Source: Facebook

  • LOVED THIS: THE LUXURY OF TREES How trees or lack of them correlates with urban

    LOVED THIS: THE LUXURY OF TREES

    How trees or lack of them correlates with urban poverty.

    Why? Trees are a commons. The poor don’t respect commons. We don’t invest in commons for the poor because they don’t respect them. We call this fact the twin problem of property rights and time preference. Some of us call it ‘discipline’ or ‘upbringing’ or ‘class’. But in the end, it’s the same thing: overbreeding children you can’t support is a short time preference, demonstration of lack of discipline and foresight, and a failure to respect the commons.

    http://persquaremile.com/2012/05/24/income-inequality-seen-from-space/


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-12 03:04:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Hero treated like a villain


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-11 22:46:00 UTC

  • AND REPRODUCTION (from a post I answered on Quora) “….Atheism is correlative w

    http://www.quora.com/permalink/BKTUIZixFATHEISM AND REPRODUCTION

    (from a post I answered on Quora)

    “….Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.”

    QUESTION:

    “Is atheism a threat to humanity due to its lower birth rates?”

    ANSWER: THE ANSWER IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN OTHER POSTERS SUGGEST.

    I’ll try to do it justice.

    The answer is yes, that it’s correlative. Empirically, yes in the aggregate atheists have fewer children. And yes, its partly causal.

    1) Reproduction is losing it’s economic utility as a guarantee of old age security.

    2) Consumer capitalism raises the cost of creating ‘middle class and working class children’ and so birth rates decline along with industrialization.

    3) Atheism is highly correlative with education, and education correlative with income, and income correlative with decreased reproduction. (Children are a net negative on career development because they are time consuming. Or conversely, careerism in two income household deprives both individuals of the time necessary for child rearing. )

    4) Prettier women have more children, married women have more children, women who stay at home have more children. Less attractive women have fewer children. Unmarried women have fewer children. Women who work have fewer children. This is all just data. We have put women into the work force and decreased their rate of breeding RELATIVE to the rates of breeding in other civilizations. (This was most evident in russian and japan, both of whom are facing serious long term economic problems because of it. You cannot easily have both the employment of women AND paid retirement and health care. At least, that’s what it looks like.)

    5) With the advent of redistribution, loss of male property rights, and child support and financial support, Women are “marrying the state”, or “marrying the state via child support”. Both of these do statistically decrease reproduction, as they also render the males economically not viable for other women. (That’s the data. Sorry if it’s unpleasant.)

    6) The lower classes are dramatically shifting out of monogamy into serial monogamy. Humans are naturally serially monogamous in tribal life. Monogamy is economically competitive, but not natural to man – we evolved to manage relationships that last on the order of four years – long enough for a child to walk with a migrating tribe. The moral prescription for monogamy, and therefor for higher reproduction rates associated with monogamy, was caused by (a) the agrarian mode of production and the family farming unit (b) the politically dangerous problem of single men unable to have access to sex – the source of most revolutions. Monogamy was imposed by religious leadership for these reasons – although we are still trying I think to link all that history together. It looks like it’s a natural evolution, not just the copying of an idea worldwide.

    CONCLUSION

    1) The strain on the rest of the planet’s biomass by our enormous population is pretty severe. It’s possible we’re more than twice the population that the planet can handle. We do not need more people. There are no pollution problems. There are few resource problems. There is a population problem.

    2) We have created an economic and political system of intergenerational redistribution that requires constant growth and constant new generations.

    3) Consumer capitalism seems to put a cap on uncontrolled population expansion.

    So it isn’t clear that we need to increase population. In fact, just the opposite. And we could do so, but our current system of redistribution is a system of dependencies that we can’t likely get out of without a political crisis.

    So the glass is half full (declining population) and half empty (we are dependent upon population growth that the earth cannot sustain, and which causes political infighting.).

    In these cases Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.

    I hope this makes sense.

    Curt Doolittle

    http://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-a-threat-to-humanity-due-to-its-lower-birth-rates/answer/Curt-Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-10 01:16:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW SUFFERING CALAMITOUS COLLAPSE Well, that started when the liberals u

    http://www.france24.com/en/20130608-assange-us-rule-law-suffering-calamitous-collapseAMERICAN RULE OF LAW SUFFERING CALAMITOUS COLLAPSE

    Well, that started when the liberals undermined the constitution through the 14th amendment. At that point, we lost rule of law. It’s just taken this long to go from originalism: the constitution is a binding legal document – to ‘it’s a living document’ which is code for, it means whatever we want it to mean – to it’s a guideline for us, but a democratically elected government can pass any law it desires to – to there is no law, only whatever we can get away with.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-09 08:43:00 UTC

  • MARXISM DISTILLED: “For Adam Smith you have the division of labor and the invisi

    MARXISM DISTILLED:

    “For Adam Smith you have the division of labor and the invisible hand; for Ricardo, comparative advantage. Marx just seems to be an example of a thinker who took one incredibly wrong idea (The Labor Theory of Value) and fully worked out all of the logical consequences. Given that there’s no reason to believe in the labor theory of value, then most of Marx is just a complicated (although perhaps ingenious) dead end.” – Urstoff, from econlog


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-09 02:18:00 UTC

  • NOT SURE YOU CAN TEACH IT – IT’S GENETIC But this is what makes successful entre

    http://onforb.es/YSVQppI’M NOT SURE YOU CAN TEACH IT – IT’S GENETIC

    But this is what makes successful entrepreneurs tick. Relentlessness.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-08 06:45:00 UTC

  • HOMOPHOBIC CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS I’m from New England. English heritage. We’re ‘

    HOMOPHOBIC CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS

    I’m from New England. English heritage. We’re ‘huggy’. Still familial. And teasing is still part of our language.

    In business I pretty much hug everyone. Despite what people say about being uncomfortable, demonstrated approval both reduces people’s fear of you as ‘the boss’ and creates a more relaxed atmosphere.

    In every company I use and try to propagate this kind of affection. It works.

    So, here in Ukraine it’s just not OK. I hugged a guy yesterday and he said “this is making me uncomfortable”. I laughed. Said it was cultural.

    But you don’t see three drunk guys walking down the street with their arms around each other here.

    I like our way better. Men are men here. That’s true.

    But if you’re confident in your masculinity then you shouldn’t be offended by false threats to it.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-08 05:47:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL MANAGEMENT STYLES : UNCOMFORTABLE LIBERTARIANISM So, I have all these U

    CULTURAL MANAGEMENT STYLES : UNCOMFORTABLE LIBERTARIANISM

    So, I have all these Ukrainian guys now. And, it’s hysterical fascinating trying to get them out of hierarchical thinking. In America, if yo say “you’re a partner” and give someone stock, they pretty much act like an owner, and relegate you as CEO to judge and jury.

    But here, it’s pretty hard. Just no concept of it. Right ethics, but no mental model. They guys are capable but just can’t comprehend it.

    I have all these things I say like:

    “It’s unscientific for me to think I know all the answers. It’s just that I have the need to make decisions in real time with the information at my disposal.”

    Or “My ego isn’t tied up in being right. My ego is tied up in developing a product that sells.”

    or “I don’t think I know anything. Argue with me. Either you’re able to make your case or you’re not. If do I’ll just say…. Damn. You’re right. Watch me. I say it all the time.”

    Or “I gave you this feature and the direction to use your judgement in developing it. Why do you think I did that? To trip you up? Or to leave open the possibility that I’m wrong, and that you might improve on my ideas?”

    Or (my favorite) “I have a very hard time believing that you’re not smart enough to make that decision without my input.”

    Or “If I wanted people to just do what I tell them, I’d hire idiots. You don’t think I hired you, and paid you above market rates because you’re an idiot, do you?” (Love that one. No way out of it.)

    They are getting their slowly.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-08 05:41:00 UTC

  • OUCH “I was once challenged as to why the economics department didn’t teach Marx

    OUCH

    “I was once challenged as to why the economics department didn’t teach Marxist economics, I responded “we let the English department do that.”

    – Alex Tabarrok, GMU


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-07 22:14:00 UTC

  • STOPPING THE BIG DOMINOS Of course, we would argue that the problem is actually

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/06/keeping-big-dominoes-from-falling.html#.UbCbZitp4w0INTERVENTION: STOPPING THE BIG DOMINOS

    Of course, we would argue that the problem is actually allowing the small dominos to constantly fall. Government creates big dominos. The market works constantly to destroy them.

    GOVERNMENT CREATES BIG DOMINOS – AND THE BIGGEST IS ITSELF.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-07 04:25:00 UTC