http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/gender-jobs-gap-women-have-recovered-all-of-the-jobs-they-lost-during-the-recession-men-are-still-2-14-millions-jobs-short/THE MAN RECESSION CONTINUES
Women are back at work. Men, not. We don’t yet know how many will never reenter the work force again.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 23:30:00 UTC
(VERY EXCITED TO SEE YOU ALL!!!)
How is turnout this year looking?
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 23:26:00 UTC
Tonight I’m reminded that Hayek was a gentleman and didn’t refute Keynes because he thought it was obvious, and that it would be ungentlemanly to criticize him too harshly.
Friedman was unapologetically argumentative, and Rothbard was radically so. Sowell is at least apologetically argumentative.
The conservatives have abandoned direct discourse and taken the debate to its constituency on moral grounds and entirely ignores debate with their opposition, focusing only on criticism.
Which of these approaches to political discourse is empirically superior? Which can we demonstrate has been more effective at altering the course of policy?
Politics is not nice. It is not sweet. It is a bloody, brutal, dishonest battle for control over teh means of extracting and distributing resources, profits, opportunity and privilege and the stakes are demonstrably high. Perhaps at the cost of the civilization itself.
The period where we could return to civil discourse is done. The empire must end. They tyranny of the majority must end. Either fight for freedom or lose what you have left of it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 23:06:00 UTC
ON POLITICAL DISCOURSE:
(sketch)
Never give up
Seek the objective truth
Incentives expose the truth
Never seek agreement or consent
Demand your property and voluntary exchange
Ridicule and shame justifications for theft
Majority rule is theft by threat of violence.
There is no reason we cannot use government,
To facilitate exchanges rather than justify thefts.
The left is a kleptocracy
Ridicule, shame, criticize it.
If necessary, fight, kill and destroy it.
The source of property is the application of organized violence to prevent involuntary transfers from circumventing the need for voluntary exchange.
Resistance isn’t futile.
But action is more effective.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 22:59:00 UTC
J.C. LESTER CAME CLOSEST TO THE CORRECT ANSWER.
He did. Close. Tried too hard to prove libertarianism was ‘right and proper’. Too fascinated with Popper. Too much of trying to bring books to problems instead of problems to books.
But he came very close. Closer than Rothbard. He almost had it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 06:10:00 UTC
http://www.psmag.com/health/electric-schlock-65377/BUT WAS MILLGRAM WRONG?
http://psmag.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2a3f99f9e81d48228ea39f9a4&id=356e2d99e0&e=1d54207add
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 05:27:00 UTC
ECONOMICS AS ARCHAEOLOGY
“I would happily settle for economics being compared to archaeology and our scientific activity placed on a level with that of the archaeologist. It would be a noble analogy.”
“…the veneer of mathematics tends…[T]o dress scientific brilliancies and scientific absurdities alike in the impressive uniform of formulae
and theorems. Unfortunately however, an absurdity in uniform is far more persuasive than an absurdity unclad.” – Schwartz, 1986, p.22.
“Classical real analysis is only one of at least four mathematical traditions within which economic questions can be formalized and discussed mathematically. Non-standard, constructive and computable analyses have been playing their own roles in the formalization and mathematization of economic entities – but mostly within the closure of neoclassical economic theory.”
(NOTE: a) Real analysis, b) non-standard, c) constructive and d) computable – all must be addressed from finitist perspective.)
“In other words, mathematics is about proof. I believe this to be a valid and standard characterization which helps delineate the different `schools’ of mathematics in terms of it”
(NOTE: mathematics is the process of making proofs ‘balances’, not truths (forecasts and testimonies).)
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 01:49:00 UTC
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/pub/departments/bcurj/pdf/gavin.pdfON FOUCAULT AS A FOOTNOTE TO NIETZSCHE
“”Terry Eagleton similarly argued that Foucault and his postmodern contemporaries were “a kind of extended footnote to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, who anticipated almost every one of [their] positions in
nineteenth century Europe.””
Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 2001), p. 201
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 01:44:00 UTC
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/raising-successful-children.html?pagewanted=all
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 01:06:00 UTC
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2417942/Im-single-50-Why-Men-hate-brainier-says-KATE-MULVEY.htmlACTUALLY, WE LOVE SMART WOMEN.
We just prefer they’re feminine.
There are plenty of smart men in the world. But they aren’t feminine either. The scarce thing for men is femininity, not intelligence. Smart men are surrounded by other smart men. And frankly, given that men tend to talk in facts, not experiences, they’re a lot less work to understand, and far more interesting for ‘intelligent conversation’.
I mean, seriously? Why do we need another masculine, competitive, unattractive person in our lives? Women are expensive. They cost us a great deal of effort and money. We must constantly compromise our desires for theirs. Why would we do that without getting femininity in return?
Femininity in any woman that pays attention to us is the ultimate scarcity. Intelligence on the other hand, is a commodity. It isn’t scarce. Intelligent people pay attention to us all the time.
Femininity sells. Nesting sells. Care-taking sells. Period. That’s just the data. We have tons of data now. It all says the same thing. Femininity sells. Everything else is a nice-to-have. You cant sell a nice-to-have on its own.
Femininity is what beauty means. And every woman is capable of it. In fact, it’s pretty hard to avoid being feminine unless you actively try to suppress it.
Did I say ‘feminine’ enough times yet?
Women in my generation got screwed in life. Or didn’t. … er… Whatever…. sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-16 17:04:00 UTC