe poorer people to put him/her into power.
10. Why do some work for certain countries while others seem to work better for different countries
There are absolutely various sociological reason an economic system works better than not. For example the Scandinavian countries seem to do very well with socialism. But they are (at least for now) a homogenous society with a solid national identity. In the US it doesn’t work so well because, bluntly, there are various races and instead of focusing on talent, skill, and character, political lines have been drawn (primarily by the democrat party) to alienate and pose against different sex, creed, colors, religions, etc. So if you have a variable (like homogenous population), sometimes socialism “can” work. But once you get different groups of people in, then natural human envy takes hold and an argument for the transference of wealth of a “privileged” class to the “underprivileged class” occurs, consequently destroying the economy in the process.
11. Which one is better in your opinion? Why?
Capitalism. NOT CRONYcapitalism. But real capitalism.
And there is no opinion. It’s because it is what has helped serve and advance society and humanity the most. And the argument isn’t even close. Capitalism, free markets, free men have yielded more inventions, more advances, more drugs, more innovations, etc., than any socialist or communist nation has. It boils down to whether or not you’re going to let individual achieve their best and reaps the rewards of them achieving their best, or go some idiotic, whinny, wimpy, “woe is me I need other people’s money” route. Do you award the winners or losers.
Even the losers benefit from a capitalist society because the Steve Jobs and Jonas Salks and Wright Brothers are allowed to achieve their best, creating new innovations and creations that improve the standards of livings of EVERYONE infinitely more than mere income transfers and socialist parasitism can. It’s why North Korea today presumably spends all of its money on “the people,” but the poorest people of the US are richer than your average “rich” North Korean.
12. Can you give modern examples of each one?
Sure, North Korea, South Korea.
1980’s US vs. 1980’ USSR
East vs. West Germany
Monaco/Lichtenstein/Luxembourgh vs. All of Europe
Just look at history and ask yourself a simple question:
Do countries that allow their people to be free and keep the majority of the fruits of their labor result in higher standards of living, higher life expectancies, higher innovation, and higher economic growth
Or
Do countries that confiscate/tax 80% of their people’s production, to transfer it to people who don’t work or are as not efficient, result in higher standard of living, higher life expectancies, higher innovation, and higher economic growth.
The question is so simple it moots the entire “study” of economics.
Masters in Zombie Studies
For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick.
The Chinese have got to be laughing at us. They have just got to be laughing at us and figuring out what "special" slave camp to put these morons in.
The Chinese have got to be laughing at us. They have just got to be laughing at us and figuring out what "special" slave camp to put these morons in.
Why Trevor Phillips Is Another Nail in Hollywood's Coffin
Just finished GTAV and it is certainly one of the best games I've played in a long time. Many good things going for it, but hands down the best thing it had going for it was its character development in a player called "Trevor Phillips."
If you don't want to play the video game and just get an idea of what makes Trevor Phillips such a crown jewel of the game, just watch some of the youtube clips of cutscenes starring Trevor. (cursing and violence warning BUT I would like you to watch it so you realize my cursing is quite tame). You may find it a bit crass, but you will no doubt have to admit that the character development is amazing and Trevor is quite colorful.
So why does a video game character, no matter how well-done, pose a threat to Hollywood?
Time and money. Time and money.
See, even with the extra $20 I had to spend on an external thumb drive to play the $50 game, I got no less than 35 hours of game play out of the game. That's $2 per hour of entertainment and I'm not even 65% done with all the missions. Whereas two nights ago I forked over $17 to see a craptacular movie called "3 Days to Kill" (movie review found here). Not only was it bad, it was only 2 hours, so $8.5 per hour. So not only was the video game more entertaining (not to mention interactive) than the movie, it was a fraction of the cost.
But where the likes of Trevor Phillips REALLY poses a threat to Hollywood can be found in the credits after you conquer GTAV.
They took forever.
Why?
Well, think of it this way. The programming, the development, the art, the coding, the voice acting, the scripts, everything that went into creating a massive, engaging environment, not to mention a near 35 hour movie, obviously take more time, people, and money than a 2 hour film. But in doing so they produce a product that lasts multifold times longer making it not just a cheaper per hour form of entertainment but a superior form of entertainment. I pay my $2 per hour and I can get about 17 movies out of this game. And when it involves incredibly well developed and endearing characters like Trevor Phillips, the question then becomes, "George Clooney who?"
In short, I've spent more hours sitting in front of JUST ONE video game this past two weeks than I have movies the past 3 years and it's acting is an IMPROVEMENT over films. Soon as technology gets so advanced you can't tell a digital version of a person versus the real thing, real live actors won't be able to compete with the perfection and costs of computers. Alas, George Clooney and Hugh Jackman shouldn't be so concerned about me pursuing an acting career as much as they should advances in computer processing speeds.
If you don't want to play the video game and just get an idea of what makes Trevor Phillips such a crown jewel of the game, just watch some of the youtube clips of cutscenes starring Trevor. (cursing and violence warning BUT I would like you to watch it so you realize my cursing is quite tame). You may find it a bit crass, but you will no doubt have to admit that the character development is amazing and Trevor is quite colorful.
So why does a video game character, no matter how well-done, pose a threat to Hollywood?
Time and money. Time and money.
See, even with the extra $20 I had to spend on an external thumb drive to play the $50 game, I got no less than 35 hours of game play out of the game. That's $2 per hour of entertainment and I'm not even 65% done with all the missions. Whereas two nights ago I forked over $17 to see a craptacular movie called "3 Days to Kill" (movie review found here). Not only was it bad, it was only 2 hours, so $8.5 per hour. So not only was the video game more entertaining (not to mention interactive) than the movie, it was a fraction of the cost.
But where the likes of Trevor Phillips REALLY poses a threat to Hollywood can be found in the credits after you conquer GTAV.
They took forever.
Why?
Well, think of it this way. The programming, the development, the art, the coding, the voice acting, the scripts, everything that went into creating a massive, engaging environment, not to mention a near 35 hour movie, obviously take more time, people, and money than a 2 hour film. But in doing so they produce a product that lasts multifold times longer making it not just a cheaper per hour form of entertainment but a superior form of entertainment. I pay my $2 per hour and I can get about 17 movies out of this game. And when it involves incredibly well developed and endearing characters like Trevor Phillips, the question then becomes, "George Clooney who?"
In short, I've spent more hours sitting in front of JUST ONE video game this past two weeks than I have movies the past 3 years and it's acting is an IMPROVEMENT over films. Soon as technology gets so advanced you can't tell a digital version of a person versus the real thing, real live actors won't be able to compete with the perfection and costs of computers. Alas, George Clooney and Hugh Jackman shouldn't be so concerned about me pursuing an acting career as much as they should advances in computer processing speeds.
New Sponsor - Ten Buck Truck
The concept is simple.
You pay this young man $10, he'll design and put a bumper sticker on his Ford -150 and drive it around.
You pay this young man $10, he'll design and put a bumper sticker on his Ford -150 and drive it around.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
"The Guy Looks Like He Has Kids in His Basement" Podcast
Why Senator Murphy looks like he has kids in the basement,
How there's ALWAYS an excuse to eat and not work out,
A movie review of "3 Days to Kill"
Why Connecticut gun owners should refuse to comply with the new gun registration law,
and MORE
in this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
How there's ALWAYS an excuse to eat and not work out,
A movie review of "3 Days to Kill"
Why Connecticut gun owners should refuse to comply with the new gun registration law,
and MORE
in this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
Your Daughter Calls Me Daddy Too!
Dear American Fathers Without Spines,
Please continue to fail to raise your daughters properly. We younger men need you to lie to your daughters about "follow your heart and the money will follow, Sweetheart" so they:
Major in stupid subjects
Go into crippling debt to do so
Can't find a job to pay their debts back
and are forced to become strippers, prostitutes and porn actresses.
Such desperation not only increases the supply of young, supple 20 something babes, but lowers the price we have to pay.
Your continued support of failing to be genuine real fathers to your "Precious Little Princess" is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
The Younger Men in America
Please continue to fail to raise your daughters properly. We younger men need you to lie to your daughters about "follow your heart and the money will follow, Sweetheart" so they:
Major in stupid subjects
Go into crippling debt to do so
Can't find a job to pay their debts back
and are forced to become strippers, prostitutes and porn actresses.
Such desperation not only increases the supply of young, supple 20 something babes, but lowers the price we have to pay.
Your continued support of failing to be genuine real fathers to your "Precious Little Princess" is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
The Younger Men in America
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
The Difference Between Sales and Profits
This is an important distinction to know:
SALES is your total revenue. NOT YOUR TAKE HOME PAY.
PROFITS is what you get to keep after expenses.
Somebody tell the fat balding middle age faux "businessmen" and fratboy sales reps that.
SALES is your total revenue. NOT YOUR TAKE HOME PAY.
PROFITS is what you get to keep after expenses.
Somebody tell the fat balding middle age faux "businessmen" and fratboy sales reps that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)