Saturday, 27 January 2018

What's Wrong with the Employment Stats?

See "What's Wrong with Capitalism?"

The media in a lot of Western countries are saying because employment is so high it means the economy is booming. This is not true.

What is actually happening is the deliberate over supply of labor makes people desperate and thus shifts the balance of power to employers. This is leading to full-time jobs with health and holiday benefits and stipulated working hours being replaced with multiple part-time jobs with no job security of any kind i.e. one full time job -> 2-3 part time jobs i.e. instead of paying one person 30K they're paying two people 14K each.

This makes employers more money in the short-term (and if one can do it then they all have to or be driven out of business) but although there is a time lag between cause and effect - which is why this process is so dangerous - driving wages to subsistence means people have less and less spending money and this eventually leads to an economic stagnation you can't escape from.

What's Wrong with QE?

Firstly, what is QE (quantatitive easing)?

See "What' Wrong with Usury?"

When the banks have one of their cyclical greed-stampedes they over-leverage i.e. lend out too much money which creates a bubble increasing asset values (usually primarily property values) and so when that bubble inevitably bursts those asset values crash. If the bubble is big enough then the crash in asset values will wipe out the banks' capital - this is what happened in 2008. The banks had assets whose nominal value was much higher than they were actually worth if sold on the open market.

What should happen in this situation is the banks are allowed to go bankrupt and we start again but what actually happens is they bribe/blackmail the political-media class to pretend the nominal value of their assets is the true value. The problem here is the banks themselves know this isn't true which causes the economy to seize up. The central banking network's solution to this is/was QE.

QE is a euphemism for the central banks printing vast sums of money and using it to buy the financial equivalent of toxic waste off the banks and transfer it to the public's balance sheet. When the process is complete the central bakers can reboot the economy without destroying the banks.

However what happens to the financial toxic waste the central bankers bought off the banks?

Hard to say for sure as they have more tools to play with this time but most likely guess is it'll be a stock market crash like 1929 (which will probably take out the pension funds) followed by another 1930s style depression followed by political chaos and war.

If/when it happens - blame the bankers.

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

What's Wrong with Thottery, S**t-tests and White Knighting?

(this is only relevant to people who follow the various dramas involving alt-right, skeptic and SJW youtubers)


Thottery, S**t-tests and White Knighting are all perfectly logical and natural mating behaviors and any political movement which prides itself on accepting biological reality should recognize them as such. This doesn't mean they can't be harmful - they are - but those behaviors are natural and not some moral failing.

1) Thottery: women wanting attention from a coterie of male admirers makes perfect mating sense as the larger the group of orbiters she can attract the larger the pool of potential mates she gets to choose from.

2) S**t-tests: once upon a time one of the things women needed from a man was physical protection - if a tiger leapt into the camp it was the man's job to hold it off while the woman grabbed the kids and got them to safety - perfectly sensible division of labor. If a woman can bully a man then he's not going to be any use against a tiger hence what Heartiste calls s**t-tests - pushing a man until he puts his foot down (and the resulting odd facial expression and desire for sex that follows). It's not a s**t-test for the sake of it or a secret desire to be dominated (not directly anyway) it's a "would you be able to protect me from a tiger" test - perfectly natural if slightly out of place in the modern world but then genetics will always lag environmental changes.

3) White Knighting: offer of protection as part of the mating game is a perfectly natural companion to the above two points. It can be and often is a dishonest offer and it's a bit lame online where the offer of protection can't actually be delivered but the behavior itself makes perfect sense.

The drama caused by thottery and white knighting may be potentially harmful to any serious political endeavor but the behaviors themselves are perfectly natural.


is thottery good or bad for a political movement?


if an individual's political outreach > thottery then it's good

if the thottery > political outreach then it's bad


should women have leadership roles in politics?

if your ideology believes that aspects of male biology should on average lead to men out-competing women for political leadership (whether in ability or simply desire for it) then stop whining and prove it.

What's Wrong with the Media?

a healthy economy requires economic competition and thus requires anti-trust laws

a healthy society requires competition of ideas and so the equivalent of anti-trust laws needs to be applied to the media to ensure diversity of ideas

the 1st amendment is a stab at this.

What's Wrong with Capitalism? (2)


1) lots of competition leads to efficiency and innovation


2) lots of competition eventually leads to a small group of  surviving firms forming a cartel which prevents future competition.


long term, capitalism requires carefully enforced anti-trust legislation to maintain competition.

short term, large capitalists will try to overthrow anti-trust legislation for the short term benefit.

necessary sequence
1) lots of competition
2) 3-4 best practice firms win the competition and start to form a cartel
3) give them a pat of the head for winning then break them up
4) return to step (1)

What's Wrong with Socialism?

heredity and human nature (aka biology)

This doesn't mean the desired outcomes are bad - only that those outcomes are not achievable without taking account of genetics and heredity.

What's Wrong with the 3rd World?

over supply of labor

(obviously there's more to it than that but it's enough in itself to create the problem even without the other factors)

If there is an over supply of labor to the extent wages are reduced to subsistence levels and no one but a few wealthy people has any money to spend then you can't have an economy - simple as that.

This is the same as the previous post "What's Wrong with Capitalism?" looked at from the other direction. A 3rd world economy can't become 1st world if over supply of labor leads to subsistence wages (and the resulting minimal level of domestic demand) and a 1st world economy which doesn't prevent capitalism driving wages to subsistence levels will end up as a 3rd world economy.

cf. South Korea in the 1960s banning child labor - the increased education no doubt helped in the long term but the immediate economic boost came about through the dramatic reduction the labor supply leading to increased wages and more domestic demand.