AMERICAN FEMALE LUXURY GOODS:
1) Single Motherood
2) Independent Habitation
3) Financial Parasitism
4) Freedom from care, affection and sex to a beta.
5) Privileged legal status
At the expense of:
1) Male savings, asset accumulation and comfortable retirement.
2) Male sale of his productivity in exchange for care and sex.
3) Male quality of life
4) High male death rates from high risk labor
5) High male suicide rates
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 07:33:00 UTC
WELL MR FULLER. YOU’RE WRONG. ITS THAT WE DONT NEED A JOB IN PRODUCTION- BUT WE DO NEED A JOB. EVERYONE DOES.
Everyone has to earn a living. Everyone has to have a job. But the compensation for that job, and the job itself may not require that we engage in PRODUCTION in the marketplace. But instead, that we police all society against free riding, we care for and maintain the commons, and provide emergency care and support for one another.
If one performs these duties then of course, one is due compensation for them.If one does not perform these duties, or worse, violates them, then one does not earn compensation on the backs of those who do police, care for, support and provide production. Production is not the only valuable activity in society. In fact, it appears, that labor and clerical work are of near zero productive value. As such, we are all of us due compensation for our policing and maintenance of the commons, including the criminal, moral, ethical and material commons.
There are ‘negative jobs’. The negative job is to actively police yourself and others against free riding on the backs of others. This is a full time occupation without vacation, days off, or commissions. It does not require that you learn a skill other than moral behavior, and it does not require that you engage in production. It does require that you deny others the ability to engage in criminal, unethical, immoral behavior, or lax or destructive treatment of the commons.
Fuller is wrong. We all must have a job. We must be paid for our jobs. But the job of production is increasingly limited to minority of highly productive people. While the job of preventing criminal, unethical, immoral, and destructive behavior is increasingly abandoned by those who suggest that they are due compensation for merely existing. Which simply means that the most degenerate among us have the greatest claim to the productive efforts of others. That cannot be, in an rational or scientific world, considered moral by any stretch of the imagination.
Labor has no value in production. But labor has enormous value in the defense of life, liberty and property via the suppression of all criminal, ethical, immoral, conspiratorial, corrupt behavior.
Profit from production is a luxury good earned by those with greater talents and ambitions. But that luxury good requires the active suppression of free riding in all its multitude of forms in every part of society: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, and corrupt behavior.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 07:24:00 UTC
TIM HARFORD ON ASSORTATIVE MATING AND INEQUALITY
‘While it may be natural and familiar, assortative mating also breeds inequality’
Those of you out courting next Friday, do enjoy yourselves – but with a twinge of guilt. Inequality has been rising for a generation in many places, especially the Anglophone countries. Let’s be honest: you and your romantic pursuits are part of the problem.
The issue here is something economists call “positive assortative mating”, a charming phrase that we blame on the evolutionary biologists. It describes the process of similar people pairing off with each other: beautiful people dating beautiful people, smokers dating smokers, nerds dating nerds. All perfectly natural, you might think.
While it may be natural and familiar, assortative mating also breeds inequality. Economists often look at sorting by education level, which is common and easy to measure. If the MBAs and PhDs were sprinkled randomly throughout the population that would spread the wealth around. But, of course, they tend to pair up with other MBAs and PhDs; meanwhile the high-school dropouts tend to end up with other high-school dropouts. Already prosperous people are made more prosperous yet by their marriages.
This is an interesting idea in theory but does it have any practical significance? A recent paper by Jeremy Greenwood and others looks at a large data set from the US Census Bureau through the lens of the Gini coefficient, which is a measure of inequality. It’s 63 in highly unequal South Africa, 40 in the UK and 23 in egalitarian Sweden. It’s 43 in the US Census data set; but if the couples in the data set were randomly paired off, the Gini coefficient would be a mere 34. Assortative mating increases inequality.
But does this pairing-off process matter more than it used to? Does it explain any part of the rise in inequality we’ve seen since the 1970s? The answer, again, is yes – but a guarded yes. Marriage patterns have little or nothing to do with the concentration of earning power in the hands of the richest 1 per cent and 0.1 per cent: women are major breadwinners in the top quarter of the distribution but less so right at the very top – not yet, at any rate.
But assortative mating is having an impact on inequality more broadly. It’s not so much that well-educated people are more likely to pair off – although they are – but that educated women are more likely to earn serious money than a generation ago.
Consider my own mother: she was well on the way to a PhD in biochemistry when I arrived on the scene in the early 1970s. She then dropped out of education and spent most of her time looking after her children. Her academic qualifications had no impact on our household income. Assortative mating has always been with us but it’s only in a world of two-income households that it increases income inequality.
The sociologist Christine Schwartz showed in 2010 that the incomes of husbands and wives in the US are far more closely correlated than they were in the 1960s, and that this explained about one-third of the increase in income inequality between married couples. John Ermisch and colleagues have shown other consequences: in both the UK and Germany, assortative mating substantially explains low social mobility because the children of prosperous parents marry each other.
We should not place too much emphasis on all this. Assortative mating explains only part of the rise of inequality, and perhaps very little at the top of the income scale. The usual remedies for inequality – unionisation, redistributive taxes, minimum wages – still have the same advantages and limitations as ever, even if they need to reflect the reality of the two-income household. It’s a reminder that the most welcome social trends can have unwelcome side-effects.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-09 11:52:00 UTC
UKRAINIAN WISDOM
(fun)(true)
“There is nothing so useful in the home as a guilty husband.”
The degree of labor extraction a woman can obtain from a man is determined by BOTH her ability to identify and exploit opportunities for guilt, AND her ability to trade care, affection and sex. The economics of this indicates that over time, in any relationship, a woman will seek to reduce her costs and rely upon guilt as often as possible.
The only male defense then, is to **never feel guilty**. Which is what happens in most relationships. Both parties reduce their efforts until they justify reducing their efforts, and therefore they cause the loss of hope for any reward, and they remain together purely out of the problem of opportunity costs: they aren’t marketable any longer.
We can scientifically demonstrate that women have much higher expectations of men than men of women. I kind of wonder if this is some female genetic bias: that the reason they feel attracted to men is the promise extraction of labor. And males the promise of extraction of sex.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-08 05:12:00 UTC
BOARD MEETING CORRUPTION
I can’t tell you how many board meetings that I’ve been in that included a legal team that gave us advice on how to legally screw over shareholders.
1) There is only one law, and that is property, in all its forms (internal consistency)
2) There is only one moral code, the voluntary, fully informed, fully warrantied, transfer of property in all its forms. (external correspondence)
If there is a conflict between those two statements then something in your argument is false.
That’s about all there there is to understanding law and morality.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-07 12:41:00 UTC
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-0WILL SOME AUSSIE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATIONAL FASCINATION WITH GAMBLING?
This is crazy. Must be a reason for it. Are the game odds worse? Or are aussies just really bad gamblers?
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 16:54:00 UTC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Basis_of_a_Backward_SocietyWHAT DOES “HIGH TRUST” MEAN?
HIGH TRUST = LOW TRANSACTION COSTS = HIGH QUANTITY AND VELOCITY OF EXCHANGE = GREATER WEATH AT LOWER RISK.
(the not so obvious but obvious)
When we say ‘high trust’ and ‘low trust’ what we mean, is the willingness that one has to conduct a contract, whether formal or informal, with a random party that is not a member of your friends or family.
In a low trust society you can only really trust personal relations. In a very low trust society you can only really trust family members. In a high trust society you can trust the average person on the street as thoroughly as you can a friend or family member. (Often more so than family members.)
And given that politicians are universally corrupt, and that we depend upon judges and juries enforce this universal trust, and that judges and juries consist of people from the community, then the community must consist of high trust members for the system to perpetuate itself. So how does one construct a high trust society? Well, western europeans did it with property rights, prohibition on inbreeding and cousin marriage, and prohibition on marriage and child rearing until one had home and hearth.
Other than hiring a legion of northern european jurists, adopting the common law, requiring wills, granting universal private property rights, prohibiting cousin marriage out to four or six generations, prohibiting cohabitation between generations, it’s pretty much impossible.
And feminists and socialists are doing everything in their power to dismantle the total prohibition on free riding that the northern european people have created over five thousand years, but most importantly in the past 1500.
Those of us who claim to be ‘gentlemen’, will often do business on a handshake. Doing business by handshake is a status symbol. For me, I have always said that “I made a deal, we stick to the deal” because this preserves your ability to make deals with high trust. Sometimes we fail.
One of my long time business partners was notorious for constantly revising deals for his own convenience. Which makes me a bit nuts. But people put up with it from him because he always appears to be so honest. But the truth is, it’s an act. He’s always acting in his own pragmatic interest.
Using rural Italy as the example, the first and best work is the Moral Basis of a Backward Society by Edward Banfield.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 13:41:00 UTC
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/01/schiff-vs-ritholtz-political.html#SiFXioyDzMTQS8k6.99″…if you give things away free, people able to work, will stop working….[but], Here’s an important corollary: If you make people work, you end up with work that has no economic justification.”
I think we can solve this problem finally. Its not so much a conflict as it is an opportunity for the application of technology.
And ill add a third corollary, that is, that respecting property rights and policing against free riding is in fact Work.
And while AnCaps argue that access to society and the market is sufficient compensation, clearly the market for political rents demonstrates that it is not.
There is value in compensating people for respecting property, commons, manners, ethics and morals, law and the rule of law.
Not the least of which is that their incentives then will match those in the productive sector rather than those of the predators un the public sector.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-01 09:18:00 UTC
UKRAINE: ECONOMICS DIVISION OF CULTURAL INTEREST
–” eastern Ukraine, notably its industrial Donetsk basin, feared that growing integration with the EU would wipe out their region’s antiquated manufacturing industry, mining, steel firms, commodity companies and chemical plants, causing high unemployment.”– Eric Margolis
I didn’t understand this until Max explained it to me this week. But last night I read up on it. It’s true. Eastern Ukraine’s Russian speakers and western Ukraine’s agrarians would be differently affected by moves east or west.
The west is catholic polish and speaks Ukrainian. The east is byzantine, Russified, and speaks Russian. Although you must understand that genetically, Ukraine is a very diverse, and the data I have seen is that it contains every western tribe in greater mix than any other state I’ve seen.
I tend to see spiritual differences as meaningless, but differences economic interests are irreconcilable.
So I overnight I started leaning more toward dividing this torn country. With each side maintaining independence. Two Ukraine’s are the best allies for independent Ukrainians.
Smaller is better.
Always.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 03:53:00 UTC
**Basic rule of ethics: if you aren’t willing to insure it yourself then you shouldn’t have made the loan.**
The govenrment had to insert all this risk into the economy in order to use the financial system as a distribution network for getting money into the hands of consumers.
We don’t need to use a financial system to distribute money to consumers with loans.
We can just DISTRIBUTE IT TO CONSUMERS.
I’d rather fight for consumer’s spending than fight my government and corrupt bankers who exploit my people, and destroy my savings.
I’d rather the average joe who doesn’t pay any substantial taxes had the same self interest in shrinking the government than I do as a taxpayer.
I don’t like redistribution. But then, I like consumers to have money that I can capture a piece of – that I can COMPETE for.
I like government abuse of me and my citizens, and government’s predilection for war, more than I dislike redistribution.
I like that if we redistributed cash, then we wouldn’t be dependent upon immigration, and in fact, we’d have every incentive NOT to allow immigration except of highly talented people.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 13:01:00 UTC