Government Transfers and GDP

I have started reading through the Captain’s Enjoy the Decline and in the 2nd chapter he talks about proving the US is in a permanent decline. He brings up his old point here about how GDP is growing at 2.2% rather than the 4% of yesteryear, and how we could have an average income of $100,000 if the government didn’t interfere. He was also talking about how government is now almost 40% of GDP. That got me thinking about the government and the GDP.

The most common method of calculating GDP is is through the use of this formula:

GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)

Or, in English:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports – imports)

What I’m going to focus on here is G. As per wikipedia:

G (government spending) is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and services. It includes salaries of public servants, purchase of weapons for the military, and any investment expenditure by a government. It does not include any transfer payments, such as social security or unemployment benefits.

When calculating GDP, the measure of government contribution to the economy is NOT the value of goods and services the government produces; it is the measure of the value of the resources the government consumes. G in the GDP measures what the government takes out of the economy, not what the government puts into the economy.

For example, if the the government spent $200-million building a road it would count the same as if the government spent $200-million moving rocks from point A to point B and back to Point A. As long as the government wasn’t using the resources for transfer payments, they could bury the money and GDP would increase. (See the Broken Window Fallacy).

For the rest of this post, we will refer to C, I, & (X-M) as “actual GDP” and G as government spending.*

Here are the annual real GDP growth rates for the US since 2008:

2008: -0.3
2009: -3.1
2010:  2.4
2011:  1.8
2012:  2.2

Here’s G:

2008: 2,497.4
2009: 2,589.4
2010: 2,605.8
2011: 2,523.9
2012: 2,481.3

and growth in G:

2008:  2.6%
2009:  3.7%
2010:  0.6%
2011: -3.1%
2012: -0.6%

Over the last 5 years, since the housing crash, the portion of GDP that is made up of G has declined by 0.6%. US GDP on the other hand, has increased by 6% over the same time period.

Originally, when starting this post, I was wondering if increased government consumption was resulting in a higher G, inflating GDP numbers. In other words, I was suspicious the government was simply consuming more resources (whether for productive or unproductive tasks) from the private sector to mask a decline in actual GDP.

The data says it has not; in fact, the opposite is true, G has somewhat declined as a percentage of GDP. I was tempted to just junk this post as my suspicion and the point I was thinking I might make proved to be incorrect, but I decided I’d post this information here anyway for anyone who’s curious.

****

This however, brings up another point for my post.

According to Table 1.1 here, federal government spending has increased by 27.1% between 2008 and 2012. This new spending represents 6.0% of 2012 GDP. Total government spending has increased by 10% in the same time period, representing 3.6% of 2012 GDP. Interestingly (and completely surprising to me), non-federal government spending (total minus federal) has actually decreased by $323.8 billion, or 6.6% over the same five years, representing 2.4% of 2012 GDP.

As mentioned above, G only measures what the government consumes or invests in, it does not include government transfers.

G has more or less stayed the same (and has actually declined as a portion of GDP), while government spending has increased by over a quarter.

What this means is that the none of the new government spending is from the government actually consuming or investing in anything. None of the new government spending is new roads, new hospitals, new schools, or new jet fighters; none of it has even gone to increased bureaucrat’s salaries, buying heroin for the homeless, or burying resources in the desert. None of the new spending was used on anything remotely productive or even on a program pretending to be productive.

All 27.1% of the new federal spending has gone to increased transfers.

In other words, since 2008, the federal government has forcibly taken an extra 6% of the entire economy from some people and transferred it to other people with not the slightest pretense of it being for the public benefit or as an investment in the future.

This is naked robbery.

In addition, part of this extra federal spending has come at same time that state spending has been reduced, further centralizing government spending.

Just federal transfers, not including state transfers or federal consumption of investment as found in G, now make up about 20%** of the economy. Six percentage points of that came from the last five years.

The federal government has taken an extra 6% of the entire US economy from the producer class and given to the parasite last five years and currently spends an one-fifth of the economy simply in transferring money from producers to parasites.

If this pattern continues, the US will become a centralized socialist state.

****

* All dollar amounts are 2005 US$ and in billions.
** May be slightly off, but not by more than, maybe, a percentage point. 2012 #’s were used for GDP and federal outlays, but I could not find a 2012 number for federal G, so I used the 2011 number.

Matthew Yglesias is an Idiot

Today, I’ve decided to highlight more economic stupidity.

Here is something from one Matthew Yglesias (whose name I always want to spell Yggdrasil). He is the economic “expert” for Slate magazine. In other words, he is paid solely to “think”* and write about economics. Some of you may also know that Matt is a vulgar Keynesian of the Krugmanite variety. You could almost call him a lesser Krugman.** Because of his vulgar Keynesian, Yglesias has never met a government program and government spending he does not support (except when it inconveniences him personally).***

With that small introduction to this professional master of economics, we can turn to what he wrote recently on Amtrak:

In the main part of the country where people actually ride intercity trains and where intercity trains form an important part of the transportation infrastructure, we have operating profits. In a decent national rail policy, those operating profits could finance infrastructure improvements in the northeast corridor where rail is important and useful. Everyone knows that the Acela is a joke version of high-speed rail by European or Asian standards, and there’s a lot that could be done incrementally to improve that with upgraded rolling stock and targeted improvements to straighten tracks or improve tunnels and grade crossings. Instead we’re stuck in a dynamic where all these trains are running in places where nobody rides them and the local voters and elected officials aren’t supportive and Amtrak ends up sigmatized for its dependence on federal subsidies. But operating passenger rail where people want to ride intercity trains turns out to be perfectly viable without huge subsidies. And it could do a much better job of serving the needs of the communities where rail is useful and valued if those operating surpluses were used to cover infrastructure costs rather than soaked away covering operating losses elsewhere.

It’s almost like the train system could benefit from being put in places where people value it and not put in places where people do not want to use it.

This train system would make excess operating surpluses from extracting fares from people who value it. These fares could then go to whomever decided to provide the trains as an incentive to provide trains where needed. The provider of trains could use these surpluses to profit himself and to reinvest in more and better trains for greater surpluses in the future.

If only we could think of a system where people with resources, incentivized by the possibility of profiting off of providing trains, would invest those resources in providing trains in places people valued them in exchange for being able to take an operating surplus from collected fares. It would solve all our train system problems and the government wouldn’t even need to subsidize the train system, saving those tax dollars for something more important, like buying homeless people heroin.

Where, oh where, could the government possibly find a system like this?

What kind of system could possibly cause people to invest resources in providing valued services to others in an efficient manner solely so they can profit from operating surpluses?

A system that utopian must be impossible to create. I guess we must all suffer by paying taxes for trains no one uses.

****

In case you’re oblivious, that was sarcasm.

There wasn’t much of a point to this post, but this: Matthew Yglesias is an idiot.

I would generally use some superlatives here, but I don’t think my limited writing talents could possibly do justice to his ignorance, as his stupidity is positively Krugmanite.

If his head wasn’t rammed so far up his vulgar Keynesian ass, the supremely obvious solution to this supposed quandary might be able to penetrate his inordinately thick skull and he might actually be of some use other than as a paid stooge of the internet wing of the Cathedral press corps.

On the other hand, if his head wasn’t buried so deep in his rectum that methane and anaerobic bacteria were his primary means of subsistence, Slate wouldn’t hire him for the cushy job of confirming idiot liberals’ a priori emotional beliefs with a few hundred daily words of scientific-sounding economic nonsense.

So, maybe he’s smarter than I thought.

I wish I got paid for the nonsense I write and the Cathedral probably pays better than anonymous blogging.

Maybe I should start writing academic-sounding blather that validates the unthinking prejudices of the economically illiterate and makes them feel smart.

****

* In this case, the word ‘think’ is used in the loosest definition of the term possible.

** Yes, I know you’re wondering if it is actually possible for there to be a something intellectually lesser than Paul Krugman since he became a paid shill for the Cathedral in the NYT. In this case lesser refers to popularity with fools and usefulness to the Cathedral rather than to any intellectual or analytical (in)abilities.

*** Hint: The definition of a bad government program in the Coocooland of vulgar Keynesianism is any that is personally inconvenient to a liberal shill. The definition of a good government program is any that increases the power of government but does not inconvenience a vulgar Keynesian or a friend of the same.

Hypocritical Entitlement

Ian wrote about Hugo Schwyzer’s latest word vomit, so I checked it out (the link is to Google Cache: no cookie for you Gawker).

We’ll ignore the fact that he and his feminist allies have absolutely no empathy for the millions of young men hurting (yes, hurting) from involuntary celibacy. Fuck ‘em, they’re just men.

We’ll ignore the fact that assholes like Schwyzer and his feminist allies have been lying to men for decades about what attracts women and then when these men follow through on the lies they’ve been told, the assholes gather around and bully them for it.

We’ll ignore how Schwyzer completely ignores the privilege women have when it comes to the availability of sex, despite him and the rest of the Uncle Tim’s being all about the exposure of privilege.

Ian does an excellent job of analyzing Hugo’s spiteful piece, so I’m not going to. Read Ian’s article.

Instead, I’m going focus on the self-righteous hypocrisy of this little bit:

Sex with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional orgasms provided for them others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent disabled men on trips to Amsterdam to see sex workers, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. NGOKC reminds us just how many young men are outraged at this reality that attractiveness, charm, and fuckability are not and never can be equally distributed.

Remember, sex is not a basic human right.

Men are not entitled to sex.

But, women are entitled to your labour (in the form of welfare, food, shelter, and health care).

Nothing seems abnormal about this, this is what you were raised on.

This is what you were raised on; words that should provoke skepticism.

One random commenter explains the general just of the mood at Jezebel:

Because they aren’t entitled to women’s bodies regardless of how much you personally feel women are “privileged” when it comes to sex on demand.

You aren’t entitled to a women’s body.

But they are entitled to yours.

You work, you sweat, you break your back, you endure inanity, boredom, idiocy, and bureuacracy for 40+ hours a week. Women are entitled to about 40% of that.

Women are entitled to about 2 days of your labour, 16 hours, every week. They are entitled to take this through the threat of force, violently supported by the guns of the police.

But a half-hour a week of mutually pleasurable activity. Nope, men aren’t entitled to it.

If you attempt to deprive them of your hard work, of your labour, of your body, you go to jail. The IRS (or the CRA for Canucks) will see to it. But if you are deprived of sex, of their body, meh, fuck you (you wish).

Women are entitled to your body, but you aren’t entitled to theirs.

It’s simple: either people are entitled to the bodies of others for attaining their basic needs (of which sex would be one) or they are not.

To say otherwise is hypocrisy.

Turn it around:

Because they aren’t entitled to men’s bodies regardless of how much you personally feel men are “privileged” when it comes to economic outcomes.

Wonder what the Jezebellers would think of this? (Hint: Read 1 Kings 18:1-18)

****

The next time someone demands the state pay welfare for the societal parasites, ask when the state will ensure you have your *ahem* basic needs met.

When the person reacts in a horrified manner (as they invariably will) ask why the parasites basic biological needs are more important than yours.

When they bring up consent, choice, “my body, my choice”, entitlement, or whatever other slogans they substitute for thought, ask why you don’t have a choice and why the parasites are entitled to your body.

Continue to rhetorically poke around a bit and listen to the verbal diarrhea they issue forth pretending it’s a logical argument. You won’t accomplish anything, but you might get some lulz.

****

So, am I saying women should be forced to give sex to those men who need it?

Hells no.

I’m saying no one is entitled to the body of another. Men are not entitled to women’s bodies, women are not entitled to men’s bodies.

I just want the hypocritical wankery to stop.

But I know it won’t.

Women’s entitlement to the labour of men is so thoroughly entrenched that most reading this will either miss the point or be horrified.

So it goes, back to your drudgery. Those single mothers aren’t going to feed themselves.

****

Side-note:

I wonder what Schwyzer and his ilk would think of a Tumblr called Nice Girls of OKCupid where users made disparaging comments about the profiles of fat/ugly women, sluts, ignorant women, and single mothers outlining their “great personalities”?

Oh, and to head off the initial objections to the comparison: women, the feeling you get about “creeps” is exactly the feeling men get about “fatties” and “sluts”. Not that it matters, you’ll discount men’s feelings anyway.

The Bookshelf: Captain Capitalism: Top Shelf

As mentioned previously, Captain Capitalism (ie: Aaron Clarey) has been a large influence for this blog, so when he released his new book, Top Shelf, I immediately ordered it on Amazon.

The book itself is a simple collection of what CC thought his best posts from his 8 years of prolific  blogging. Coming in at 400+ pages, the book has a whole lot of mini-essays on a wide range of topics primarily in the fields of economics, gender relations, bachelorhood, politics, and education.

Having read through his entire archive about a year ago (a lot of reading), I can’t think of any posts that should have been included that he left out. In addition, there were some good posts in it that I forgotten about. The book is very comprehensive.

The essays are all enjoyable, often thought-provoking, and usually informative. This is good stuff.

Everything is written in an engaging manner by the Captain at the top of his game. Read the first page or two of his blog; if you like what you read, you’ll really enjoy this book.

Grammar nazis may be concerned about the grammar and typos in the book. There are a lot of them, as there are in many blogs, and the Captain made no bones about the fact that he left the original typos in. Overall, I found this doesn’t really hurt the book or its readability, but if you’re OCD about these kinds of things, I might as well give you fair warning.

Another problem that comes up is that in converting his webposts to book format the links and the occasional graph are unavailable. You can understand all the essays even without them, but sometimes you know you’re missing something.

Now, the first question when considering this type of book is, why should I pay for something that I can get for free on his blog?

There are 3 primary reasons:

1) Support the author. The Captain has been giving us free content for almost a decade, paying . This of course doesn’t really benefit you directly, so if you’re a strict homo economicus this won’t really be convincing. Although, if the Captain is not working because his website is providing a minimalistic living, he has more time to devote to giving us more posts.

2) Save time. As I said, I read through the entirety of the CC archive about a year ago, it took me about two weeks during a really slow time at work. It required dozens of hours. Top Shelf skims the cream off and gives it to you in a format that can be read in an evening or two. It let’s you get the Cappy Cap goodness without such a time investment.

3) Hard copy format. I find it a lot more convenient and comfortable to read from a book than off a computer screen and Top Shelf let’s you read dead tree-style. Convenient.

Now comes my biggest complaint about the book and something I’m hoping Aaron will fix in his future books:

Top Shelf needs an index.

There are dozens (I don’t know exactly how many because there’s no index and flipping through counting them would be a pain) of mini-essays  in this book and they do not seem to be arranged in any particular order. If I want to find, re-read, or reference a particular essay, it requires a lot of page-flipping. A basic index listing the page each particular essay is on would be handy.

This complaint aside, I found the book well worth it.

Recommendation:

Buy this book, it is worth it. If you like reading Captain Capitalism’s blog, this book is a must-buy.

If you’ve read his blog and for some weird reason don’t enjoy it, then you probably won’t like this book, so I can’t recommend it.

If you’re really broke, but have a lot of time on your hands then you can read his archives instead.

Other than those two exceptions, I’d recommend getting Top Shelf.

Previous reviews for other books by Aaron Clarey:
Behind the Housing Crash
Worthless

Financial Analysis of Sex: Relationship vs. Marriage

I previously did an economic comparison of obtaining casual sex through both prostitution and game. I said I would do the cost of sex in marriage and relationship game in the future, so, here it is (much later than I originally anticipated).

The following is a financial analysis of the costs of obtaining sex through a relationship or game. For simplicity’s sake, it ignores the greater economic costs beyond financial and benefits beyond the sexual (both material and immaterial). I will likely analyze these more in the future in their own posts.

****

Relationship Game

If you convert game to a relationship, the cost per sexual encounter goes down.

The original 3 sexual encounters would be $460 each (as calculated in the game for casual sex post), but once the initial costs of picking-up a women have been met, converting a short-term fling from game to a relationship can change the costs of sex.

According to Roosh, each date costs about $35. We’ll assume you enjoy dating your partner for its own sake (hence why you’re in a relationship), so there’s no foregone cost. So, assuming each date leads to sex, each sexual encounter in the relationship past the first 3 would cost only $35 each. If you don’t enjoy dating your partner (for whatever reason), then you can add $20/date, if we assume 2 hours per date (at a foregone wage of $10).

We’ll assume a date/sex an average three times a week in a one-month relationship (for a total of 12 times, plus the 3 encounters he had in the fling), and two times a week in a 6-month (for a total of 48 times, plus 3) and 1-year relationship (for a total of 104, plus 3) (The same caveats would apply here as in Game for Sex).

Cost for Sex (1-month relationship): $120

Cost for Sex (6-month relationship): $60

Cost for Sex (1-year relationship): $47

This could, of course, be reduced by paying less for dates, or forgoing dates altogether in favour of less costly activities.

****

Marriage

The average married man gets sex about once per week.

The average length of marriage prior to divorce is 8 years, but 60% of first marriages do not end in divorce. In the case of no divorce, we’ll assume the average marriage lasts 40 years (about 60-75 years old) until the male is either dead or are either incapable of or not desiring sex.

In that case, the average marriage lasts about 27 years.

Over that period, the average male can expect to get sex an average of about 1400 times. (1500 if he had sex in a 1-year relationship prior to marriage as per relationship game above).

The cost of dating and a one-year relationship prior to the marriage are almost $5000 (we’ll assume he enjoyed dating the person he chose to marry). The average cost of a wedding is about $27000.

We’ll also add in the 40% chance of $37,383 loss due to divorce (assuming the man will be the primary, but not sole breadwinner).

Cost for Sex (Marriage): $50 ($46 if you slept together before marriage)

This could of course be significantly reduced by not having a wedding that costs $27,000. It could also be reduced by minimizing chances of divorce. Only 1/5 of marriages have weddings that cost more than $30k, so it’s likely that really extravagant weddings are really pulling the average up, so it shouldn’t be impossible.

****

This analysis assumes that your wife will be pulling her own weight in the marriage or relationship and is not being a freeloader. This can be by either earning her keep through paid employment, by raising your children (in which case the costs of supporting her would be added under the costs of raising a child), or providing companionship commiserate with your upkeep of her. If you are in a relationship or marriage with a women and supporting her solely for sex with no other gain for yourself, then the costs of sex would be much higher (but why on earth would you do this?).

This also ignores the many non-material and/or non-sexual benefits, costs, and risks for being in a relationship. This analysis assumes these are overall a wash in relation to material costs and the cost of sex.

I may try to economically analyze these factors more in-depth at another time.

****

Conclusion

In the end, the final costs for sex are:

Prostitution: $300
Game: $460 ($200 if you enjoy clubbing and game for their own sakes)
Relationship (1 month): $120
Relationship (6 months): $60
Relationship (1 year): $47
Marriage: $50 ($46 if you slept together before marriage)

Overall, a long-term relationship and marriage are, financially-speaking, the cheapest methods of acquiring sex. Prostitution is the most expensive, but game without relationship costs more if you dislike clubbing.

Lightning Round – 2012/10/24

Are you masculine enough to deserve the feminine woman you demand?
Related: Feminism can not exist where masculine men do.

The Captain gives entitled whiners a smack down.

Oneitis causes death.

A good wife is a home maker; a bad wife is a home breaker.

A women declaring oneself a born-again virgin would be a greater deal-breaker than her not being a virgin. If a woman has slutted it up, she should at least be honest about it instead of living in self-delusion.

Marriage: What’s in it for men?

Athol has a post on the effect of vasectomies on sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a negative effect, as semen gives benefits to women and a  vasectomy may block some of those.

This seems fake to me. I’ve never seen a women be that rationally calculating before.

An interesting hypothesis: Feminists cry because they are brain-damaged.

I am in favour of chivalry as a concept, but I believe it should be reserved for ladies and not wasted on ungrateful feminists, sluts, and egalitarians.

Sometimes, Roissy can really turn a phrase.

The etymology of the word slut. It is exclusively female.
Related: SSM has a revelation.

The Captain opines on black men and the manosphere.

A good look into the insane, rambling mind of a frivolous divorcee, hypocritical feminist, and self-indulgent narcissist. Fascinating reading of a hamster going full-tilt if you can stomach the pure, unfiltered mind vomit of a horrible example of womanhood.

The church-going travails of a traditionalist.

Teaching teens game. I’m interested in how this will go.

Proof of the attractiveness of the dark triad.

Seems Frost has jumped on the Koanic Tech/Edenism band wagon. Not sure if I buy it, but it’s interesting. I plan to learn more.
Related: Forney has created an Edenic link aggregator.

Frost is picking himself up after arriving back to where he began.

Let the boomers starve.
Related: Screw the boomers, they fucked us over hard.

The “war on women” is a dangerous myth.
Related: Women are beginning to realize the damage feminism has done.

Whited Sepulchre prescribes some truth pills on Obamacare.
Related: Death panels? What death panels?
Related: Yeah… Our health care is not better than the Yanks’.

Vox has an interesting post on the lawsuit against the Italian geologists. Not sure what to think, but he makes a persuasive argument.

Wright on why libertarian purists should vote for Romney.
Related: Romney kills a speech and rips liberal a new one.
Related: Why are there so few female libertarians? I think it’s simply because women are herd creatures, while libertarianism is an individualist philosophy.

If Romney’s stable family and home threaten your values, there’s probably something wrong with you.

Tim 2012. I’d vote for him.

The squeeze on the middle class.

The people you meet on public transit. Hehe.

If you’re giving child support and poor, it’s about to get worse.

Some humour from /b/. Hehe.

The unintended side effects of divorce on ballroom dancing.

Steyn on the feds controlling children’s lunches.

I might have linked this before, but it bear repeating. Paul Krugman is a dishonest hack.
Related: An excellent chart comparing the Reagan recovery and the Obama “recovery”.

Peak oil is the BS of dishonest hacks.

The IRS sells your private information for only $35.

The implications of being able to genetically identify potential future criminals.

12-year-old shoots home intruder. Props to her.

(H/T: SDA, Instapundit, Maggie’s Farm, SSM, Alpha Game)

Feminism and Housing Costs

Today I read this (h/t: BitterBabe) and this one quote really stood out:

Commentators said yesterday that pressures on women to work and pay mortgages mean that many do not have the same choice over having families that their mothers did.

I’ve discussed feminism and choice before, and I’ve discussed how feminists are in opposition to the wants of most women before, but now I’m going to focus on something specific: housing.

I’m going to explain exactly where the “pressures on women to pay mortgages” comes from.

****

Housing is the single largest expense most people have (other than possibly taxes), taking up almost 35% of their income. Unlike most goods, which have gotten cheaper over time due to technology improvements, housing costs as a percentage of income has remained stable over time (with the possible exception of fluctuations due to the housing bubble and crash).

Why is that?

The primary reason is that housing is mostly a positional good.* The price of a house has less to do with the actual materials making the house and more with the desirability of the land the house resides on. This is why a house in New York costs so much more than the cost of a similar house in, say, Detroit.

The other reason is that people are using extra income buying larger homes.

For both these reasons, as people’s incomes grow higher they will generally increase their housing costs to match a proportion of their income. You see this all the time, where people will buy bigger and better houses even if their old houses were perfectly livable and they do not require more space for the kids they are not having.

As people buy more housing the price of housing goes up. So, over time, as people’s incomes go up, they will buy more housing, which will increase the price of housing, increasing the absolute amount spent on housing.

Because of this mechanic, the proportion of income spent on housing remains stable even as incomes go up.

****

So, what does this have to do with feminism and choice?

As more women have entered the workforce, they have contributed their income to their households. Because of this household incomes have increased, but, because of the primarily positional nature of housing, the proportion of income spent on housing by households has stayed the same.

So,to now purchase the same amount of housing you could purchase on a single income prior to women entering the workforce en masse you need the equivalent income of a two-income household.

Because of this, families are now in a position, where two incomes are required for sufficient housing space for a family in many areas.

Households wanting to live in certain areas are now required to have the women work rather than stay home simply to afford housing.

As more women enter the workforce, the viability of women choosing to stay home decreases.

Most women desire to stay home with their children, if they could afford it, and the feminist desire to have women be economically independent is removing that choice from them.

****

Of course, I have completely ignored the impacts of divorce on housing costs for former households and the impacts of increased demand. You should be able to figure them out yourselves (hint: they increase housing prices and costs).

****

Combine this with the unfeasible daycare costs I previously pointed, and you being to wonder if women moving into the working world has provided any benefits to most women.

Most women desire to stay home, but many are forced to work because they can’t afford not to.

But their biggest expense is only that big because women are working and one of their next biggest expenses only exists because they are working.

Is this what most women want? To be forced to work for little real benefit.

Question for women: Do you enjoy spending your days at work rather than with your children knowing that most of what you earn is not actually providing any real benefit to your or your children?

If not, maybe you should think about what you support.

****

Now, for budding patriarchs, this doesn’t mean your (future) wife has to work. What it does mean is that it will require sacrifices and good planning.

You will have to limit your desire for a bigger home (even as you need a bigger home than most, because you’re filling your quiver instead of vacationing in Mexico). You may have to commute longer or find a job away from the urban core. You will likely have to forgo other luxuries.

If you and your wife plan on having her be a homemaker, you will have to discuss this with her. You will have much less house than your peers, and this could lead to envy for you and your wife. You will not be able to afford yearly vacations to distant lands. There are numerous luxuries and status symbols you will have to give up.

You have to make this clear to both yourself and her that this lifestyle is a sacrifice and that both are willing to accept it.

In the long-run, which is more important to you though?

Your child being raised by his mother rather than strangers and the educational system. Or the status symbol of a bigger house and your children being forced to share a room.

*****

* It is only primarily a positional good, not totally. Housing does have a certain intrinsic worth and the materials in housing have a certain intrinsic cost, but, by comparing housing prices in high- and low-demand areas we can easily see that the costs of housing are primarily due to the comparative value of the land on which they are built, than the homes themselves. Of course, it can be argued that the value of the land is not exactly positional, in that being in geographic proximity to certain locations has its own intrinsic value, but this does not effect my point. My point only requires that the value of land is due to competition between potential buyers, for whatever reason, rather than for any immediate practical effect the land has on the utility of the home itself.

Lightning Round – 2012/10/10

A salute to conventional wisdom.

Destroying our kids, one drug at a time.
Related: John Dewey is one of the worst Americans ever.

If she’s had sex before marriage, she’s probably had better sex before she married you.
Related: Ruined by 5 minutes of alpha.

Debasing marriage.
Related: Peter Pan Manboys.
Related: Mark Minter on marriage. Nihilism in action.
Related: The importance of marriage. Part 2.

Feminist responds to Aurini. Can’t handle red pill; calls him a monster;.
Aurini responds.

The Bible: the original Red Pill.

Some brides are just disgusting.

Most women aren’t worth chivalry.

No dating relationship should last 9 years.

Game Theory: The Axioms of Game.

The misandry bubble has popped. The anti-feminism bubble is beginning.

Boomers and the War on the Young.

SAT Data: Boys score better, even though girls do better in school.

The manosphere is for men.

The good guys win one.

Female doubts about a marriage lead to divorce (men’s don’t).

Science: Slowly destroying egalitarianism brick by brick.

Better strength than smarts.

Frost contemplates being back home.

As I’ve written before: child care is not economical.

Cool. I hate the phone, but I hate texting even more.

Why liberals are ugly redux. The original.

Society requires old men to be dangerous.

The decline occurs because society is corrupt at every level.

Liberal economics. We trade “leadership” for stuff.

Estonia: Austerity works. Screw you Krugman.
So did Reagenomics. Screw Keynesianism.

Producer tells the truth. Leftists freak out.

Alternatives to tough luck for libertarians.

Socialism in action. Good food banned in schools.

I hate the phrase “correlation doesn’t equal causation“. It is almost always used as an intellectual cop-out by people who don’t understand it.

The miracle of photoshop.

Hehe… Tolerant leftists and dating conservatives.

Striking is for ignoramuses without self-respect.

How it feels to be smart. I’m not quite as smart as the writer, but his observations seem about right.

(H/T: SDA, Maggie’s Farm, Bitter Babe, 3MM, the Captain, Instapundit, Shining Pearls, RWCAG)

47%: The Liberal Goal

Recently, all the big political news has been about Romney’s 47% comments.

It has already been noted that this is true, the vast majority of federal income taxes are paid by the rich, while almost half pay noting. Even liberal “fact-checkers” don’t disagree.

Some liberals quibble that the poor pay comparatively more in payroll taxes, but this is a fallacious comparison, as payroll taxes are specifically designated to social security, unemployment insurance, and medicare. These are not general taxes (or at least shouldn’t be), they are taxed premiums dedicated to providing  insurance and retirement guarantees and should be treated as such. Comparing payroll taxes to general taxation is idiotic.

****

Everybody reading this already knows that a society where more than half the people do not contribute to general taxation and a significant population receive more in government benefits than are contributing can not sustain itself for long. Eventually the ability to pay for bread and circuses collapses.

The US is on it’s way there. 1/16 people are on disability, 1/7 on food stamps, and almost alf of people receive some sort of government benefits. Half of young workers are either unemployed or underemployed. In addition, the government controls about 2/5 of the economy and 1/5 of the employed work for the the government. Almost half of people don’t pay income taxes.  And government  is growing.

That’s not what I want to talk about today. If you can’t figure out why this is unhealthy for society, I’m not quite sure what I could say to convince you.

****

It has also been noted that getting people dependent on government is the liberal strategy and has been the liberal strategy since FDR.

So why are liberals so angry over Romney’s quote, when it’s been their strategy for decades?

For exactly that reason; they do not want people to understand their strategy. Liberalism is the ideology of the state; that is all the various interests that make up liberalism have in common. For a core of elite individuals, the expansion of the state is their reason d’etre. Their purpose is the Gramscian “slow march through culture” to destroy traditional “oppressive” institutions and replace it with the state.

But pointing that the expansion of the state is the goal, harms their ability to expand the state. They can’t come right out and say their purpose in the anglosphere. Englishmen are culturally suspicious of and hostile towards the state and inclined towards classical liberalism or liberal conservatism, with American Englishmen being the most hostile.

Even most liberals do not agree with the end goal of the Gramscian march. They are mostly decent people (ie: the “useful idiots“) who want to help the poor (or some other cause) but are either too lazy, too soft-hearteded, and/or too misinformed to realize the final outcomes of the policies they propose.

So, the left-liberals  can not come out and say their true goals, which is the expansion of the state. So, they cloak their desire to expand the state behind other justifications: keynesian economics, feminism, anti-poverty, anti-racism, the environment, equality, etc.

No matter what justification they use or what problem they say they want to solve, though, the answer is always the same: expand the state.

And the the useful idiots all line up in support.

****

The Gramscian strategy works well. Each time the government expands, it is almost impossible to destroy that expansion in the future, so you only have to take it a bit at a time. A temporary expansion here and a minor intrusion there and eventually the government controls half the economy. As the government takes over more control of life, opportunities to live life outside government decrease. Individuals become increasingly dependent on government at levels they themselves don’t even realize. Eventually, the government becomes the only thing holding society together, however poorly.

The government begins to replace parents, it replaces family, it replaces local charity, it replaces local churches, it replaces local community. Eventually,  it replaces the entirety of civil society.

If you want to see the end state of the Gramscian march, simply look at the black community in the US. Their families are destroyed, most of their children grow up without a father, a large proportion of their males end up criminals, dependence on the state is high, and their civil society is destroyed. The black community has been destroyed by the welfare society government has put onto it.

And guess what, blacks vote almost entirely Democrat, the party that fought for their enslavement and for Jim Crow, just so the state benefits that are destroying them keep flowing.

****

The left- liberal ideologues are intent on forcing the government on you, so that you become dependent on it, so you will support government’s further intrusion into and control of your life. That is and has been their strategy for decades.

They want you dependent.

Romney simply pointed out the results of the strategy. This is why they are attacking him so violently, because once you know that government dependency is, you might ask why it is.
If you ask why it is, you might understand their strategy. Once you understand their strategy, you might resist it.

So, the question is, do you want to be dependent on government as they manipulate you?

Liberal Economic Stupidity

Today, I am going to comment on two pieces of economic stupidity from liberals.

The first piece is from a Democracy Now! interview with Matt Taibbi (h/t: Clarissa), in which he writes:

Well, Mitt Romney is really the representative of an entire movement that’s taken over the American business world in the last couple of decades. You know, America used to be-especially the American economy was built upon this brick-and-mortar industrial economy, where we had factories, we built stuff, and we sold it here in America, and we exported it all over the world. That manufacturing economy was the foundation for our wealth and power for a couple of centuries. And then, in the ’80s, we started to transform ourselves from a manufacturing economy to a financial economy. And that process, which, you know, on Wall Street we call financialization, was really led that-sort of this revolution, where instead of making products, we made transactions, we made financial products, like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. We created money through financial transactions rather than building products and selling them around the world. And that revolution was really led by people like Mitt Romney. And the advantage of financialization, from the point of view of the very rich and the people who run the American economy, is that it was extremely efficient at extracting wealth and kicking it upward, whereas the old manufacturing economy had the sort of negative effect of spreading around to the entire population. In the financialization revolution, you can take all of the money, and you don’t have to spread it around with anybody. And Mitt Romney was kind of a symbol of that fundamental shift in our economy.

Now, this kind of argument is made all the time by liberals: that evil businesses and bankers are destroying the manufacturing sector and traditional blue-collar jobs.

The problem is its wrong. Now, don’t get me wrong, the traditional blue-collar model is dying in North America, but the left has the culprit wrong. If they want to see why it is dying, they only need to look in the mirror.

The manufacturing economy is dying because of government overregulation, pushed by liberals. Between an increasingly harsh regulatory environment, brutal taxation levels, the manipulation of local zoning regulations, corrupt unions, political interference, etc., etc. the left has made it all but impossible for blue-collar industry to thrive.

As the Captain has written: capital flight is a built-in feature of socialism.

If you make it impossible for industrialists to create industry in North America, do not be surprised when no industry is created in North America.

As just one example of the war leftists are engaging on blue collar industry, we can look to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The US recently had a perfect opportunity to create thousands of traditional blue-collar jobs. Canada was practically begging the US to allow this pipeline to be built through the US and TransCanada had plans drawn up and was ready to build. XL would have created 20,000 jobs and huge revenues for both Canada and the US. It never happened. Why?

Because a bunch of idiot leftists protested it and the government killed it.

This is not an isolated event.

I lied earlier; I’m going to provide more than one example,  to show it’s not just oil pipelines. Let’s look at a few examples of random blue-collar industries:

• Look at what the unions did to the US automotive industry.
• Look at what the feds are doing to the heating industry.
• Look what the government is doing to the fishing industry.
• Look at what the EPA is doing to the coal industry.
• Look at what the FDA is doing to the cigar industry.
• Look at what the USDA is doing to the family farm and agricultural industry.

I could go on forever, but why bother. The simple fact is, at every step, across every industrial sector, leftist ideologues are trying their damnedest to destroy any industry here in North America.

These ideologues have created a government of over-regulation and over-taxation that is destroying blue-collar industry. The programs these people have put in place costs the economy $1.75 trillion a year.

After the huge swath of destruction they have wreaked across the North American industrial landscape, I can hardly believe they have the gall to turn around and complain about disappearing blue collar jobs.

Are leftists so stupid that they can not see the very visible side effects of their ideology or are they just plain evil?

****

As an almost completely irrelevant aside, there is at least one major company (the second-largest private company in the US) I can name of the top of my head that manufactures most of its products in the US. It’s called Koch Industries. Unsurprisingly, it is the target of constant attacks and smears by the left.

****

The second piece of idiocy I’m going to comment on is from Slate. Michael Moran writes:

Are we getting back to normal? Well, of course not: times were not normal to start. To get back to that normal would be national suicide – an asset bubble fueled normal more unsustainable than anything either of our political parties is flirting with today.

…

Do we really pine for the bubble years? Remember, folks, the “prosperity” now implied by those who as about “four years ago”  were fuelled by a runaway financial system that treated peoples’ homes, jobs and lives like so many chips in a casino.

Would we be “better off” if the bubble loomed over us again?  No, we’d be walking toward an even deeper cliff.

I agree with this, an economy based upon a bubble is stupid, and not something we want to return to.

In the same article he also writes:

First, the view that President Obama wants to emerge from Charlotte: Four years ago the country was sliding over the edge of an economic cliff. Today, we’ve got one leg back on top, and even with the Republican congressional caucus holding onto the other leg and screaming “I’d rather fall to my death than climb back onto that debt-strewn precipice” – we’re clawing our way to safety.

…

Ironically, his economic policies are not the real problem. Again, this was always going to take a long time to solve. We can argue whether there should have been more stimulus (I think so). But on the finer economic points, the general direction has been correct.

…

Recessions, as Europe demonstrates every single day, are no time to cut government spending: the result is a vicious circle in which austerity kills growth and deficits become nearly insurmountable (especially in countries that have to fund them on the open market). So even if deficits rise during a recession, the idea is to hasten the return of growth that, in the end, is the only real solution to such gaps.

It is very clear he is in favour of Keynesian stimulus and against reigning in government spending.

Somehow, he doesn’t see the contradiction between these two positions. One can not be against a bubble economy and be for economic stimulus, as economic stimulus is the creation of a bubble economy.

Government spending inherently creates economic bubbles.

An economic bubble occurs when the nominal value of something is inflated far beyond its intrinsic worth.

Government spending, particularly stimulus spending, is spending on goods or services individuals are not willing to spend on and invest in on an individual level.

In other words, stimulus is spending on goods and services more than its inherent market value.

Anybody advocating Keynesian stimulus is advocating the government creates a bubble by investing where the free market is unwilling to invest.

(There is one difference though, bubbles on the private market will generally pop at some point in the short-medium term when someone realizes its idiotic. On the other hand, government supported bubbles can be propped-up almost indefinitely through tax-payer funding, at least until the state runs out of money).

****

Anyhow, that completes today’s round of liberal stupidity.