Form: Mini Essay

  • SAW THIS SILENT GENERATION POST SOMEWHERE ELSE Bothers me because I see them as

    SAW THIS SILENT GENERATION POST SOMEWHERE ELSE

    Bothers me because I see them as the “naive and abused generation”. The generation like their parents that were the most and first affected by the Propaganda Generation. The first substantial victims of the Industrialization of Lying. And through that lens this set of statements reads somewhat differently from how the author intended.

    —–BEGIN—-

    Born in the 1930’s and 40’s, we exist as a very special age cohort. We are the Silent Generation.

    We are the smallest number of children born since the early 1900’s. We are the “last ones.”

    We are the last generation, climbing out of the depression, who can remember the winds of war and the impact of a world at war which rattled the structure of our daily lives for years.

    We are the last to remember ration books for everything from gas to sugar to shoes to stoves.

    We saved tin foil and poured fat into tin cans.

    We hand mixed ’white stuff’ with ‘yellow stuff’ to make fake butter.

    We saw cars up on blocks because tires weren’t available.

    We can remember milk being delivered to our house early in the morning and placed in the “milk box” on the porch. [A friend’s mother delivered milk in a horse drawn cart.] We sometimes fed the horse, and our dog, Spot, a Fox Terrier, would greet the milkman when he made our delivery, then he would ride in Glenn’s truck till the end of his route, when Glenn would drive by the house and let Spot off the truck just in time to greet us coming home from elementary school.

    Many of us are the last to hear Roosevelt ’s radio assurances and to see gold stars in the front windows of our grieving neighbors.

    Many of us can also remember the parades on August 15, 1945; VJ Day.

    We saw the ‘boys’ home from the war, build their little houses, pouring the cellar, tar papering it over and living there until they could afford the time and money to build it out.

    We are the last generation who spent much of our childhood without television; instead we imagined what we heard on the radio.

    As we all like to brag, with no TV, we spent our childhood “playing outside until the street lights came on.”

    We did play outside and we did play on our own.

    We turned the hose or the fire hydrants on and ran through the spray to play in the water.

    The lack of television in our early years meant, for most of us, that we had little real understanding of what the world was like.

    Our Saturday afternoons, if at the movies, gave us newsreels of the war sandwiched in between westerns and cartoons.

    Telephones were one to a house, often shared and hung on the wall.

    Computers were called calculators, they only added and were hand cranked; typewriters were driven by pounding fingers, throwing the carriage, and changing the ribbon.

    The ‘Internet’ and ‘GOOGLE’ were words that didn’t exist.

    Newspapers and magazines were written for adults and the news was broadcast on our table radio in the evening by H.V Kaltenborne and Gabriel Heatter.

    We are the last group who had to find out for ourselves.

    As we grew up, the country was exploding with growth.

    The G.I. Bill gave returning veterans the means to get an education and spurred colleges to grow.

    VA loans fanned a housing boom.

    Pent up demand coupled with new installment payment plans put factories to work.

    New highways would bring jobs and mobility.

    The veterans joined civic clubs and became active in politics.

    In the late 40’s and early 50’s the country seemed to lie in the embrace of brisk but quiet order as it gave birth to its new middle class (which became known as ‘Baby Boomers’).

    …. it goes on …


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-20 14:47:00 UTC

  • Age Of Supercars Has Returned To Sports Cars

    I don’t think much about cars any longer – I haven’t since I moved to Ukraine, where an SUV is about the only vehicle that’s practical. But that said, in light of Ferrari’s Portofino release, I’ve gotta say again that the era of ‘pretend race cars’ is finally over and I’m freaking glad. I loved the 355, was uncomfortable with the 360, and thought the 430 and the many peers in that generation were a joke that screamed nouveau riche like lamborghinis scream tasteless tech nerd or room temperature IQ oil money, and corvettes scream cowboy boots and gold chains. The Aston Martin DB9 is a much better car in every respect, and the Jaguar F type spectacular. If you are not physically large, you’re just as well or better off with a Cayman, whch is honestly the best sports car you can buy. And if Porsche didn’t nerf it, it’d blow away the 911. Take any of these cars in red. Dechrome it (remove all the stupid trinkets, and add an enamel logo badge to the fenders, and you’ll get all the attention you could ever want. And if you do it with the Cayman or the Jaguar you’ll be happier. And if you do it with the jaguar you won’t even be frightened of the dealership or repair costs.
  • Age Of Supercars Has Returned To Sports Cars

    I don’t think much about cars any longer – I haven’t since I moved to Ukraine, where an SUV is about the only vehicle that’s practical. But that said, in light of Ferrari’s Portofino release, I’ve gotta say again that the era of ‘pretend race cars’ is finally over and I’m freaking glad. I loved the 355, was uncomfortable with the 360, and thought the 430 and the many peers in that generation were a joke that screamed nouveau riche like lamborghinis scream tasteless tech nerd or room temperature IQ oil money, and corvettes scream cowboy boots and gold chains. The Aston Martin DB9 is a much better car in every respect, and the Jaguar F type spectacular. If you are not physically large, you’re just as well or better off with a Cayman, whch is honestly the best sports car you can buy. And if Porsche didn’t nerf it, it’d blow away the 911. Take any of these cars in red. Dechrome it (remove all the stupid trinkets, and add an enamel logo badge to the fenders, and you’ll get all the attention you could ever want. And if you do it with the Cayman or the Jaguar you’ll be happier. And if you do it with the jaguar you won’t even be frightened of the dealership or repair costs.
  • AGE OF SUPERCARS HAS RETURNED TO SPORTS CARS I don’t think much about cars any l

    AGE OF SUPERCARS HAS RETURNED TO SPORTS CARS

    I don’t think much about cars any longer – I haven’t since I moved to Ukraine, where an SUV is about the only vehicle that’s practical.

    But that said, in light of Ferrari’s Portofino release, I’ve gotta say again that the era of ‘pretend race cars’ is finally over and I’m freaking glad. I loved the 355, was uncomfortable with the 360, and thought the 430 and the many peers in that generation were a joke that screamed nouveau riche like lamborghinis scream tasteless tech nerd or room temperature IQ oil money, and corvettes scream cowboy boots and gold chains.

    The Aston Martin DB9 is a much better car in every respect, and the Jaguar F type spectacular. If you are not physically large, you’re just as well or better off with a Cayman, whch is honestly the best sports car you can buy. And if Porsche didn’t nerf it, it’d blow away the 911.

    Take any of these cars in red. Dechrome it (remove all the stupid trinkets, and add an enamel logo badge to the fenders, and you’ll get all the attention you could ever want.

    And if you do it with the Cayman or the Jaguar you’ll be happier. And if you do it with the jaguar you won’t even be frightened of the dealership or repair costs.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-19 18:29:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism Will Absolutely Help You Discover Incentives, Just As Testimonials Will Help You Discover Falsehoods. &#13

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”— I dunno. I can almost always identify them. At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions. I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience ) I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity) And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity). Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy) So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy. We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures. We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference. – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption, – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution, – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite. If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible. Americans are improperly socialized.
  • Propertarianism Will Absolutely Help You Discover Incentives, Just As Testimonials Will Help You Discover Falsehoods. &#13

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”— I dunno. I can almost always identify them. At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions. I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience ) I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity) And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity). Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy) So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy. We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures. We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference. – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption, – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution, – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite. If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible. Americans are improperly socialized.
  • PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIA

    PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIALS WILL HELP YOU DISCOVER FALSEHOODS.

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”—

    I dunno. I can almost always identify them.

    At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions.

    I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience )

    I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity)

    And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity).

    Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy)

    So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy.

    We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures.

    We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference.

    – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption,

    – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution,

    – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings

    Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite.

    If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible.

    Americans are improperly socialized.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-16 11:06:00 UTC

  • The Alternative To Increased Taxes And Fixed Redistributoin

    Assuming: Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400), Your first car costs 30,000(550), and Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and Your home 350,000(1,400/M), That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees. that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest. If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes. That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year. Yeah. that’s not cheap. So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options: 1) An increase of 1030 in taxes. 2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%) 3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years. Ok, so, of these optoins, 1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates. 2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small. 3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.) So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living? Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008? Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity. We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject. Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant. This is trivially easy to accomplish – really. And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.
  • The Alternative To Increased Taxes And Fixed Redistributoin

    Assuming: Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400), Your first car costs 30,000(550), and Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and Your home 350,000(1,400/M), That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees. that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest. If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes. That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year. Yeah. that’s not cheap. So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options: 1) An increase of 1030 in taxes. 2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%) 3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years. Ok, so, of these optoins, 1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates. 2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small. 3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.) So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living? Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008? Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity. We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject. Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant. This is trivially easy to accomplish – really. And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.
  • THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN Assuming: Your credi

    THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN

    Assuming:

    Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400),

    Your first car costs 30,000(550), and

    Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and

    Your home 350,000(1,400/M),

    That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees.

    that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest.

    If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes.

    That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year.

    Yeah. that’s not cheap.

    So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options:

    1) An increase of 1030 in taxes.

    2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%)

    3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years.

    Ok, so, of these optoins,

    1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates.

    2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small.

    3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.)

    So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living?

    Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008?

    Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity.

    We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject.

    Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant.

    This is trivially easy to accomplish – really.

    And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 10:50:00 UTC