—“Which is more valuable credit or debt”— Justin Fortune
This is an interesting question. The to the creditor it represents income in exchange for risk. To the debtor it represents consumption in exchange for risk. To the debtor and creditor both, it represents dependence upon a neutral enforcer (insurer). To the polity it represents economic velocity and the general increase in purchasing power.
It is far harder to find opportunities to lend (to knowledge) than it is to find opportunities to borrow (to knowledge) and leverage. So for example it is very hard to find outsized opportunities for interest, but if you have credit available with which to seize and opportunity to capture a windfall discount due to timing, then credit is by far the most valuable. And the opportunity to seize outsized returns on production is far greater than on consumption (rents).
Hence my advocacy of elimination of interest on consumption, retention of interest on production, and investment, such that we eliminate rents, and direct all credit to the seizure of opportunities for outsized returns.
—-“I said this two years ago but it’s worth repeating;
The left thought Trump was OUR last hope. These idiots didn’t realize Trump was THEIR last hope. We aren’t scared of conflict. We’ve been pretty tolerant. This is literally their last chance.”— Arthur Roddam
—“Friedman, like boaz, marx, freud, mises, rothbard, block and numerous imitators use a fairly simple but effective technique of telling half-truths that rely upon suggestion invoking altruistic responses in the listener, which circumvents our skepticism, evidence and reason. This technique evolved in the religious era and is central to the success of the cosmopolitan programs of marxist-socialism, libertinism, Misesian (Askenazi Ukrainian) Economics, and straussian neo conservatism, as much as the outright propagandism of the neo-puritan, continental social democratic, and ashkenazi Frankfurt school.”—-
—“On average, after the workday begins, employees take a few hours to reach their peak levels of alertness and energy — and that peak does not last long. Not long after lunch, those levels begin to decline, hitting a low at around 3pm. We often blame this on lunch, but in reality this is just a natural part of the circadian process. After the 3pm dip, alertness tends to increase again until hitting a second peak at approximately 6pm. Following this, alertness tends to then decline for the rest of the evening and throughout the early morning hours until hitting the very lowest point at approximately 3:30am. After hitting that all-time low, alertness tends to increase for the rest of the morning until hitting the first peak shortly after noon the next day.”—
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42262255_10156650204327264_4241097243488157696_n_10156650204322264.jpg The distribution isn’t quite even.
I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.
Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.Andy CurzonGood ^^ (useful data).Sep 20, 2018, 8:16 AMJames JensenEveryone said I was not living up to my potential… but, secretly I knew I was doing exactly what I could… in fact, when I really tried to reach beyond my home life and local environment I got lost down some dark hole… I think in circles, around and around… my wife is the smartest and stupidest person I have ever known… whenever I have an insight and share it with her she says something like “and, you have just learned that? I’ve known that since I was a child… you can’t be that dumb “… but it is new to me.Sep 20, 2018, 11:34 AMJames JensenSep 20, 2018, 11:36 AMArman GhaffariIt really seems strange to me that I’m far above average. I feel like a retard.Sep 20, 2018, 11:54 AMHusam Al-Dahiyat100-110 can’t be “average” since IQ is by definition normed to have 100 as its reference point.Sep 20, 2018, 12:43 PMMarcus JamesYou and I both know why they consider 85-115 to be average. If they didn’t, a whole group of people would be considered retarded or borderline retarded.Sep 20, 2018, 1:05 PMBryan Nova BreyIn line with your assessment here, I’d like to read your thoughts on this post by Jordan Peterson (I’m not a fan) and the most popular reply by TheDrogger who throws him off so much that he has to edit his original post.
From my perspective JP is manipulating the IQ distribution and claiming 3 standard deviations for average population and only 2 deviations for Jews and then calculating the resulting populations. He also doesn’t compare Jews to Whites.
Thought you’d enjoy ripping JP apart in an area of statistics, IQ, population, and disproportionate representation.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/Sep 20, 2018, 1:07 PMJoshua SkeensVox Day did a VERY extensive rebuttal on this that got him started down the warpathSep 20, 2018, 1:17 PMBryan Nova Breylink? I’d love to read it.Sep 20, 2018, 1:23 PMJoshua Skeenshttp://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-eminent-person.html
Check anything with the “Jordanetics” tag.Sep 20, 2018, 1:28 PMArman GhaffariThis has been debunked by Vox and DukeSep 20, 2018, 2:40 PMBryan Nova BreyI think Eli Harman did a great job ripping apart JP, though my comment is more specific to the argument JP made regarding the Jewish Question. I think Curt will articulate what JP is doing and how he fakes the IQ distribution.Sep 20, 2018, 2:43 PMWyatt StorchThanks for this. Stealing.Sep 21, 2018, 9:02 AMEli HarmanJordan Peterson is a Jew; maybe not literally but in all other important respects…Sep 21, 2018, 9:23 AMChristopher MatthewThere is a massive difference between 85 and 115.
Not just in terms of criminality, but education, professional success, choice of mate, how many children, etc etc.Sep 21, 2018, 10:00 AMArno KælandI just read Jordan Peterson’s response to the criticism provided by TheDrogger and there is a significant error in Peterson’s calculation.
He claims that Jews with IQ’s of 145 or above are, in percentage terms, commensurate with their proportion of millionaires / billionaires. However his baseline for the total is merely the Jewish and White population.
However, White Americans now make up little over 60% of the overall population. His baseline thus comprises only 63% of the total US population. Treating the remainder US population as he has done Whites would ought to reduce Jewish millionaire numbers to 25% of the total.
Peterson’s calculation therefore only adds up if he assumes that there exist no 145+ IQs outside of the US’ White and Jewish populations.
Although it might be argued that US adult population demographics are likely to increase the accuracy of Peterson’s baseline, it nevertheless remains considerably off.Sep 21, 2018, 10:02 AMDylan BoswellWhew! Just in the 2.2% by a hair (4 points).Sep 21, 2018, 10:36 AMCarl EluThe fact that there still is a identifiable jewish people is proof enough of strong in-group preference. It is simply not possible to propagate through time as a minority without it.Sep 21, 2018, 3:05 PMAlex BirchThis is sort of why I quit following bell curve lit in college, whereupon I realized with each successive generation of dysgenics, authorities will simply readjust the curve to such a degree that the marginally gifted appear geniuses, and the highly gifted, threats to our civilization. After a while, the facts become impetus for action. There is only one sane response to this catastrophe.Sep 22, 2018, 12:16 AMThe distribution isn’t quite even.
I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.
Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.
