Reality's comments

« First    « Previous    Comments 4231 - 4270 of 4,270    Last »

  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 3:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
In fact, because people with an IQ that low are certifiably retarded/disabled, the employers are exempt from minimum wage laws when hiring them


Wait. How much does it cost to hire a retard army?


LOL! Apparently, the officers don't like the idea of too many sub-85 IQ semi-retards and sub-65 IQ full retards armed, and potentially easily triggered.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 3:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Do you genuinely feel that post AI there will be enough employment for zero skill laborers? Pretty sure drivers of every kind, dishwashers, veggie choppers, busboys, lawn mowers, pizza delivery drivers, and especially fast food workers... are all being looked at for robot replacement.


When automobiles replaced horse buggies as cabs, people feared that the job of cab drivers was finished because it would take far fewer cabs to deliver the same passenger-miles in a city. What really happened was the exact opposite: far more cab drivers, so many of them that the city had to come up schemes to limit the number of cabs clogging traffic, because automobile cabs became cheaper and more passengers want cab rides; passenger-miles count exploded and the city's commerce taking off creating even more jobs as transportation cost plummeted.

Something similar is bound to happen, as AI-based automation reduces the price of goods and services. More people will buy up more goods and services as their prices come down . . . if the particular good/service doesn't warrant the capital investment of building robots for it, people will be hired to do it (if cheap enough, and because cost of living comes down due to automation, in the absence of minimum wage laws, more people will be able to have their first jobs instead of the current ever shrinking labor participation rate)
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 3:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
To be a good programmer you need a minimum 115 IQ (just my observation). The best programmers are perhaps the most brilliant people you'd ever meet.

Where in that world does the 30% of population below 90 IQ find an opportunity?


People who buy into the faddish scams like AGW usually have sub-120 IQ.

The 30% sub-90 IQ population can work all sorts of jobs not yet replaced by automation. Automation is not going to replace all automatable jobs all at once. Every single job on the Tesla production line today can potentially be automated NOW! but it hasn't been. Human labor happens to have the advantage of being flexible, and laws making that inflexible would only produce unemployment.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 4:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
This phenomenon really proves that "unemployable" in most cases is actually the result of minimum wage laws / welfare rules.

If it wasn't for minimum wages laws, wages would fall to $2/h. As a result the end demand would collapse further, and even more debt would be required. Why do you never consider the effect of low wages on spending when half the population already can't come up with 400 fucking dollars?


$2/hr would still be a lot higher than the $5/day that Henry Ford offered (and even his was more than doubling then prevailing wage).

Why half the population can't come up with $400? They have been sucked dry by debt service, either directly or indirectly through the rent, utilities, medical and educational bills that they pay (all of which have massive components paying towards the service providers' debt service).

More debt "is required" to keep the bankster blood suckers alive! That's why $5/day was considered very very high wage at the time of Henry Ford, but $16/day ($2/hr) is unbearably low today. The massive inflation has been used to keep bad debts alive and allow banksters keep sucking blood out of the real economy. The real people can live fine on $5/day if the dollar's purchasing power is such that a brand new car cost only $250 (like Model T at that time), 50-days labor of the worker buying a brand new car. In fact, since an average new car today cost $40k, that's equivalent to $40,000 / 50 = $800/day now! $200k a year! for a line worker. No union due to pay either. That's what your beloved blood-sucking institutions have done over a century of inflationary blood sucking: reducing the worker from $800/day to less than $100/day, while praising silly political pretend-work like the minimum wage law that keep workers out of starter jobs. Letting the bad debts die (i.e. letting the creditors eat their own credit risk) would have served the society much better.

BTW, it is not minimum wage laws that keep wage above $2/hr today. 96+% of hourly wage earners are paid more than minimum wage, and that's before counting salaried workers and self-employed. It is productivity (not minimum wage) that keep workers' pay up. In fact, if not for minimum wage laws, small businesses like fast food would be able to both hire more entry level workers and pay higher wages for their more experienced workers, instead of the current trend towards losing all experienced workers (due to wage flattening) because the owners have to pay raised minimum wage workers; the current trend is of course leading to replacing overpaid (compared to their low productivity) minimum-wage workers with automation so the money ends up going to technology companies instead of the original experienced fast food workers, exacerbating income inequality. Minimum wage law is actually reducing real end demand: by keeping workers of lower productivity out of work and reducing the purchasing power of those who do work.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 4:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

PrivilegedtobeWhite says
CBOEtrader says
Jordan Peterson talks about the 85 IQ lower limit for US army employment. Something like 12% to 15% of the population is lower than that, and therefore not intelligent enough to wash trucks.
So do we prop up that 12-15% and let them create more retards, or do we let them die off as nature intended?


A relatively free market place already provides a clean and humane solution: letting the less productive find work that can keep themselves alive, but at the same time the low earnings making them sexually unattractive so that they are not advantaged in reproduction. The combination of minimum wage laws and welfare on the other hand produces a monster of forcing them stay home and find nothing to do except for having sex and reproducing more offspring of questionable productivity in the next generation, trapping themselves into generational poverty.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 14, 8:56pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
I agree with Reality about subsidies. Subsidies merely raise the cost to everyone eventually. The first people to get the subsidy are indeed ahead, but then prices quickly rise to take advantage of the tax money pouring in to that market, and then everyone is worse off. Prices are higher and taxes are higher too.

Subsidies are politically easy to implement ("Look, I made mortgage interest deductible!") and politically impossible to reverse ("What? You want to take away my mortgage interest subsidy? The value of my house will fall!").


Thanks, and thank you for expanding on the political reality/dynamics.




But I disagree that government does not do anything on its own. It has some essential functions, such as defense, public works like roads, dams, and bridges, and certain services like courts, police, firemen, education, libraries.


Let me clarify what I meant by "government is an artificial concept, and can't do anything on its own": "government" is not a real person, can not think or act. Only real human beings can think on their own and act in the name of "government."

Even for an alleged government service as essential as "defense," let's look at the word "Soldier": the word came from the word "solidus," a Roman gold coin that was specifically paid to military personnel in order to retain their loyalty (whether to the emperor or the commanding general). Unlike the the "denarius" silver coin for civilian trade that was drastically debased over time, the gold solidus was largely not debased; why? because the emperors/generals who tried to debase it quickly lost their power and lives. It can be argued that central banking as we know it today exists precisely because it's an effective system at paying for military. For "defense" or for predation. So what we know is, military for now is a system for creating profit for the favored corporations while transferring the cost (including injuries and veteran care) to taxpayers, eventually at some point it will be hired private armies of generals who can pay the armed men and women in real money.

Libraries obviously can be paid for by private donors (like Andrew Carneigie, who funded most libraries in the US). Education once again was largely private before the public system debased the value of education and degrees. Private fire-fighting teams hired by insurance companies proved to be far more effective during major forest fires threatening residential houses in recent years. Privately funded police and courts were common in the colonial era, and the local people voted by their feed for the private ones in those locations over the government ones neighboring jurisdictions (the mere fact that people were able to vote with their feet was a major improvement over the previous government monopoly). Bridges and roads were privately funded through borrowing against future toll revenue; the builders have to be private individuals working for private companies / sub-contractors; it's not clear how public monopoly inserted into toll collection or handing out contracts really improve things, but it's usually assumed until massive budget over-runs and tolls that were supposed to expire after a certain number of years never do. Just like roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., private companies built dams long before "public"/"government" got involved in building unprofitable dams forcibly transfering tax money into the pockets of politically favored contractors for hiring politically favored workers.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 15, 2:49pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Marketfailures.htm


I will take the first item in that list to illustrate my points:

"Automobile Safety: The auto industry fought for decades to prevent mandatory seat-belts, air-bags and other critical safety features. Why? Because adding such life-saving devices cut into profits. "

Here are a few facts about seat-belts and air-bags:

1. Privately-owned car manufacturers invented both seat-belts and air-bags (credits especially due Volvo and Mercedes-Benz). They invented those devices in order to put them into cars and sell for profit; i.e. consumers want safety and manufacturers cater to that desire for profit! Quite contrary to the assumption quoted from the link.

2. Seat-belts and/or air-bags were installed in the overwhelming majority of new car models before government mandate, even when there was still a debate on whether air-bags saved lives (many manufacturers chose to install automated seat-belts)

3. Government mandated the installation of air-bags before the 2nd-generation two-stage/"reduced-power" air-bags were invented. The result was that many people already seat-belted therefore would derive minimal benefit from 1st-gen air-bags ended up being killed or severely injured by the very forceful airbags (especially short female drivers)

4. The overwhelming majority of cars on the road are not brand-new cars, but cars manufactured in the previous two decades. Newer cars usually incorporate newer and safer engineering features. The added cost of mandatory 1st-gen air-bags not only posed risk to drivers when they deploy but also caused risk to drivers who were deterred by the higher cost from replacing their older cars!

As we can see, the government mandating 1st-generation air-bags before the technology was mature enough to have the safer 2nd-generation airbags literally made automobiles less safe for drivers by removing the choice of studious use of seat-belt by short female drivers, and removing the choice of getting a newer car sooner by poorer drivers. Who benefited? The air-bag manufacturers of course.

So, where did the idea that without government mandate, people would prefer to drive unsafe cars to kill themselves, and manufacturers would cater to such folly come from? When such an idea is clearly counter-factual: IIHS routinely subjects cars to much higher crash testing standards than what the government mandates (due to its own self-interest of reducing payouts in accidents); manufacturers and car buyers pay very close attention to IIHS tests.

I think such fallacious concepts come from the "habit of being schooled" in a typical public school setting modeled after the Prussians (i.e. an education system that would produce the "well educated" German citizens of the Third Reich). Children are raised to worship the always-correct and all-knowing teacher, which essentially is the personification of the Government-God.

A person whose primary life experience is participation in the market place would know that knowledge is never perfect, it is only through the market voting-by-wallet that a society finds better and better solutions and answers. In the case of the 1st generation air-bags, not only was it a factually worse solution than automated seat-belts (that many of the manufacturers were actually using to avoid installing 1st gen air-bags), but also we would have subsequent government-apologists jumping to the fore and praising a government policy that killed people when it mandated policies that over-rode market choices.

The very idea of "market failure" is fallacious: failure compared to what? The concept assumes there is a perfect solution (just like the school teacher always has a known perfect answer to the question in the test). Real world simply doesn't work that way. New knowledge has to be discovered competitively in a market process. Government regulation gets in the way of that.

Backwards economies/countries like Soviet Union in the 1920's copying American industrialists, Nazi Germany copying American industrialists in the 1930's, Japanese copying American industrialists in the 1930's and 1960's/70's may indeed experience "schooling/education advantage" because the better solution was already known from market competition in a different place (what's funny is those educated in foreign language, i.e. English for all those countries, would be the best educational asset, for translating documents from America; i suppose it would just be too silly if the apologists advocated English Major as the best way forward from collating data from overseas!). When central planning by "learned academics" is tried in the US, starting with FDR's "brain trust" dumping milk into the ocean, those "well-educated" government-apologists always proved to be fools! Because we don't have a more advanced Martian Economy to "learn"/copy from, so the government regulators entrusted to point the way forward through coercive regulations would be blind leading the blind.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 16, 1:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The 10% number and IQ>83 requirement are what the military requires. The cost of doing things in the military is a lot higher, e.g. a gallon of gasoline in Iraq for the US military during the 2003 war and subsequent occupation was over $100. In that environment, the IQ requirement for a productive job that burns $100+/gallon gasoline is certainly higher than a civilian job back home where gasoline was only $2/gallon at that time. The cost of commute alone would be drastically different.

Sure, there is a threshold below which no real job can be found, but that is a lot lower in the civilian life than IQ=83. Many people with IQ in the 60's are routinely employed in simple jobs, partly because they are exempt from minimum wages laws. Comes to think of it, minimum wage law works as a barrier just like expensive gasoline or a "negative bridge."
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 16, 1:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Having a job, doesn't just mean you are materially able to do it. It also needs to be productive enough to pay for itself. + It needs to be a better outcome than having someone else do it (someone smarter).


The latter actually justifies a dumber and lower productivity worker. For example, a lawyer who can type 50WPM can certainly do his own secretarial work better than a secretary who can only type 30WPM; however, if the lawyer's time is worth $200/hr, it is in his interest to pay a secretary $20/hr to type up stuff and other secretarial work so he can earn more in the time saved. It's called "comparative advantage," the basis of any trade (not "absolute advantage"). For an IQ140+ genius who can make more money with his time, it certainly makes sense to hire an IQ65 guy to do his lawn; in fact, there may well be an IQ105 lawn contractor between the two and still make two sets of exchanges profitable because it saves time for the IQ105 contractor to deal with the IQ65 worker, so that the IQ140+ customer only have to deal with the IQ105 contractor (who can also manage the lawn-care equipment and workers).

It's the same reason why we buy take-out dinners even if we can cook better than what the take-out restaurants can deliver; the same reason why we had waiters/waitress even when we could pick up food from the chef's kitchen counter ourselves; that is, before the new $15 minimum wage killed both sets of exchanges in some cities recently. Too high taxes and too high minimum wages (banning low-wage/low-productivity jobs/workers) are what prevent numerous small divisions of labor from taking place.



Fyi there are 95 millions working age people that are not in the labor force in the US.
In spite of that, we still produce everything we need - including for the 95 millions.
If we can do everything we need without 1/3 of the population, what reasons do you have to think we could find jobs for everyone?


That is a logical fallacy. There are plenty human wants that are not being fulfilled. For example, even Rin could use more hookers, booze and faster development of sex robots. If more people can be working, instead of living off welfare (which has to be distributed by very very expensive bureaucrats who eat up more resources than the intended welfare recipients), Rin's desires would be better fulfilled. I'm just citing Rin as an example of someone who you'd think already has everything else in his life, therefore only interested in entertainment; most of us have much more rudimentary needs in life that can be better fulfilled.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 16, 8:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

US median home price mid-2017 was only around $200k. That translated to $800/mo on 30yr mortgage at then prevailing interest rate, about $1200/mo on 15-yr mortgage. That's well within the affordability of two adults making median income; in fact, within reach of one-income for adult male median.

The real question is, why do so many people want to live in where housing is expensive? The progressive income tax system makes it quite obvious that it doesn't pay to chase high income jobs in high living-cost locations unless one is willing to do long commute or rent cheaply.

My answer is: women's hypergamy. Young women want to move to high cost-of-living locations in order to find high-income men who can make it there. Men follow them there in order to get laid. If we look at the population ratio, the major expensive cities are severely imbalanced in gender ratio (far more women than men in NYC, for example), and imbalanced the other way in podunks. Turns out, this perceived inequality is nothing more than the continuation of human evolution via sexual selection. It's just like peacocks have to carry the high cost of a heavy tail in order to get laid, because peahens like to see the extravagant display of fitness (and of course, women likewise have to carry those back-breaking mellons catering to men's visual interest, not functional value).

Housing cost in high-demand area during high-demand time of course is high. Otherwise, we'd have to have run-away construction/bust cycles laying off enormous numbers of construction workers instead of price cycles (busting unwary speculators) in order to hold price steady.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 8:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If the original poster was sending his post from a desktop/laptop computer, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $10,000 command-line business machine that all the best known industrial leaders at the time "knew" nobody would ever want one for home, down to a sub-$500 device that he could post from.

If the original poster was sending his post from a smart phone, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $5000 brief-case phone that only the C-level executives could afford (and could only make phone calls) down to a handy multi-functional device found in the pockets of even the poorest members of society today.

The point of money is not money per se, but what you can buy with it. Private entrepreneurs are far better at offering up goods for purchase by individuals than governments central planners are able to deliver. Would you rather prefer the same wages but better/more products to buy for the same money over time (because of entrepreneurs competing to make improvements), or would you rather prefer rapidly increasing nominal wages but can't even buy toilet paper with the wages like in Venezuela after a couple decades of socialism?

Tax-cut is not giving money to the rich, but letting millions of competent entrepreneurs use their own resources to compete against each other in offering different choices for consumers, instead of letting a few thousand central planners colluding to confiscate the resources and forcing consumers/citizens into "government"-mandated "free shit." Do you prefer to be a free customer able to choose from which farm/store you'd like to buy your food, or do you prefer to become a plantation slave and get your free food, along with free education, free housing, and free clothing, all at the discretion of the slave owner?

Funny the guy should mention Steve Jobs when pushing his agenda of wasting more confiscated money on worthless liberal arts education (the type that needs government support because the market won't pay for it): does he even know that Steve Jobs was a college dropout?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 9:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says

Liberals, on the other hand want to drive their government to SIGNIFICANT solve problems that MOST people are facing under the tyranny of these overgrown corporations and banks.


The tyranny of these overgrown corporations and banks can only exist because of government-granted monopolies. Otherwise, what's preventing competition from emerging?

Do you prefer to have a monopoly forced upon you (as in both government bureaucrats and government-granted monopoly benefiting "private" corporation), or do you prefer having more freedom/liberty to choose? Do you think the service-provider will treat you better because they have a monopoly over you or do you think they will treat you better if you have a choice ?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 9:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MAGAbrush says
Labor unions fought for defined benefit pensions.


Defined benefit pension plan was a scam tying employees to a sinking ship. Every corporation eventually dies (when its market position is no longer profitable), usually after the executives raid the pension funds. Employers liked pension plans because they didn't have to pay up-front; labor bosses liked pension plans because they could pretend they won something and therefore could take a cut up front without waiting for the life-long vestment period on the commission.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 22, 6:12pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This thing is a long slow-moving bus. The main innovation seems to be the legislative approach to give the special vehicle the right of way on its dotted lane, so the self-driving part is a lot easier. I hope the city where this is taking place doesn't snow on the ground in winter., or they would have to have special transponders buried under the ground to guide the vehicle in winter.

Buffet is buying the railway for its right of way and monopoly potential. Operating real tracked rail lines may or may not be more costly than trucks, but the barrier-to-entry factor is guaranteed to result in very high price and very high labor cost in the long run. It's the same reason why road-based trading systems historically collapsed much faster than sea-based trading systems: the lack of flexibility allowed rent-seekers all along the way. Think of a road as a sea lane with choke points all along the way susceptible to pirates. Tracks are even more so than roads, due to even higher barrier to entry building alternative tracks than building alternative roads. Competition is what keeps price down. An Asprin in a hospital can cost hundreds of dollars.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 28, 10:03pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That is indeed a pair of paradox:

Much higher percentage of men are content being men than the percentage of women who are content being women;

Yet, the vast majority of trans are cis-men who want to become women.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 30, 5:06am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Indian women, even pretty ones, too will get old; if their only calling card is being pretty, being in a non-native country is highly likely to make them into welfare liability in the long run. Immigrants from India with technical degrees are overwhelmingly male; statistically speaking they will soak up women who are already here instead of turning into trans women.

A significant percentage of Indians are Muslims.

Once an Indian person takes over a corporate division (often in software, finance or medicine), the subsequent hiring pattern tend to become very over-represented by Indians. That is very harmful to Americans seeking jobs in high paying professional fields.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 30, 5:30am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rin says
Once again, Rin-Wah proves that he's a better man than the other losers out there.


Well, you need to raise that (so far only hypothetical) kid into a rational adult in order to prove your point.

Just like SJW women, by jacking up living expenses for the rest of the population around them while refusing to breed, the action/behavior of life-long recreation-only sex is increasing the cost of reproduction for surrounding rational population, thereby enabling population replacement by the religiously-fanatical breeders. That's how Dark Ages come about: people wedded to rational self-interest not breeding, while the religiously-fanatical breed like rabbits.

I don't know about you, but I for one don't want to be surrounded by 7th century fanatics when I get old.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 7, 7:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

As far as I can tell, most so-called 3D-printed guns are no more lethal than "potato canons" made of PVC pipes. In fact, you can easily go to Home Depot and make some kind of higher muzzle velocity launchers out of metal tubes, and a little propane gas or even gasoline as propellant.

Gun control was an early-to-mid 20th century technology phenomenon: mass production technology introduced a nexus in making personal weapons, the mass production gun makers. Very soon, both electronic lasers and electromagnetic rail guns powered by capacitors or solid state high current batteries (technology necessary for soon-to-be-here fast charging car batteries) will enable easy home manufacturing of personal weapons, at which point "gun control" will be quite infeasible.

The difference between citizens vs. slaves/serfs/helots is that citizens are legally allowed to arm themselves.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 7, 8:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The M134's ancestor, the original Gatling Gun, was invented by Richard Gatling, who was a private inventor and tinkerer not a gun-maker or even gun-smith. He adapted the design of his seed planter to gun barrels, and the result was the Gatling Gun, the first rapid-fire machine gun in the world. It came about more or less the same way the two Steves came up with the original Apple computer in a garage, except Gatling had even less prior experience with making guns than Woz had with making computers.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 8, 10:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Or find a blue-eyed blonde with big tits, and is also sweet and demure. The girl being a particular race is not important to me, so long as she has C or D boobs (but not E+), is sweet and demure, and no more than 125lbs (prefer 105-110lbs when initially meeting, but will allow extra 15-20lbs when pregnant).
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 13, 10:48am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

1. IQ is quite real. The US military has been using IQ tests for recruitment for well over half a century. That's where mission-critical and life vs. death can be direct consequences, so SJW make-belief wouldn't fly (the reality-check is the only advantage coming from regular engagement in small wars; reality check for both technology and personnel policies).

2. Group average does not determine every particular individual. It's just like the height scenario across genders: the average for adult male in the US 5'9", that of female is 5'4"; however, there are obviously cases of individual woman taller than individual man. OTOH, when you have 1000 women and 1000 men picked at random, the average of the men is likely taller than the average of the women. Likewise, if you have 1000 positions that requires 6' in height, then you are likely to have men to women ratio higher than 10:1. Such a lopsided result when sampling size is large is not due to sexism but simply 6'+ men out-number 6'+ women by more than 10:1.

3. There is average, then there is variance / distribution. For example, men and women IQ average are very close to each other (within 5 points or so of each other). However, the IQ of men have much wider distribution than that of women; i.e. there are far more geniuses among men and far more losers/dummies among men, compared to women. 97% of homeless are men; that's 30:1 ratio. At IQ>120, men out-number women by 2:1; at IQ>170 (deep into genius territory, which starts around 140), men out-number women by 30:1. Not a typo, not 3:1, but 30:1, just like the homeless ratio the other way. 97% homeless being men, and 95% of Fortune500 CEO's being men (and 90+% prison inmates being men) are not necessarily due to sexism at all. In fact, when women accounted for nearly 10% of SP500 CEO's, it was a very profitable trading strategy to short whichever SP500 company that had relatively recently appointed female CEO (i.e. not a female executive who built the company from when it was small, like Meg Whitman of Ebay, but a color-waiving exercise appointing woman to the helm of a big company) SJW make-belief lose battles, in the battlefield and in the marketplace.

4. NBA having far higher than 15% black players is not due to racism; the specific players simply play better! Likewise, high tech companies' engineering positions having less than 15% blacks and less than 50% women are not necessarily due to racism or sexism; the statistically far more common case of being "6'+" and "can jump" in that specific field simply happen to be someone else. Despite the averages, there are individual cases of African Americans as well as women who are extremely intelligent (it might even be argued that AA's have wider IQ distribution). It is however a fallacy to promote that every AA or every woman should be extremely intelligent: such a policy would only make the individual AA and individual woman unhappy for not living up to the expectation.

5. IQ is highly correlated to income. However, income doesn't mean happiness, which is the result of exceeding one's own expectations. The high IQ person who never set out to prove him/herself as the smartest person, but finding success far beyond his/her own initial expectations, that makes the person much happier than the early-discovered "child geniuses." That, IMHO, is the strongest argument against doing too much genetic modification on fetus. OTOH, some modification for basic cognitive abilities will most certainly take place, just like parents will also buy genes that make boys a little taller.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 13, 9:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

IQ test measures a wide range of cognitive functions/abilities, and is very much culture-independent, as the problems usually involve perception and problem solving that have nothing to do with any culture. You can define "intelligence" to mean whatever you want (say, the ability to lie and cheat and still run for president), but what you define as "intelligence" would have less to do with real life problem-solving ability of the subject than IQ test score does. IQ tests have proven so good at assessing a person's ability to solve real life new problems that the person has never encountered before that IQ test score has become the substantive assessment behind the short-hand "intelligence," simply because no other measure of "intelligence" has come even close to the relevance and predictive power of IQ tests: it beats educational degree achievement and parentage, as well as upbringing and cultural background!

Correlation does not mean causation.


Correlation is the only thing we human beings can observe. "Causation" requires interpretation. Even the basic Newtonian formula F= m * a is result of correlation from observed data. There is no way we can refute the possibility that the entire universe is run by a bunch of little green aliens who can pause time in infinitiimal slices and then rearrange us and all objects around us according to some rule book they use before hitting the continue button; or for that matter, everything in this universe is a simulation run on an alien's computer, and Plank length is the granuality of the simulation. There is simply no way to refute that version of "causation" interpretation. All we can observe directly is correlation.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 14, 6:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

alpo says
F=ma isn't a prediction (F=ma), its a definition (F ≡ ma) . Force is defined as mass times acceleration, it can't be false in any situation. Intelligence isn't defined as IQ.


"F=ma" is not true in Relativistic Mechanics. In other words, "F=ma" is never accurate, but only an approximation at slow velocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics#Force

I'm sure the word "force" existed in English long before Isaac Newton wrote his book on Newtonian Mechanics. Perhaps a 200-year earlier version of you might have tried to debate him on what "force" was, just like the current version seems to prefer a version of definition already 100 years out of date.

Reality says
There is no way we can refute the possibility that the entire universe is run by a bunch of little green aliens who can pause time in infinitiimal slices and then rearrange us and all objects around us according to some rule book they use before hitting the continue button; or for that matter, everything in this universe is a simulation run on an alien's computer, and Plank length is the granuality of the simulation.


There is no proof of that.


At least it's not proven false like the faith/theory in "F=ma"

alpo says
We don't know what Intelligence means - people are still working on trying to figure it out. There is simply no well accepted definition of Intelligence like we have a well accepted definition of Force, so unless you first come up with a well accepted definition of "Intelligence", you can't really measure it and you won't be able to come up with a well accepted definition of Intelligence because we are still trying to figure out what "Intelligence" is.


If you wish, you can replace every occurrence of the word "intelligence" in discussions on intelligence/IQ with "the quality of performing well in IQ tests." Guess what? "the quality of performing well in IQ tests" happens to be far better correlated with a person's ability to solve numerous different new (to him/her) problems than just about any other quality that a person can be measured, including but no limited to "the quality to do well in school" (educational background / degree), "the quality of being raised well" (the SJW theory that everyone is born the same in every way, only raising and education matter), etc. etc. That "quality of performing well in IQ tests" happens to permeate the performance in almost all fields that require thinking and mental acuity. What word you use as a short-hand for "the quality to do well in IQ tests, and do well in real life problem solving" is not nearly as important as the phenomenon/concept itself. Almost all well established researchers in the field have adopted the term "intelligence." You can call that quality "divinely gifted if black/female but evil if white/male" if you wish, but still wouldn't change the facts on the ground: just change the word "intelligence" in the reading material to "IQ score" (or "that which can not be spoken, but is divinely gifted if black/female but evil if white/male") and you get the same observed phenomena.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 14, 4:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Cooperation" in economics usually means division of labor and mutually willing exchange, not everyone trying to do the same thing and competing in each other's niche while stepping on each other's toes.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 14, 9:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Aphroman says
Cooperation - the process of working together to the same end.


Cooperation - is the process of groups of organisms working or acting together for common, mutual, or some underlying benefit, as opposed to working in competition for selfish benefit.

In economics cooperation - the formation and operation of cooperatives. also known as co-ops


May want to read up on what happened in the first few years after the May Flower landed in Plymouth:

https://mises.org/library/what-really-happened-plymouth

In addition to gender division of labor (allowing women less exposed to risks associated with hunting and battles), what the Cro-Mags had over the Neanderthals was a cross-continent trade network (as evidenced by the Cro-Mags' weapons and tools made from much better material transported from very far away). If our ancestors had tried a large scale co-op instead, they'd have starved to death just like the early settlers at Plymouth Colony (and Virginia Colony before them) found out. Personal responsibility (i.e. sub-division of resources into private domains) and division of labor through mutually willing trade are what bring forth resource abundance (and survival in a resource-limited environment, where Economics apply/matter).

MisterLefty says
Experience and natural selection also count for a lot. Folks that left Africa faced new challenges that selected survivors. The stay behinds, not so much.


Very well said. There was also a fundamental economic difference between sub-Sahara Africa vs. regions entered into by groups who were driven out by the stay-behinds: sub-Sahara Africa had an abundance of easily attainable food year-round for human ancestors; poisonous snakes/insects, food poisoning and tropical diseases put a lid on human population growth (before modern medicine lifted that lid in the 20th century), so the population was almost always below the land's natural (food) carry-capacity. The driven-out groups however faced much harsher environments, where food was either scarcer to begin with or had seasonality that made food almost unattainable during part of the year (winter) if not artificially stored / transported. OTOH, random disease/poison death rates were much lower in cooler climate zones. That environmental stability/cyclicity made intelligence, knowledge accumulation, division of labor and trade into evolutionary advantages, as they would raise the land's (food) carry-capacity, especially when the population was less exposed to random death events like snake/insect venom and tropical diseases.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 20, 7:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rin is setting himself up to be mugged, murdered and/or target of taxation / revolutionary confiscation, given that he has no kids and nobody to pass the money to or even administer the money if/when he is incapacitated. Be very careful the hoes you see are not run by pimps with bigger ambitions. Also make sure your driver is trust-worthy.

Whereas this guy mentioned by Joshuatrio (and Rin's friend to a less degree) are doing the logically correct financial planning: their kids' college education will be paid for by Rin, assuming Rin is not mugged, murdered or confiscated (via taxation or revolution) by the time their kids go to college.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 20, 8:57pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The lessons of Zimbabwe, South Africa and Venezuela (along with numerous 20th century precedences) shows that just because your name is on an account or on a piece of property, doesn't mean you own it unless you and your family can defend it; as a corollary, If you are a highly productive person, it is your responsibility to raise highly productive next generation and teach them how to shoot vermin. Otherwise, your productivity and accumulated wealth would be like leaving food out in the open all over the house (instead putting them in solid containers): rewarding and inducing rat and roach infestation.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 21, 7:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rin says

Hate to say it but more and more kids are becoming like Eric Cartman (of South Park), even from productive households.


That's usually the result of having only 1 child and lacking manly father figure in the child's life. Kids growing up with proper father figures and siblings (especially those with younger siblings) turn out quite well.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 1, 4:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

As a trophy wife, your fulfillment is two fold:

1. Your limited number of eggs and the very limited space-time in your uterus are taken up by competent off-springs;

2. Your baby-raising project will be well supported by your competent husband / co-parenting partner.



As a husband to a trophy-wife, or a co-parenting partner to a series of trophy-women, you:

1. Seek professional success, wealth and social status in order to win trophies in the forms of the opposite sex.

2. Have developed that sex-drive towards female trophies because it was a a long string of genetic successes just like that has led to you.


Women seeking professional success before children, and men turning into "grass-eating men"/herbivore or turning into whore-mongers, are little more than druggies who seek to stimulate / pacify their dopamine pathways using narcotics instead of enjoying our own internal dopamine through overcoming difficulty/hardship on our way to success and wealth. The dopamine pathway is there to help guide us through overcoming difficulties/hardship to achieve success . . . just like the sex hormones and oxytocin pathway are there to guide us towards competitive reproduction.

You as a man would indeed feel unsatisfied if becoming a house-husband; a woman would likewise feel extremely unsatisfied if she has to put out for a house-husband on top of being the bread-winner of the family. The two genders are not the same because each is evolved facing an opposite environment.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 3, 10:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It's a replay of what happened to the French royal palace in Paris, the Tuileries Palace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuileries_Palace#Destruction_of_the_Tuileries

That one took 300 years to build, then was burned down by the original communist revolutionaries: the Paris Commune, contemporary to Karl Marx himself.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 3, 10:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heyyou and Marcus,

If you dig that deep, you may as well realize that the entire "socialist/communist ideology" is little more than a fraudulent scam run by big-money/banking interest to create chaos and impoverish the middle class in a society (and kill off the upper-middle class competitors), so the big banksters can buy up the assets in the resulting bankrupt society at fire-sale prices.

The "over-educated" having too high expectations but little marketable skills to fulfill those expectations are usually their tools for accomplishing the vandalism.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 3, 12:03pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
This is along the lines of what I was thinking. IT makes zero sense that destroying cultural relics would be a good political move for comminists. But it does make sense that destroying the museum and blaming communists (using historical presedent as evidence somehow ?) would be a great way to destroy the political power communists might otherwise gain.


The point of communist movement (as it is always financed by big-money/banksters) is destroying society/middle-class ("bourgeois")/culture (i.e. institutional memory), so that the population would surrender themselves to slavery, which is essentially what a money-less society is: the ante-bellum southern slave plantation gave the slaves free medicine, free education, free housing and even free food and free clothing . . . all at the discretion of the owners, just like people living under communist states had them all for "free" at the discretion of their owners/leaders. Individual ownership of real sound money and the right to dispense such in small increments (and take full responsibility for consequences) is what give individual freedom (the rights and responsibility of that freedom).

When money withered away in late Rome through government enforced hyper-inflation, the Roman citizens did choose to surrender themselves to big estates as serfs. That's essentially what all socialist/communist movements try to accomplish: coerced removal of individual choice, so the vast majority of the population become serfs and slaves. That's why medicine and education prices have been run up so much in the past century (from when doctors could barely make a living before AMA founding to medicine becoming harvesting mechanism for taking the entire networth of a middle class or upper middle class family), so that 99% of the population would have to buy into scams called "health insurance" and financial aid for something that they should have been able to afford entirely on their own for 1/5 to 1/10 the price. That's how removal of individual choice is carried out: artificially creating demand and limiting supply, so that the money in the hands of middle-class is rendered worthless.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 3, 10:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

People with pre-existing conditions were already screwed when they got the condition under the government regulations that forbid less expensive treatment. All insurance scams can accomplish is screwing the rest of the population and make the treatment all the more expensive and unaffordable to people without seeking "public assistance" (i.e. worship at the altar of the false god akin to mafia-run "window and orphan fund" )

It's as if government regulations allowed only licensed restaurant professionals make/sell food under the pretense of preventing food poisoning (which sometimes happens when ordinary people prepare their own food, never mind some restaurants also cause food poisoning, just like some doctors and hospitals kill people through medical accidents, the #2 most frequent cause of deaths in the US currently); under such a licensed monopoly scheme on food supply, meal prices would sky-rocket . . . giving out meal tickets to everyone via "food insurance" under such a licensed food-preparer monopoly would not alleviate food shortage.

Edit note: recast some compound sentences into simpler sentence structure.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 4, 12:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
Sick people FUCKING! DIE!


LOL! That's exactly what happens under Communism. Even the healthy people get worked to the bones so they can die quickly after the government officials forcibly extract utility from them in gulags (work/re-education camps) through forced over-work and starvation.

Mutually willing exchange in the market place (including voluntary charity) is what brings prosperity as well as health and longevity. Forcible looting is always inefficient, as looters (redistributors) don't work for free while those being looted tend to resist. One may argue that Communism might speed up evolution by making people die off quicker, but then what type of animals are evolved from that process? Looters, scammers and scums rise to the top in communist societies.

Is anyone surprised that Bernie Sanders' wife literally ran a public university into the ground/bankruptcy while drawing out-sized salary for herself? Just like their co-religious Chavez and Maduro ran Venezuela into the ground while making their own families into billionaires! Looters do not work for free; they are heck lot more expensive than competitive market participants to whom you can say no! Is anyone surprised that Bernie Sanders was bought off by Hilary's corruption machine during the primary? Bernie Sanders is a typical politician of the communism persuasion: stupid when young (over-educated in terms of expectations but lacking marketable skills; his wedding honeymoon was spent on a trip to the Soviet Union!), incompetent when middle age, venal when old, easily corruptible throughout entire life. If in another profession, one would easily recognize such a character as a village common whore! Do we really need to talk about his recent protege?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 6, 6:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LastMan says
I'm sure having people self diagnose and write their own prescriptions will reduce overdoses.


The quoted comment was likely meant to be ironic, but in reality quite factual: a drug addict who overdoses himself sufficiently to kill himself in one go can not over-dose himself again . . . whereas in the current situation, the same drug addict can over-dose every other month, and run up half a dozen EMT and emergency room bills every year for multiple years for taxpayers. The overall number of overdose incidents would actually drop if we would just let the terminal drug addicts have enough fun to die off.

We all have a pre-existing condition: dying! It's programmed into our genetic code, so that we can vacate the niche someday for our offspring. Every day that we are alive, we are in the process of dying. Living and being healthy are temporary conditions. Every effort made through the expensive tax-and-redistribution process to extend the lives of some people's pre-existing medical conditions has to come at the cost of shortening many someone else' health/happiness/life-span. This reality results from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: entropy of an overall system can only increase. Running social welfare is like running an air-conditioning/refrigeration unit: it can only make a smaller room/box cooler by pumping heat from that small area out to the bigger room/environment, with the additional heat resulting from running the refrigeration system added to the bigger room/environment.

Socialist medicine as the bleeding-hearts envision it is fundamentally anti-evolutionary: it would disproportionately encourage the breeding of people with expensive medical conditions. We already know that many chronic conditions (such as cancer and heart disease) have significant genetic component. If taxpayers are forced to write blank checks for those conditions, such a policy would obviously result in dysgenics: transferring resources from families that do not have those bad genes to families that do. So, the process then would have to be quickly stopped by some kind of government panel deciding what kind of conditions are deserving of taxpayer subsidy, what don't. Another expensive food fight! Why not just let people be, let them take care of their own conditions as inexpensively as they can afford themselves. We know individual shoppers are very good at discovering less expensive solutions and drive technology forward to bring us new products of higher efficacy/cost ratio . . . whereas bureaucrats spending other people's one are known for adhering to expensive solutions in order to preserve their own jobs ("nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"). So in the long run, giving people the freedom to take care of themselves is also the most humane solution.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 6, 7:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

And yet many countries have much better health outcomes than ours,for less money, with nationalized health care. Yes, there are negatives, which is why we should do it better. Probably by allowing for supplemental policies, that do allow those with the resources to buy more expensive specialized care .


Many socialists were fooled by similar short-term benefit of nationalization decades ago by Soviet central planning (including medicine). Didn't people in Venezuela vote for Chavez and loved the guy in the first few years? In case it's not obvious, the good-looking health outcomes in many other countries are helped by pharmacy subsidy from the US (i.e. the entire rest of the world), availability of flying to the US for cure for those can afford it, and out-right statistical lies (like Cuba not registering birth until the new-born is multiple months old).




WE already do this for or old folks, which consume most of the health care anyway.



Do you not realize that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy? or that many advanced treatment are not available for Medicare?

Socialism has appeal to those who have short memory and short attention span . . . in the same way that eating seed corn in the middle of winter has appeal to the ignorant: in the short run, the belly is more full, at the expense of terminal starvation in the not too distant future.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 8, 5:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

IMHO, solar panels have value in giving household energy independence. The mining processes that produce the special mineral material necessary for making batteries and high torque electric motors however are highly polluting. Natural gas, oil and even coal are renewable energy sources too: they are produced by radioactive decay of Uranium and Thorium inside the earth and earth-moon tidal force generating heat and high pressure environment below the earth's crust turning limestone (laid down at ocean floor then subducted into the earth at tectonic plate boundaries) and water into natural gas (CH4, methane); then bacterial action stripping hydrogen atoms (as bacteria's own food/energy source) turn CH4 into C2H6 (ethane) followed by further hydrogen-stripping and elongation of the carbon chain, eventually resulting in chains long than 4-carbon (carbon chain 5-40 in length is petroleum/oil). Eventually bacteria stripping away all hydrogen and leave behind carbon/coal. The real problems with burning coal are particulate/soot/sulpher pollution during combustion, human cost in mining and high transportation cost compared to pipelines.

The real issue I see with Musk is that, his recent actions seem to indicate a man who wants to be fired by the board. Who knows, perhaps getting fired would allow him to sell his shares in a sinking ship?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 18, 12:03pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
How many on the Right have been found to be sexual perverts? Kavanaugh?


The only proven pervert in this case so far is Christine Ford: suffering from rape fantasy (false memory of being gang-raped by 4 guys nearly 4 decades ago, as teased out by her therapist); how those 4 guys in her false memory merged into Kavanaugh is anyone's guess, perhaps having something to do with Christine's brother being a partner at the law firm that worked for Fusion GPS.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 23, 9:03pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
He's toast. At least one more accusation and maybe a 3rd.

Guessing he'll withdraw tomorrow. Republicans won't risk him failing and then running out of time to confirm someone else before the midterms.


There are literally thousands of people who claim/remember themselves to have been abducted and raped by space aliens; doesn't mean any space aliens were present during any of those alleged encounters. All those allegations show is the frailty of human memory, and the venality of political operatives in the donkey party: they are literally trivializing real victims of rape and sexual assault by making up those nonsensical accusations.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Sep 23, 9:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
My poor Rep/Con babies! Did you pee-pee your diapers? Are you going to take your ball & go home?
You didn't want to give Eric Garland a chance to be voted on in a Presidents 2nd term.
Now you want to an appointment when your Traitor hasn't completed half a term.
You started the shit!
Did you think Democrats wouldn't get pissed-off?
Let's see how you like it,if/when Democrats take over one or both houses & shut out all the Rep/Con socialist
govt. paid elected officials.

If you are going to be stupid,you better be tough.


Procedural non-tabling is standard practice in parliamentary / congressional politics, just like Presidential pocket veto.

Making up false accusation however makes the particular political party doing it look extremely dishonest (and is criminally liable). Unlike the Anita Hill incident, this scandal is going to cost the Democrats dearly in the mid-term election.



The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions