When I was in economics class last tuesday, the topic of net exports and how it affects the GDP and the economy came up. I seem to recall my economics professor, whom I have great respect for by the way, say something like this:
"What happens when the value of the dollar goes down?"
Student: "uh, it increases exports?"
"Yeah, because more foreigners buy our goods, and that's a good thing."
For those of you who don't know, net exports (exports - imports) is one out of four factors used to compute the GDP. So if exports goes up - or imports go down, or both - the GDP rises. So the logic presented is that if the value of the dollar goes down relative to other currencies, the volume of exports will rise because foreigners can buy the same amount of dollar goods for less of their currency and imports will go down because we can buy less of foreigners goods with the same, weakening, dollar value.
This is true. The problem, however, and the reason that devaluating the dollar is not beneficial to the American economy even though it boosts the GDP, is that foreigners buy more of our goods because they get a better deal on them, and we get a worse deal. Whereas if the dollar is 1 to 1 with the euro we can get a euro for only 1 of our dollars, but if that ratio is 1 to 1.5, then it takes 1.5 dollars to get the same thing. We're worse off, they're better off.
This is another example of how the GDP can be wildly unreliable when it comes to measuring the true state of the economy. I don't contend that we should eliminate the export/import part of the GDP equation, nor could we viably switch it to Net Imports (imports - exports), merely that one must be wary of this statistical unit and realize that it leads to imperfect conclusions, even if one does not have a viable alternative metric.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A case in point
Ever since Reagan, it has be widely known among the thinking elite that lower taxes creates more revenue. This paradox is easily explained; an economy with lower taxes has more money to freely spend and invest, which expands the productive base by enfranchising more tax-payers and higher income individuals. In other words, 10% of 250 is greater than 20% of 100. This is why the United States Government gets more revenue than the European Governments, even with accounting for population.
But despite the mass of empirical and mathematical evidence that this is true, left-tards still insist that the state and federal governments need to raise taxes to balance the budget. Read and laugh.
1. While many insist that we have to lower taxes, the hard reality of it all is that we cannot afford to,
Raising taxes will only work in the short-term, as the productive sector will suffer and the reckless policies will still be extant to drain the system. Lowering taxes and reducing spending for everyone is the only viable option at this point. It may hurt for some people, but what pain it will induce is vastly preferable to the inevitable consequences of the current projectile.
2. our economy cannot afford to.
Of course it can.
3. What most conservatives don't take into account is that the money taken by taxes doesn't vanish without being put into some goal.
Quite possibly true to some extent. Although nobody would be foolish enough to deny it if directly asked, many make this assumption while making an argument. However, the relevant point is not that government money isn't used, but rather that it isn't used productively or based out of necessity.
When presented with no internal motivation or external impetus to do well, it is highly improbable that I will put in anything beyond minimal effort and that I will reach neither my productive nor creative potential. Left-libs can learn alot from their own experiences.
4. You may have guessed it, I am a government employee, and my money is just as good at stimulating the economy as the money of the cashier at McDonalds or that of any other private sector job.
She commits an error here by confusing a single aspect of a transaction for the whole circular flow. Her spending - and saving - may very well be just as economically stimulating as anybody else's, but the salient point is that where and how the money was acquired differs in that her's was a result of paper-pushing whereas the other's was a result of providing a service that was genuinely desired. The economic cost of her job is one not only of malinvestment, but one of opportunity; because she pushes papers, she cannot do any of the other billions of jobs that would be vastly more societally riching than the one she is doing now.
You know, out of all my critics in the various intellectual fields I fence in, religion, economics, feminism, decline and fall, it has to be the ones that fall into the left side of the politics debate that are the most stupid, and perhaps most unrewarding in demolishing.
But despite the mass of empirical and mathematical evidence that this is true, left-tards still insist that the state and federal governments need to raise taxes to balance the budget. Read and laugh.
Much of the conservative commentariat have written that the government should lower taxes, but with the deficits that we are running, and the stagnation that our economy is facing, I don't see this as a viable solution.At times it is tiresome, if exceedingly easy, to continue smashing up intellectual terd like this time and time again. Moreover, the above statement not only betrays the logic presented above, but makes the egregious implication that lowering taxes should not be the response to an economic stagnation. She elaborates further.
While many insist that we have to lower taxes, the hard reality of it all is that we cannot afford to, our economy cannot afford to. People have stopped spending, so the government has to take their savings and spend it for them to stimulate the economy.... What most conservatives don't take into account is that the money taken by taxes doesn't vanish without being put into some goal. You may have guessed it, I am a government employee, and my money is just as good at stimulating the economy as the money of the cashier at McDonalds or that of any other private sector job.Her vicious rant turned from being a laughable but somewhat coherent argument into downright self-parody. One wonders what mental disease made her write that. She makes 4 errors in 4 sentences. Lets examine them one by one.
1. While many insist that we have to lower taxes, the hard reality of it all is that we cannot afford to,
Raising taxes will only work in the short-term, as the productive sector will suffer and the reckless policies will still be extant to drain the system. Lowering taxes and reducing spending for everyone is the only viable option at this point. It may hurt for some people, but what pain it will induce is vastly preferable to the inevitable consequences of the current projectile.
2. our economy cannot afford to.
Of course it can.
3. What most conservatives don't take into account is that the money taken by taxes doesn't vanish without being put into some goal.
Quite possibly true to some extent. Although nobody would be foolish enough to deny it if directly asked, many make this assumption while making an argument. However, the relevant point is not that government money isn't used, but rather that it isn't used productively or based out of necessity.
When presented with no internal motivation or external impetus to do well, it is highly improbable that I will put in anything beyond minimal effort and that I will reach neither my productive nor creative potential. Left-libs can learn alot from their own experiences.
4. You may have guessed it, I am a government employee, and my money is just as good at stimulating the economy as the money of the cashier at McDonalds or that of any other private sector job.
She commits an error here by confusing a single aspect of a transaction for the whole circular flow. Her spending - and saving - may very well be just as economically stimulating as anybody else's, but the salient point is that where and how the money was acquired differs in that her's was a result of paper-pushing whereas the other's was a result of providing a service that was genuinely desired. The economic cost of her job is one not only of malinvestment, but one of opportunity; because she pushes papers, she cannot do any of the other billions of jobs that would be vastly more societally riching than the one she is doing now.
You know, out of all my critics in the various intellectual fields I fence in, religion, economics, feminism, decline and fall, it has to be the ones that fall into the left side of the politics debate that are the most stupid, and perhaps most unrewarding in demolishing.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
On The Big Short
While playing ball in Springfield Missouri, I read The Big Short by Michael Lewis. I devoured the pages - screen, actually, as I read it on my Father's Kindle. The book was extremely interesting and informative. It detailed the experiences of some of the investors that saw right through Bank fraud in the Subprime mortgage market. Characters such as Steve Eisman, Michael Burry, Charlie Ledley, and Greg Lippman.
Now then, due to my knowledge of Austrian economics, I was fairly well informed of why America is facing this current recession. I knew that it was the result of malinvestment triggered by credit expansion by the central bank; too many people took out loans that they couldn't afford, so in the moment of mass default, the banks failed, and the artifically low interest rates prompted too much spending without the needed amount of savings to ultimately back up the future investment.
However, I merely assumed that the Federal Reserve lowered the interest rates and the banks were eager to give out bad loans because of a failed economic paradigm. I thought they did so because they believed that giving people more money to spend was a good thing that would not have detriment consequences in the future, even if it was a Mexican lawn mower buying a half million dollar house.
I had heard that there was unmitigated greed and fraud going on in wall street, but I didn't know how it actually happened, so I was eager dispel this mystery by reading The Big Short. The book proved to be enlightening in that it revealed the insides of Wall Street and the motivation that guided the bankers to pursue those reckless policies. What I found was a grand conspiracy of massive proportions.
What happened in the pre-crises days of Wall street was that the Subprime Mortgage market was expanded into its biggest revenue producer. The big banks such as Morgan Stanley and company were no longer satisfied performing their role in serving the consumers by providing credit to those worthy of it, and thus they allocated capital efficiently. Instead, the became enamored by the idea of repackaging subprime mortgage loans into bonds that could be then sold for a profit. There was one problem, however, in finding a buyer for bonds that largely consisted of junk loans that most certainly were not going to pay off. The way they worked around this problem, though, was to assemble a CDO of filled with sour bonds but could somehow be rigged so as to be rated at Triple A status by the Rating agencies such as Moodies and Standard and Poor. This is precisely what they did; they found loopholes in the Rating agencie's risk models and exploited them so that a bond filled with 6 figure loans given to
strawberry pickers would be rated as "riskless." So then entities like AIG would buy the bonds in mass under the illusion that what they were buying was about as safe as a U.S Treasury bond.
The theme of the book is the experiences of a few smart investors that saw the fraud going on and its ramifications for the American economy. These men were in the distinct minority, all contrarians by heart. In fact, one gets the feel that it is only those that harbor a deep-seated cynicism coupled with contrianism that can clearly see what no one else sees. So while the consumers were under the housing hysteria, and the bankers enamored by the way they could make pure profit by packaging junk loans into reliable bonds, renegades like Eisman, Burry, and Ledley saw a massive ponzi scheme that was mathematically bound to fail. The way they ended up making jack was buying billions of dollars worth of credit default swaps on Subprime Mortgage CDO's - essentially a bet that those loans will go sour.
The book is very much worth reading, and will forever alter your conception of the roots of the ongoing financial crises.
Now then, due to my knowledge of Austrian economics, I was fairly well informed of why America is facing this current recession. I knew that it was the result of malinvestment triggered by credit expansion by the central bank; too many people took out loans that they couldn't afford, so in the moment of mass default, the banks failed, and the artifically low interest rates prompted too much spending without the needed amount of savings to ultimately back up the future investment.
However, I merely assumed that the Federal Reserve lowered the interest rates and the banks were eager to give out bad loans because of a failed economic paradigm. I thought they did so because they believed that giving people more money to spend was a good thing that would not have detriment consequences in the future, even if it was a Mexican lawn mower buying a half million dollar house.
I had heard that there was unmitigated greed and fraud going on in wall street, but I didn't know how it actually happened, so I was eager dispel this mystery by reading The Big Short. The book proved to be enlightening in that it revealed the insides of Wall Street and the motivation that guided the bankers to pursue those reckless policies. What I found was a grand conspiracy of massive proportions.
What happened in the pre-crises days of Wall street was that the Subprime Mortgage market was expanded into its biggest revenue producer. The big banks such as Morgan Stanley and company were no longer satisfied performing their role in serving the consumers by providing credit to those worthy of it, and thus they allocated capital efficiently. Instead, the became enamored by the idea of repackaging subprime mortgage loans into bonds that could be then sold for a profit. There was one problem, however, in finding a buyer for bonds that largely consisted of junk loans that most certainly were not going to pay off. The way they worked around this problem, though, was to assemble a CDO of filled with sour bonds but could somehow be rigged so as to be rated at Triple A status by the Rating agencies such as Moodies and Standard and Poor. This is precisely what they did; they found loopholes in the Rating agencie's risk models and exploited them so that a bond filled with 6 figure loans given to
strawberry pickers would be rated as "riskless." So then entities like AIG would buy the bonds in mass under the illusion that what they were buying was about as safe as a U.S Treasury bond.
The theme of the book is the experiences of a few smart investors that saw the fraud going on and its ramifications for the American economy. These men were in the distinct minority, all contrarians by heart. In fact, one gets the feel that it is only those that harbor a deep-seated cynicism coupled with contrianism that can clearly see what no one else sees. So while the consumers were under the housing hysteria, and the bankers enamored by the way they could make pure profit by packaging junk loans into reliable bonds, renegades like Eisman, Burry, and Ledley saw a massive ponzi scheme that was mathematically bound to fail. The way they ended up making jack was buying billions of dollars worth of credit default swaps on Subprime Mortgage CDO's - essentially a bet that those loans will go sour.
The book is very much worth reading, and will forever alter your conception of the roots of the ongoing financial crises.
More economic hogwash
Featured in the Wall Street Journal was a daring editorial blurb written by Sir Harold Evans, in which he confidently states that the stimulus package and Tarp were not only beneficial to the economy, but have been demonstrated to be beneficial. And in doing so, Evans reveals a myopic and blind trust in the authorities that got us into the mess so that we needed Tarp and Stimulus in the first place:
The Congressional Budget Office report of November 2010 and careful econometric assessments by two independent economists, Pof. Alan Blinder and Mark Zander, chief economist at Moody's.
You trust Moody's? Are you F----- kidding? If Moody's rated what was obviously crappy triple B bonds into riskless triple A one's, what makes you think that they can reliably examine the effects of a policy on the economy, which is almost infinitely more complex that than a single bond. But of course, not only should one not place any credibility on what Moody's has to say, but should place an active bet against, every time. Just ask Steve Eisman.
In here we find epistemological arrogance on a grand scale. GDP lower by 11.5%? Despite the elegant equations and appeal to numbers, much of economics does not, and intrinsically cannot, predict what would have happened, let alone the future, with any degree of accuracy.
Although I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the gist of the message. GDP probably would be down had not the government taken action. Considering that Government spending is added to the sum total of GDP, this is not surprising. If the Government borrowed a trillion dollars and wastefully spent it, that would add one trillion dollars to the GDP. The problem, however, is that spending is not inherently beneficial to the economy, and at times can be antithetical to it. As regular readers of this blog will surely point out, stimulus packages serve to redirect money into areas where they otherwise wouldn't be directed, mostly because nobody has need of it. So we overbuilt our real estate, do we need to hire more construction workers and build more houses? The American Recovery Act is both artificial and deceptive in its effects. It is this that makes the issue so convoluted.
Moreover, TARP and ARA-induced economic recovery is not necessarily indicative of long term growth; debts have to repaid, and people will eventually have to take their training wheels off, because they will fall once they break.
Sir Evans' diatribe on the matter is not evidence that the various government interventions were beneficial to the American economy, it merely serves to demonstrate that you should be very careful where you place your blind, unwitty trust.
The Congressional Budget Office report of November 2010 and careful econometric assessments by two independent economists, Pof. Alan Blinder and Mark Zander, chief economist at Moody's.
You trust Moody's? Are you F----- kidding? If Moody's rated what was obviously crappy triple B bonds into riskless triple A one's, what makes you think that they can reliably examine the effects of a policy on the economy, which is almost infinitely more complex that than a single bond. But of course, not only should one not place any credibility on what Moody's has to say, but should place an active bet against, every time. Just ask Steve Eisman.
Both nonpartisan reports identify the positive effects of the american Recovery Act and TARP: "Without the government response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million Jobs and we would now be experiencing deflation."
In here we find epistemological arrogance on a grand scale. GDP lower by 11.5%? Despite the elegant equations and appeal to numbers, much of economics does not, and intrinsically cannot, predict what would have happened, let alone the future, with any degree of accuracy.
Although I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the gist of the message. GDP probably would be down had not the government taken action. Considering that Government spending is added to the sum total of GDP, this is not surprising. If the Government borrowed a trillion dollars and wastefully spent it, that would add one trillion dollars to the GDP. The problem, however, is that spending is not inherently beneficial to the economy, and at times can be antithetical to it. As regular readers of this blog will surely point out, stimulus packages serve to redirect money into areas where they otherwise wouldn't be directed, mostly because nobody has need of it. So we overbuilt our real estate, do we need to hire more construction workers and build more houses? The American Recovery Act is both artificial and deceptive in its effects. It is this that makes the issue so convoluted.
Moreover, TARP and ARA-induced economic recovery is not necessarily indicative of long term growth; debts have to repaid, and people will eventually have to take their training wheels off, because they will fall once they break.
Sir Evans' diatribe on the matter is not evidence that the various government interventions were beneficial to the American economy, it merely serves to demonstrate that you should be very careful where you place your blind, unwitty trust.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
You know its true
Many of the great literary classics have libertarian themes. Atlas Shrugged, The moon is a harsh mistress, 1984, We.
My hypothesis is that there are many good novels out there, those have just stood the test of time and have become great due to the veracity of their worldview.
My leftist critics trembled.
My hypothesis is that there are many good novels out there, those have just stood the test of time and have become great due to the veracity of their worldview.
My leftist critics trembled.
You really wish to doubt?
The message of this blog has been a little dark for the past few months. Many have expressed their agreement with the Vanfair worldview but have denied its logical implications for the future state of the economy and Western Civilization.
To those that doubt my projections, please bear in mind that they are not based upon superstitious doomsday scenarios or prophecies from obscure pseudo-prophets, but rigorous mathematics and proven models that describe the way the world actually works.
Let me ask you, dear skeptical reader, do you truly decry the policies and the trends going on, and yet deny the harsh consequences of such policies?
Do you genuinely believe that immigration - and the multiculturalism that follows - is a killer of its host, and yet disbelieve that American will never be the same again?
Do really believe that you yourself would go bankrupt, if you plunged yourself into debt that could not possibly be paid back, and yet believe that our government will remain solvent?
Do you absolutely trust in the multiplication tables, and yet lack faith that they apply to the demographic situation of the West?
Have you observed the oft-confirmed principle that most people are idiots, and yet think that giving them the right to vote won't discredit American democracy?
Do you actually accept the fundamental fact of Homo Sapien's collective nature that the more you subsidize something, the more you get of it, and yet remain in denial that putting half the population in dependence and unproductivity, and yet believe our economy is sustainable?
Do you cherish the fact that the nuclear family is the foundation of a civilization, and still cling to the notion that society can survive, if it is considered an outdated concept?
It is understandable that most have either shyed away from or have been in denial about the dark future that awaits us. But good people know it in their hearts. Some sense it but are unable to properly articulate it. Others know but wish not to contemplate it. And then there is the Alpha Anomaly, who is not afraid to speak his thoughts, and is enamored by provoking readers to understand the world not in its pretty, reality-twisted form, but through the fundamental underpinnings that drive the motor of the human invention, the pinnings that reveal a world wholly distinct from the one conceived of those pretty, dainty lies.
To those that doubt my projections, please bear in mind that they are not based upon superstitious doomsday scenarios or prophecies from obscure pseudo-prophets, but rigorous mathematics and proven models that describe the way the world actually works.
Let me ask you, dear skeptical reader, do you truly decry the policies and the trends going on, and yet deny the harsh consequences of such policies?
Do you genuinely believe that immigration - and the multiculturalism that follows - is a killer of its host, and yet disbelieve that American will never be the same again?
Do really believe that you yourself would go bankrupt, if you plunged yourself into debt that could not possibly be paid back, and yet believe that our government will remain solvent?
Do you absolutely trust in the multiplication tables, and yet lack faith that they apply to the demographic situation of the West?
Have you observed the oft-confirmed principle that most people are idiots, and yet think that giving them the right to vote won't discredit American democracy?
Do you actually accept the fundamental fact of Homo Sapien's collective nature that the more you subsidize something, the more you get of it, and yet remain in denial that putting half the population in dependence and unproductivity, and yet believe our economy is sustainable?
Do you cherish the fact that the nuclear family is the foundation of a civilization, and still cling to the notion that society can survive, if it is considered an outdated concept?
It is understandable that most have either shyed away from or have been in denial about the dark future that awaits us. But good people know it in their hearts. Some sense it but are unable to properly articulate it. Others know but wish not to contemplate it. And then there is the Alpha Anomaly, who is not afraid to speak his thoughts, and is enamored by provoking readers to understand the world not in its pretty, reality-twisted form, but through the fundamental underpinnings that drive the motor of the human invention, the pinnings that reveal a world wholly distinct from the one conceived of those pretty, dainty lies.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Abolish it
To quote Jonah Goldberg
Every freedom loving patriot should be adamant about abolishing the public school. I mean abolish, not reform it. The typical conservative argument that the schools are inadequate in their modern form but can be remedied by educational reform is a joke. The public school is categorically incongruous with human liberty because it fuels the entity that destroys it. So while it is true that the education program of the public school is severely lacking, this concern should not be confused with the fundamental objection thrown its way.
As I am writing this, I am listening to 30 seconds to mars song "this is war", in which the singer (bolstered by people's voices in the backround) laments - no, celebrates, if the tone is any indication - that its a brave new world. For some reason, I have no trouble imagining public schoolers relishing singing this for a school play. Then stuck in my mind are the images of Huxley's novel. If possible, I really would like to avoid such a world.
Since Plato's Republic, politicans, intellectuals, and priests have been fascinated with the idea of "capturing" children for social-engineering purposes.Whoever said that those who rocked the cradle ruled the world was absolutely right. Public education is wholly antithetical to the cause of freedom because it puts the nation's fate in the Government's hands. By creating an economic atmosphere where both parents work, the Commufeminists have skillfully filled the vacuum of child support by supplying the public schools - aka. public day care. And by doing so they have significantly weakened one of the best bulwarks against Government power - the nuclear family.
Every freedom loving patriot should be adamant about abolishing the public school. I mean abolish, not reform it. The typical conservative argument that the schools are inadequate in their modern form but can be remedied by educational reform is a joke. The public school is categorically incongruous with human liberty because it fuels the entity that destroys it. So while it is true that the education program of the public school is severely lacking, this concern should not be confused with the fundamental objection thrown its way.
As I am writing this, I am listening to 30 seconds to mars song "this is war", in which the singer (bolstered by people's voices in the backround) laments - no, celebrates, if the tone is any indication - that its a brave new world. For some reason, I have no trouble imagining public schoolers relishing singing this for a school play. Then stuck in my mind are the images of Huxley's novel. If possible, I really would like to avoid such a world.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Me vs. the Experts
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal informing us that the economists there were optimistic about this upcoming year. The optimism, of course, rests entirely on false indicators and a bloated emphasis on consumer confidence and spending, not realizing that the underlying problem is too much spending and too much debt. Not understanding the true nature of the recession has caused the financial authorities to push for the precise policies that got us into this mess in the first place, having the effect of creating an artificial recovery that will be followed by a deeper and harder crash.
The economists over at the journal are mislead because they have forgot that superficial growth can sow the seeds of an ensuing crises. Four years ago, the economy was booming by every standard. But what did it beget? And what makes you believe that the apparent recovery is not composed of the same substance as the previous boom? Interest rates are at record lows, foreclosures are being stalled, debt is accumulating, the gap in our manufacturing capacity is overshadowed by the fact that we get our goods for free (at least for now), the bond market is bubbling, heck, even student loans are bubbling.
Whether it will collapse this year or not is uncertain, but it will happen within the next few years. Here's the test in which we see who is right. The economic authorities read by millions, or your humble messenger of this little internet outpost.
A newly Resilient economy is poised to expand this year at its fastest pace since 2003, thanks in part to brisk spending by consumers and businesses.Spending that would otherwise not take place if the true condition of the economy were widely known. But as we will see, much of this spending is based on much of the same cheap credit that fueled the previous decades boom and subsequent bust.
The 51 economists polled.... expect gross domestic product will be 3.5% higher in the fourth quarter of 2011 than a year earlier... that would be the largest increase since 2003.Those economists must not be paying attention to Washington lately. Much of GDP growth reported in the previous year was a result from the increase of Government spending. Once the Government is unable to carry any more debt and the new Republican congress refuses to tolerate it, GDP will plummet. This is not a bad thing, but it will strip away the comforting illusions that serve as the basis for most of the optimistic forecasts.
To be sure, the economy faces substantial challenges, including high foreclosure rates, rising commodity prices, strained state and local governments as well as the risk that financial tremors in europe and geopolitical ones in Egypt could cut into growth.Realistic rendition of the above text: the economy faces huge challenges; there is too much debt, private and public, that has to be liquidated.
Since late last summer, the economy appears to have strengthened considerably. The economists put the risk of a return to recession at 12%, down from 22% in September.How so? The fact that people have forgot about Europe? That their doubts about the economy are silenced by the skewed and deeply fraudulent GDP and unemployment numbers? The BLS notwithstanding, the economy is very much struggling, and only a FED Cheerleader trying to feed our collective "animal spirits" can seriously have good prospects for this year's economy.
Meanwhile, nine of 10 say the turmoil in Egypt hasn't substantially altered their outlook.Here is a perfect example of academics concentrating too much on the micro fact without considering the broader trends behind it. What the turmoil in Egypt indicates is a wave of societal unrest. Academic social science notwithstanding, there really are waves of human emotion that flow inexorably. The specifics of the waves may be beyond even the the finest of human minds, but there is an engine that drives history and events, waves in which Egypt is merely a harbinger to.
The economists over at the journal are mislead because they have forgot that superficial growth can sow the seeds of an ensuing crises. Four years ago, the economy was booming by every standard. But what did it beget? And what makes you believe that the apparent recovery is not composed of the same substance as the previous boom? Interest rates are at record lows, foreclosures are being stalled, debt is accumulating, the gap in our manufacturing capacity is overshadowed by the fact that we get our goods for free (at least for now), the bond market is bubbling, heck, even student loans are bubbling.
Whether it will collapse this year or not is uncertain, but it will happen within the next few years. Here's the test in which we see who is right. The economic authorities read by millions, or your humble messenger of this little internet outpost.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
A policy prescription for our ill's
It has been a recurring theme of this internet outpost that civilization has we know it is on the brink of destruction. And while I am relatively confident that it will not be a return to the Dark Ages akin to a Canticle for Leiobiwitz scenario where most of our knowledge will be lost, I am convinced that the current trendlines, the cultural and economic indicators, portend to a swift and painful fall.
The branches of knowledge that have informed me of this conclusion are from a gamut of sources that include economics, game theory, socionomics, and history.
So while it has been your humble narrator's dreadful hobby to chronicle the trendlines in the effort to construct a pessimist's manifesto of gloom and doom, the proprietor here at the Alpha Anomaly will have to wield some self-control and provide some constructive advice. Hence, the purpose of this post is to give 10 practical policy solutions that will put America back on track. Indeed, it has always been my contention that the damage has already been done, and no amount of policy making short of the hand of God will avert the destruction that awaits us. But the prescriptions below will lay a pathway for longterm improvement. Have you read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series? The solutions below are akin to the foundation that can only reduce the Galactic Empires decay to 1000 years instead of 30000. But I digress.
1. First things first, cut the income tax in half, for all payers, not just those that make 250,000 or less. More money in the private sphere is the best remedy for a screeching economy. This will promote actual savings and genuine economic growth.
2. Eliminate 5% percent of the Government each year for 10 years, having the effect of reducing the the size of the Government by half while coushening the impact of millions of Government employees integrating into the private sector. Specific areas of the Government that should be cut are the Department of Education, defense, airport security, foreign aid and subsidies of almost every kind. Stimulus packages and public works projects are out of the question. They merely direct human labor to unwanted and wasteful endeavors.
3. An end to all government retirement and welfare programs. Savings is the hallmark of a strong and sustainable economy; Social Security is a huge disincentive to save, as well as being a ponzi scheme that will go bankrupt eventually, either on its own, or when our Government defaults. An end to welfare programs, including for single moms, also must be done. The best way to destroy civilization is to kill the nuclear family, subsidizing single mothers by making Government their husband is a recipe for disaster and the consequences won't go unfelt. Only when we stop sustaining individually and collectively destructive behaviors will we see less of it.
4. Halt immigration for at least 20 years. The ongoing multicultural trainwreck has conclusively demonstrated that a diverse ethnic population does not assimilate together very easily; it only creates a conflict of interest that fuels itself by cheap democracy where voters vote themselves entitlement schemes. Immigration also radically transforms a nations cultural identity, and will destroy American society just as Colonial European immigration destroyed the Indian culture. Maintaining that the Government should Nationality-blind is tantamount to rejecting the concept of "nationhood" altogether.
5. Abolish the Federal Reserve. The FED is merely a tool to increase Government power by allowing it control over the money supply. It has hovered over runaway inflation that destroys savings, and has created far too many boom-and-bust cycles that have wrecked the economy. If the Chairman of the FED was God, it would work; not so well with fallible human beings.
6. An end to no fault divorce laws and other feminist laws in favor of a more patriarchal set up, and restore incentives for men to marry and less incentives for women to divorce. Establish the Fathers as the owners of their children, and make them responsible for their family. Doing this will tame men by putting their vested interest into their families, thereby creating less bastard children without fathers and more fathers working toward a productive goal. The reason patriarchy is necessary for a civilization's existence is because the family is the building block for a healthy society. And while it is true that motherhood is a natural phenomena, the same is not true for fatherhood. This is why fathers MUST have legal responsibility over their biological children and families. Or else the music stops.
7. Financially compensate families that do not put their children in public school. This will encourage people to get out of that deadly institution. Eventually, the public school should be abolished, as it is the primary vehicle of state control over children, as per the Marx's Communist Manifesto.
8. A restriction of voting rights for Government employees and limit it to net tax payers. Voting is a defense mechanism to preserve freedom, so it was never designed to be given to those who would benefit from Government power. If your sissy politically correct mind thinks this is unfair, then consider that there is a fundamental dichotomy between universal suffrage and freedom. Its one or the other; you can't have both.
9. Get the military out of the middle east and all the other countries we are occupying. There is likely to be economic winter in the following years and we cannot afford to be building an overseas empire.
10. Get out of the United Nations. Don't even think about forfeiting our nationhood to be part of some Global power. A global currency is also out of the question.
There are other, less significant, policies that would ameliorate America's economic and cultural woes, but the aforementioned ten will be a start in rebuilding America again.
The branches of knowledge that have informed me of this conclusion are from a gamut of sources that include economics, game theory, socionomics, and history.
So while it has been your humble narrator's dreadful hobby to chronicle the trendlines in the effort to construct a pessimist's manifesto of gloom and doom, the proprietor here at the Alpha Anomaly will have to wield some self-control and provide some constructive advice. Hence, the purpose of this post is to give 10 practical policy solutions that will put America back on track. Indeed, it has always been my contention that the damage has already been done, and no amount of policy making short of the hand of God will avert the destruction that awaits us. But the prescriptions below will lay a pathway for longterm improvement. Have you read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series? The solutions below are akin to the foundation that can only reduce the Galactic Empires decay to 1000 years instead of 30000. But I digress.
1. First things first, cut the income tax in half, for all payers, not just those that make 250,000 or less. More money in the private sphere is the best remedy for a screeching economy. This will promote actual savings and genuine economic growth.
2. Eliminate 5% percent of the Government each year for 10 years, having the effect of reducing the the size of the Government by half while coushening the impact of millions of Government employees integrating into the private sector. Specific areas of the Government that should be cut are the Department of Education, defense, airport security, foreign aid and subsidies of almost every kind. Stimulus packages and public works projects are out of the question. They merely direct human labor to unwanted and wasteful endeavors.
3. An end to all government retirement and welfare programs. Savings is the hallmark of a strong and sustainable economy; Social Security is a huge disincentive to save, as well as being a ponzi scheme that will go bankrupt eventually, either on its own, or when our Government defaults. An end to welfare programs, including for single moms, also must be done. The best way to destroy civilization is to kill the nuclear family, subsidizing single mothers by making Government their husband is a recipe for disaster and the consequences won't go unfelt. Only when we stop sustaining individually and collectively destructive behaviors will we see less of it.
4. Halt immigration for at least 20 years. The ongoing multicultural trainwreck has conclusively demonstrated that a diverse ethnic population does not assimilate together very easily; it only creates a conflict of interest that fuels itself by cheap democracy where voters vote themselves entitlement schemes. Immigration also radically transforms a nations cultural identity, and will destroy American society just as Colonial European immigration destroyed the Indian culture. Maintaining that the Government should Nationality-blind is tantamount to rejecting the concept of "nationhood" altogether.
5. Abolish the Federal Reserve. The FED is merely a tool to increase Government power by allowing it control over the money supply. It has hovered over runaway inflation that destroys savings, and has created far too many boom-and-bust cycles that have wrecked the economy. If the Chairman of the FED was God, it would work; not so well with fallible human beings.
6. An end to no fault divorce laws and other feminist laws in favor of a more patriarchal set up, and restore incentives for men to marry and less incentives for women to divorce. Establish the Fathers as the owners of their children, and make them responsible for their family. Doing this will tame men by putting their vested interest into their families, thereby creating less bastard children without fathers and more fathers working toward a productive goal. The reason patriarchy is necessary for a civilization's existence is because the family is the building block for a healthy society. And while it is true that motherhood is a natural phenomena, the same is not true for fatherhood. This is why fathers MUST have legal responsibility over their biological children and families. Or else the music stops.
7. Financially compensate families that do not put their children in public school. This will encourage people to get out of that deadly institution. Eventually, the public school should be abolished, as it is the primary vehicle of state control over children, as per the Marx's Communist Manifesto.
8. A restriction of voting rights for Government employees and limit it to net tax payers. Voting is a defense mechanism to preserve freedom, so it was never designed to be given to those who would benefit from Government power. If your sissy politically correct mind thinks this is unfair, then consider that there is a fundamental dichotomy between universal suffrage and freedom. Its one or the other; you can't have both.
9. Get the military out of the middle east and all the other countries we are occupying. There is likely to be economic winter in the following years and we cannot afford to be building an overseas empire.
10. Get out of the United Nations. Don't even think about forfeiting our nationhood to be part of some Global power. A global currency is also out of the question.
There are other, less significant, policies that would ameliorate America's economic and cultural woes, but the aforementioned ten will be a start in rebuilding America again.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
On Proffessor Frank Granack
This semester, I have the privilege of being in Dr. Frank Granack class on economics. He is a great teacher and an excellent speaker, not to mention the fact that he frequently digressess in the tangential turf of politics. Its like listening to talk radio.
So far he has gone over the concepts of opportunity cost and scarce resources. From the start he has made it clear that he is a capitalist and opposes Keynesianism by espousing Neoclassicalism. This is great.
I don't agree with him on everything, so I am interested in sparking a few conversations with him. Currently I am trying to piece together his beliefs to see how well they fit. He seems to be a political libertarian, even if he may not call himself that (I don't know yet). I have made one interesting observation so far about a perceived dichotomy.
1. He rejects the Keynesian worldview, ditching it in favor of the ideas of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman (Milton is his favorite economist).
2. As well has getting an economics degree, he majored in psychology, a field largely influenced by Sigmund Freud, whose psychoanalysis formed the basis of John Maynard Keynes's "animal spirits". With this information after the first lecture, I resolved the dichotomy by convincing myself that Granack either didn't make the connection between Freud and Keynes or simply rejected the Freudian worldview.
3. In the second (and latest) lecture, he recounts his dismay at one economist who claimed that consumer confidence "was overrated." Now this makes things interesting. [note for the uniformed reader: consumer confidence and "animal spirits" are practically synonymous]
Is Professor Granack saddling a massive contradiction? I can't answer that at this point. Moreover, it seems to me to be entirely possible that one cannot accept the major role of "animal spirits" while rejecting the efficacy of Government spending and stimulus packages. I don't know, and my knowledge of the subject is far from complete, so I could be voicing an unmerited concern. But I am definitely looking forward to this class, whether or not I resolved this dilemma.
So far he has gone over the concepts of opportunity cost and scarce resources. From the start he has made it clear that he is a capitalist and opposes Keynesianism by espousing Neoclassicalism. This is great.
I don't agree with him on everything, so I am interested in sparking a few conversations with him. Currently I am trying to piece together his beliefs to see how well they fit. He seems to be a political libertarian, even if he may not call himself that (I don't know yet). I have made one interesting observation so far about a perceived dichotomy.
1. He rejects the Keynesian worldview, ditching it in favor of the ideas of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman (Milton is his favorite economist).
2. As well has getting an economics degree, he majored in psychology, a field largely influenced by Sigmund Freud, whose psychoanalysis formed the basis of John Maynard Keynes's "animal spirits". With this information after the first lecture, I resolved the dichotomy by convincing myself that Granack either didn't make the connection between Freud and Keynes or simply rejected the Freudian worldview.
3. In the second (and latest) lecture, he recounts his dismay at one economist who claimed that consumer confidence "was overrated." Now this makes things interesting. [note for the uniformed reader: consumer confidence and "animal spirits" are practically synonymous]
Is Professor Granack saddling a massive contradiction? I can't answer that at this point. Moreover, it seems to me to be entirely possible that one cannot accept the major role of "animal spirits" while rejecting the efficacy of Government spending and stimulus packages. I don't know, and my knowledge of the subject is far from complete, so I could be voicing an unmerited concern. But I am definitely looking forward to this class, whether or not I resolved this dilemma.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
What the social does for you
But those with whom I was intimate did not act towards me the part of Christians, or even of honest men. Their object seemed to be to make and keep me idle. If ever I appeared studious, they would say to me, "Why in the world should a man of your future trouble himself with fagging?"Those were the words of William Wilberforce, the great reformer in England best known for his industrious opposition of the slave trade. While he recorded those notes in his diary, they may have as well been said by myself, or anyone else who lives in this world. The social ambiance is now, as it was then, such that most people are OUT TO DESTROY your work ethic by inflicting their habits of sloth, via direct conversation or example. Acquaintances of all kinds will drag you into unproductive behaviors unless you have an internal motivation to say no. Humans, being social creatures, are not wont to say no and resist the temptations.
Wilberforce was an exceptionally gregarious and charming man, which was why he was particularly prone in spending his time around the club and the card table. Only after a religious conversion was he able focus and eventually perturb the orbit that society lied out for him and surmount his lazy habits.
While introverts have a significantly easier time resisting the social pull, they are neither immune to it nor are they necessarily inclined to spend the time on their own productively, as the huge video game market testifies so convincingly. Only if you understand that the world isn't your friend, and adjust your mindset accordingly by no longer seeking approval from others, will you be able to able apply yourself to your full potential.
I got a brief glimpse of that pull at work while I was over at Oak Ridge High School watching a basketball game. Great game, loved watching them play. But one thought that was persistently imposing itself into my mind was that the surrounding kids were remarkably frivolous, creating an environment that reeked of unmerited self-satisfied superiority.
I am not urging you to closet yourself in your work. Nor am I insisting that society has nothing to offer, it does; there really are individuals on your side who will motivate you, in fact much of what jump-started me was knowing someone who was evidently self-driven in all his actions, but they are not the norm so cherish everyone like acquaintance you get.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
In search of Knowledge
I have been immersing myself in the economic and cultural literature, informing me of the overall trend-lines that are occurring in western Civilization. Vox Day, the Mises institute, and the Wall Street Journal have provided the economic info, while the Roissy Cheatuea has delineated the implications of the societal devolution into pre-civilized mating patterns. After ensconcing myself in that material for the previous year, I felt in command of the facts and arguments for what the current social wind portends for the future. I have explicated a bit of the economics side on this little internet outpost, but I have decidedly omitted discussing the Roissy-rich topics of Game theory and its lens for examining society, perhaps I will share a few of his ideas on a future post.
I have, however, neglected the role of technology in the entire process of cultural evolution. What reminded me of this was a dinner table conversation with my father, brother, and I about the possibility that Robots and advanced computers will obviate conscious driving; that cars will be driven by autopilot.
I tried to think of the future state of technology and its ramifications for the world, but I didn't get very far. I just realized that this was a job for much finer and more informed minds than my own. So I am looking for a blogger or author that writes with a morbid wit and expounds about not the technical details but of the general implications future technology will have upon our society. He must also have a major, a perhaps a bit insane, thesis.
Every year I try to find someone new who will guide me in the vast ocean of knowledge within a sensible, explanatory worldview, so perhaps a writer like this will provide an option for the upcoming year.
I have, however, neglected the role of technology in the entire process of cultural evolution. What reminded me of this was a dinner table conversation with my father, brother, and I about the possibility that Robots and advanced computers will obviate conscious driving; that cars will be driven by autopilot.
I tried to think of the future state of technology and its ramifications for the world, but I didn't get very far. I just realized that this was a job for much finer and more informed minds than my own. So I am looking for a blogger or author that writes with a morbid wit and expounds about not the technical details but of the general implications future technology will have upon our society. He must also have a major, a perhaps a bit insane, thesis.
Every year I try to find someone new who will guide me in the vast ocean of knowledge within a sensible, explanatory worldview, so perhaps a writer like this will provide an option for the upcoming year.
A conversation with Virgil Vanfair
You've devoted yourself to a strict schedule in a self improvement crusade. What are your primary motivations for doing so?
Ever since the 7th grade, I have been working diligently to sharpen my talents and assets. I don't know how the motivation came to me, or why it came at such an early age, but the thing that keeps me going is previous success, and a desire to get more of it. 2010 was such a good year in this regard, I want an even better one this year.
I have also been a huge fan of reading biographies, which has led me to read about the greats such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Jefferson from which I have derived inspiration from. I have always aspired to become like the greats and to be a good steward of my God-given talents, I guess thats what drives me.
You show a fair amount of interest in the SAT/PSAT tests, what score are you striving for? Are you a national merit scholar?
As to the latter question. No, for the very good reason that my graduate class will not being receiving recognition until next fall. But my scores are well within the top 1%, so its pretty much a guarantee that I will be at least an outstanding participant. As to the former, my ultimate goal is to get a perfect score, at least on the Reading and Math sections.
What is your I.Q? Have you looked into the various I.Q societies such as Mensa?
Over the supposed genius level. How much over, I don't know, although I suspect it isn't by that much. I have thought about joining the various societies, if I were to pick one to go for, it would be Triple Nine, which requires an I.Q of is one person in a thousand. The thing this, the mensa threshold isn't really all that spectacular. If you have 1000 readers, the chances are that 20 of them are Mensa material. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of politicians and elected leaders can hardly pass that not too impressive mark speaks volumes about who is really running this country.
Where do you stand on the I.Q debate? How much of a role does it play in individual success?
Warren Buff is known to have said that any I.Q points exceeding 125 are wasted if you want to make money. That I can hardly dispute. Although I think the reason most studies show a weak correlation between I.Q and success is because the metric used to define success if financial welfare. The problem is is that many individuals possessing a high intelligence are successful in their field but may not be particularly lucrative. The Scientific profession is a case in point; I very much doubt that a physicist with an I.Q of 150 will make more money that a lawyer with an I.Q of 120.
Anyway, it is not completely true to assert a perfect correlation between the two. Diligence, interpersonal skills, and other modes of creative thinking are just as important in the success equation. To object to the I.Q measure because it does not accurately predict success is a category error; it doesn't because it was merely designed to measure abstract and spatial intelligence in order to predict academic success, which means it isn't a comprehensive Life test.
But I will admit though, SWPL's are a little too enamored of it.
To what extent can you improve your intelligence, and how?
To a great extent, I believe. Although certain types of intelligence can be improved more that others. In garder's division of 7 kinds of Intelligence, I would say that interpersonal, verbal, spatial, and musical provide the greatest room for improvement, whereas math, intrapersonal, and physical, are a little more difficult. The actual intelligence you understand, not the knowledge base. Although it is extremely difficult to become an actual genius in any of those areas without exceptional inborn talent.
On exactly how one goes about boosting it depends on the type. Spatial requires access and proper us of the right side of the brain, which can be difficult to tap in, but produces dramatic results once it is done. This is why some fledgling drawers can get absolutely nowhere in a month and others progress rapidly in the same period. Math requires a similar transformation, but the mechanism behind that transformation is not very well understood, and the effects are less dramatic. Verbal requires just reading, writing and listening to a well written/spoken article of information. Musical demands delving into the logical foundation of musical patterns as described by the scales and improvisation methods. And interpersonal skills can be greatly enhanced when you become a ruthless observer of human behavior and a constant ponderer of that behavior. Vanfair Maxim #23: Observation without proper reflection not only does the mind no good, but does it a disservice by creating an illusion of knowledge and experience. Anyway, an entire book could be written on the subject of intelligence enhancement, I very well may write that book someday, but I not at the moment.
Thank you for the all the insight that you bring to a conversation. One last question, can you provide a list of all your goals for 2011?
I will be posting them sometime this weekend. And thank you, its a pleasure doing this with you.
He will be interviewing me next week on an entirely different subject. The current condition of Western Civilization.
Ever since the 7th grade, I have been working diligently to sharpen my talents and assets. I don't know how the motivation came to me, or why it came at such an early age, but the thing that keeps me going is previous success, and a desire to get more of it. 2010 was such a good year in this regard, I want an even better one this year.
I have also been a huge fan of reading biographies, which has led me to read about the greats such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Jefferson from which I have derived inspiration from. I have always aspired to become like the greats and to be a good steward of my God-given talents, I guess thats what drives me.
You show a fair amount of interest in the SAT/PSAT tests, what score are you striving for? Are you a national merit scholar?
As to the latter question. No, for the very good reason that my graduate class will not being receiving recognition until next fall. But my scores are well within the top 1%, so its pretty much a guarantee that I will be at least an outstanding participant. As to the former, my ultimate goal is to get a perfect score, at least on the Reading and Math sections.
What is your I.Q? Have you looked into the various I.Q societies such as Mensa?
Over the supposed genius level. How much over, I don't know, although I suspect it isn't by that much. I have thought about joining the various societies, if I were to pick one to go for, it would be Triple Nine, which requires an I.Q of is one person in a thousand. The thing this, the mensa threshold isn't really all that spectacular. If you have 1000 readers, the chances are that 20 of them are Mensa material. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of politicians and elected leaders can hardly pass that not too impressive mark speaks volumes about who is really running this country.
Where do you stand on the I.Q debate? How much of a role does it play in individual success?
Warren Buff is known to have said that any I.Q points exceeding 125 are wasted if you want to make money. That I can hardly dispute. Although I think the reason most studies show a weak correlation between I.Q and success is because the metric used to define success if financial welfare. The problem is is that many individuals possessing a high intelligence are successful in their field but may not be particularly lucrative. The Scientific profession is a case in point; I very much doubt that a physicist with an I.Q of 150 will make more money that a lawyer with an I.Q of 120.
Anyway, it is not completely true to assert a perfect correlation between the two. Diligence, interpersonal skills, and other modes of creative thinking are just as important in the success equation. To object to the I.Q measure because it does not accurately predict success is a category error; it doesn't because it was merely designed to measure abstract and spatial intelligence in order to predict academic success, which means it isn't a comprehensive Life test.
But I will admit though, SWPL's are a little too enamored of it.
To what extent can you improve your intelligence, and how?
To a great extent, I believe. Although certain types of intelligence can be improved more that others. In garder's division of 7 kinds of Intelligence, I would say that interpersonal, verbal, spatial, and musical provide the greatest room for improvement, whereas math, intrapersonal, and physical, are a little more difficult. The actual intelligence you understand, not the knowledge base. Although it is extremely difficult to become an actual genius in any of those areas without exceptional inborn talent.
On exactly how one goes about boosting it depends on the type. Spatial requires access and proper us of the right side of the brain, which can be difficult to tap in, but produces dramatic results once it is done. This is why some fledgling drawers can get absolutely nowhere in a month and others progress rapidly in the same period. Math requires a similar transformation, but the mechanism behind that transformation is not very well understood, and the effects are less dramatic. Verbal requires just reading, writing and listening to a well written/spoken article of information. Musical demands delving into the logical foundation of musical patterns as described by the scales and improvisation methods. And interpersonal skills can be greatly enhanced when you become a ruthless observer of human behavior and a constant ponderer of that behavior. Vanfair Maxim #23: Observation without proper reflection not only does the mind no good, but does it a disservice by creating an illusion of knowledge and experience. Anyway, an entire book could be written on the subject of intelligence enhancement, I very well may write that book someday, but I not at the moment.
Thank you for the all the insight that you bring to a conversation. One last question, can you provide a list of all your goals for 2011?
I will be posting them sometime this weekend. And thank you, its a pleasure doing this with you.
He will be interviewing me next week on an entirely different subject. The current condition of Western Civilization.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
An answer to the Welfare case
In a previous post, I demonstrated the economic absurdity of the welfare state. I did this by proving that the transaction from the top to bottom created a landscape where more responsible individuals who invested their money in productive things had to yield some of that productivity to the wasteful and unfrugal welfare recipients. The overall productivity loss is aggravated by the wastefulness of the welfare distributors (aka the Government), and diverts money from the productive private sector to the counterproductive public one.
In another earlier post, I conclusively established that the welfare state is not an implication of the moral dictates of the Bible and Christianity, and that *Christian Socialists* don't know their theology very well.
But whenever I am successful in demolishing an interculocutor's argument, there is always a plea of desperation exhibited by the losing party. In this case, there still is another fallback position thrown by the petty libborg when they are desperate laying prone to bite my ankles. Unfortunately for them, just as my intellect outstrips theirs' by a few standard deviations, my ankles are immune to their critism. By their fallback position I mean their dissent from logical and economic reality to morality and justice - how the leftists arrive at such notions is beyond me, but then again, they aren't exactly known for their swell thinking abilities, the ivy leagues high I.Q's notwithstanding. Moreover, the idea that expropriation is in accordance to morality and justice reeks of a scary system of ethics.
They repeat their appeals of empathy for the poor and unfortunate. Implying that it is not so much the total economic output as it is the number of individuals under poverty, so while the welfare state may detract from the aggregate economy, it coushens the blow of poverty.
The moral motivation isn't all that unreasonable, but it argues on false premises. Because the reality is that welfare doesn't even help the poor. There are reasons why the welfare state is antithetical to the poverous. 1) receiving free money doesn't help one's morale by keeping them even more dependant 2) In a capitalist economy, where one gets rich by serving the consumers, one cannot seperate *aggregate* and *individual*, in a pure free-market economy, wealth is (almost) positive sum, and most importantly 3) the free market is already a system where wealth is distributed. Very like welfare with one distinct difference: the medium of distribution. In a socialist commonwealth, the State acts as the medium by instigating the process. In a free market system, production acts as the medium. In both cases, distribution occurs, in one case you have a house or a car leftover, with the hard worker doing paid off, in the other case you have wasted capital and human labor leftover, with the unproductive being paid off. This is why the more concentrated the welfare pill, the poorer that everyone, including the lower class, becomes.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas
What a great Christmas. I got as many gifts as I can be grateful for, and my family and I have had a great Christmas vacation so far. I thank my Father, Mother, Grandfather, Grandmother, Oma, Uncle, and Aunt (I home I didn't miss any) for all of the amazing presents they gave me.
But what I am most thankful for is the gift, the Ultimate Gift, bestowed by our Creator through the coming of Jesus Christ into this world on that very first Christmas, who liberated us not from the harsh Roman rule, but from the even nastier rule of the spirit of evil in this world. It is because of that first Christmas, the Divine invasion, that we may live forever in peace and love.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
But what I am most thankful for is the gift, the Ultimate Gift, bestowed by our Creator through the coming of Jesus Christ into this world on that very first Christmas, who liberated us not from the harsh Roman rule, but from the even nastier rule of the spirit of evil in this world. It is because of that first Christmas, the Divine invasion, that we may live forever in peace and love.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
My intellectual influences
Like everyone, I have had individuals that have influenced me and are part of the reason for how I got to be. This list below is an effort to document those intellectuals who have influenced my thinking in some way or another. The list intentionally leaves out my personal acquaintances whom I know. Their absence isn't to degrade their affect on me, but rather a focus on the historical figures whom I have drawn inspiration from. So here it is:
Jesus Christ
Leonardo Da Vinci
Vox Day
Roissy
Benjamin Franklin
C.S Lewis
Isaac Newton
Isaac Asimov
Thomas Jefferson
Ludwig Von Mises
There are a host more figures that have influenced me, but those are the primary ones. It is my intention to make a series devoting each character one post in order to outline the specific ways these figures have inspired me.
Jesus Christ
Leonardo Da Vinci
Vox Day
Roissy
Benjamin Franklin
C.S Lewis
Isaac Newton
Isaac Asimov
Thomas Jefferson
Ludwig Von Mises
There are a host more figures that have influenced me, but those are the primary ones. It is my intention to make a series devoting each character one post in order to outline the specific ways these figures have inspired me.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Mission Acomplished
Today marked the accomplishment of a goal that I set at the beginning of 2010 to read 30 books. Mid way through, I was a little dubious that I could fulfill it, but I persisted and it payed off. The 30 books are on the right. Next year the goal is 50.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Playing into the historical narrative
History is seldom as romantic as history books make us believe. In truth, it is a messy, unpredictable, and unbalanced narrative. Last night, I was surprised to read that Michaelango actively disliked leonardo da vinci and hated Raphael even more. So the trinity of the artistic Renascence moment were entrenched in contention? Even more significant was how bitter the relationships between some of America's Founding Father's were. Reading Founding Brothers has been a very enlightening exercise for me in this regard; it wasn't just a matter of Federalist versus Republican, John Adams despised Alexander Hamilton more than any the other members of the opposing party.
John Adams, in his embittered years as ex-president, 1800-1805, describes how the historical accounts of America's quest for independence and the events that occurred within the Continental congress were highly romanticized into one flowing and seemingly inevitable narrative, when this wasn't actually the case. Adam's insight, that there is an enormous discrepancy between witnessing history and viewing it through post-facto documentation, is key to understanding the significance of the American Revolution. According to Adam's account, Jefferson was a second rate player in the continental congress who could hardly find it within himself to utter 3 sentences. His ascendancy to fame was the result his fortuitous role in drafting the Declaration of Independence; Jefferson seemed to have perfect pitch when it came to playing what the historical accounts wanted to hear. While Adam's played a larger role, Jefferson got the credit. This is not to detract from Jefferson's voluminous accomplishments as a statesmen, which are justifiably well regarded, especially later in his career . Adam's was a great admirer of this Jeffersonian trait, realizing that that it was this ability that made Jefferson more memorable. And in truth, the volatility of the situation was such that the premises were built upon a plethora of contingencies that anything could happen. The seemingly momentous can turn out trivial and the seemingly trivial and turn out momentous. So contrary to what many of us think, the American revolution was not inevitable. The salient point was that history painted a true but misleadingly smooth picture.
This ties in quite nicely with Nassim Taleb's exellent book, The Black Swan, which unfortunately I have been remiss in reviewing. Talebs dubs this history-book way of perceiving "the narrative fallacy." And one in which we would do well not to engage in. Citing World War 1 as an example, he demonstrates that with the benefit of hindsight we retroactively attach an obviousness about the outcome which was wholly unknown to the actual players in the historical arena. Because the reality of it is, the real world is messy and wayward to our predictions; it is after the events that that it starts making sense, making us fall into a false sense of epistemic arrogance regarding the future, just because we can rationally explain the past into a smooth, sensible narrative.
This is not an attack on the profession of historians; it is important to make history fun, which it is, of course.
John Adams, in his embittered years as ex-president, 1800-1805, describes how the historical accounts of America's quest for independence and the events that occurred within the Continental congress were highly romanticized into one flowing and seemingly inevitable narrative, when this wasn't actually the case. Adam's insight, that there is an enormous discrepancy between witnessing history and viewing it through post-facto documentation, is key to understanding the significance of the American Revolution. According to Adam's account, Jefferson was a second rate player in the continental congress who could hardly find it within himself to utter 3 sentences. His ascendancy to fame was the result his fortuitous role in drafting the Declaration of Independence; Jefferson seemed to have perfect pitch when it came to playing what the historical accounts wanted to hear. While Adam's played a larger role, Jefferson got the credit. This is not to detract from Jefferson's voluminous accomplishments as a statesmen, which are justifiably well regarded, especially later in his career . Adam's was a great admirer of this Jeffersonian trait, realizing that that it was this ability that made Jefferson more memorable. And in truth, the volatility of the situation was such that the premises were built upon a plethora of contingencies that anything could happen. The seemingly momentous can turn out trivial and the seemingly trivial and turn out momentous. So contrary to what many of us think, the American revolution was not inevitable. The salient point was that history painted a true but misleadingly smooth picture.
This ties in quite nicely with Nassim Taleb's exellent book, The Black Swan, which unfortunately I have been remiss in reviewing. Talebs dubs this history-book way of perceiving "the narrative fallacy." And one in which we would do well not to engage in. Citing World War 1 as an example, he demonstrates that with the benefit of hindsight we retroactively attach an obviousness about the outcome which was wholly unknown to the actual players in the historical arena. Because the reality of it is, the real world is messy and wayward to our predictions; it is after the events that that it starts making sense, making us fall into a false sense of epistemic arrogance regarding the future, just because we can rationally explain the past into a smooth, sensible narrative.
This is not an attack on the profession of historians; it is important to make history fun, which it is, of course.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Vanfair Worldview
Part of the Vanfair worldview dictates that talent is more a result of nurture than nature. This is not to say that nature doesn't bestow on those fortunate individuals enviable talents, merely that nature seems to be play a submajor role in the talent equation. And that cultivation through deliberate practice is what truly brings the effective results.
The rapidly progressing state of neuroscience is confirming the Vanfair worldview. By way of example, the skill of drawing, often ascribed to be a result of God-given talent, can now be taught in an effective way that even the most artistically deficient individuals can learn and even excel.
I'm convinced that the talent-is-innate club is becoming more and more outdated and is a consequence of a childish mentality. Consider the following: when you were a youngster, didn't you believe that talent was more of a result of natural skill than deliberate cultivation? There is a reason why most of us believed that in our youth. The primary reason being that when you were younger, most of your colleagues were talent because of their genetics, given their very limited years of practice. But the older one gets the less relevant genetics become.
In my own experience, I always thought that ambidexterity was a matter of genetics. I am now convinced that anyone can use both hands proficiently. Being ambidextrous is one of my goals that I have amidst a framework of an ambitious Renascence Man program. So if I am able to fulfill that goal, then that will be another confirmation of the Vanfair worldview.
The rapidly progressing state of neuroscience is confirming the Vanfair worldview. By way of example, the skill of drawing, often ascribed to be a result of God-given talent, can now be taught in an effective way that even the most artistically deficient individuals can learn and even excel.
I'm convinced that the talent-is-innate club is becoming more and more outdated and is a consequence of a childish mentality. Consider the following: when you were a youngster, didn't you believe that talent was more of a result of natural skill than deliberate cultivation? There is a reason why most of us believed that in our youth. The primary reason being that when you were younger, most of your colleagues were talent because of their genetics, given their very limited years of practice. But the older one gets the less relevant genetics become.
In my own experience, I always thought that ambidexterity was a matter of genetics. I am now convinced that anyone can use both hands proficiently. Being ambidextrous is one of my goals that I have amidst a framework of an ambitious Renascence Man program. So if I am able to fulfill that goal, then that will be another confirmation of the Vanfair worldview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
