STRANGE COINCIDENCES
My spell checker on Win7/MSOffice recommends “proletariat” as a replacement for “propertarian”.
I think I won’t add propertarian to the dictionary just so that it’ll make me laugh every day.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2012-11-17 12:03:00 UTC
http://www.temple.edu/ipa/events/documents/MalhotraPoliticalSortinginSocialRelationships.pdfPOLITICAL SORTING IN SOCIAL GROUPS
Online dating sites are a gold mine for social science.
(ht: Cowen )
Source date (UTC): 2012-11-04 08:36:00 UTC
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/what-explains-wall-streets-shift-away-obama-fat-cat-comments-or-dodd-frankCONSERVATIVE STRATEGY ON WALL STREET
Conservatives and republicans seek to protect wall street as a defense against the socialist state.
It is the only defense they have. They rely upon: small business, family conservatives, evangelicals, the military, and the financial sector.
This is another example of how people will pay very high costs to punish ‘cheaters’.
And it at least appears that the republicans have been successful in recruiting wall street.
If this hypothesis is true, it will mean a watershed moment has occurred.
Source date (UTC): 2012-11-02 03:37:00 UTC
I love honest liberals.
They tend to be the sentimental ones.
It’s the intellectuals who are dishonest.
And they have to be. Fundamentally leftism is kleptocratic. It’s thievery.
But it’s pretty hard to chastise civil people who simply want to take care of everyone.
I just don’t want them to empower their intellectuals. Who are, in a word, crooks.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-24 22:43:00 UTC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-47-percent/2012/09/21/57dc7bbe-0341-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story.htmlTHE 47% OR IS IT 74%?
I love that this issue is getting popularized. This article tries to debunk a few myths but misses out on a few important and related statistics:
a) something close to 74% of people join the tax paying majority at some point in their lives. The young, immigrants and the old of course, are not. The people of productive age of course are. So, it’s true that at any given point less than half of americans pay taxes. But that’s not the same thing as saying that more than half of them will become, or have been, taxpayers.
b) The 1% consists largely of people who are in that 1% for only one or two years – people who make windfalls.
c) About 12% of americans actually qualify as ‘poor’. The rest are either recent immigrants, young or old, and the remainder are those who have made poor reproductive decisions, or have other problems that leave them to the left of the curve.
d) Any statistic that makes use of ‘household’ rather than individual numbers means the author is lying. The composition of the family has eroded so significantly since the sixties that any statistical comparison of households is irrelevant. We humans choose spatial independence at all costs. This means more smaller poorer households.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-23 16:34:00 UTC
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/net_worth_makes.html#.UFvkMMUvnW0.facebookNET WORTH AND TRUST?
The title is a charmer and a bit misleading. But the net is, that there are a lot fewer wealthy people walking around today.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-20 23:52:00 UTC
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/who-makes-it-into-the-middle-class/Making it into the middle class.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-20 23:30:00 UTC
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/prison.htmLIBERALS CREATE GREATER DISPARITIES IN RACIAL INCARCERATION?
This is one of those things that just would annoy my friends in Ottawa. 🙂
La Griffe Du Lion is always priceless.
His Smart Fraction theory alone would be worth reading his work. THe fact that he’s hysterically good using modern socratic characters only makes it more enjoyable.
Thanks Ashtad for the pointer.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-08 22:03:00 UTC
MEN AND WOMEN HAVE DIFFERENT REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES AND THE NUCLEAR FAMILY SOLVED THAT CONFLICT UNDER AGRARIANISM
But we are seeing, especially in the lower classes, the degeneration of the nuclear family. As a consequence we are seeing polarity in the democratic political systems. Systems that were designed for nuclear families under the property rights system of agrarian production.
There would never have been a progressive president without the female vote. All we are seeing in politics is the conflicting moral codes which are distributed disproportionately between the genders expressed as divisiveness. While we thing of this as a way of life, or a vision of the future, and to some degree it is, what the statistics show is that it’s little more than who is married or unmarried to whom at what age.
The other thing it shows is that males are checking out of society as fast as single mothers are becoming politically active. Males will be the minority voters for the foreseeable future.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-01 01:29:00 UTC
http://www.upworthy.com/breaking-you-know-that-nick-hanauer-ted-talk-you-werent-supposed-to-see-here-itWHO CREATES JOBS?
My friend Sam Hughes +Gmailed me about this unpublished TED talk. And it’s actually true. But misleading. Yes, the super-rich do not create jobs, the middle class creates jobs. However
a) The middle class ‘hires’ the super rich to protect them from the government. And it works.
b) The ‘Rich” are almost universally (above 90%) members of the middle class who made their money in small and medium business.
I don’t support the super rich. I support active constraint, and even dissolution, of the government.
Source date (UTC): 2012-08-16 15:57:00 UTC