Randomness thread, part two.

[aubreymcfate]

My league consists of Ruxin, and we will make nasty unconventional love all day all night. BAM.

[wufwugy]

But Seth Rogen is not fug either, just offbeat.

Well there you go. I'm not talking about what makes somebody attractive so much as the effects of being attractive, and that this attractiveness is physical characteristics (which include fashion and mannerisms among other less obvious stuff). And I'm making the contrast of my personal situation of being unattractive (fat) to attractive (unfat). There is next to nothing in my life that can explain why I didn't even get glances at 250, got tons of glances and come ons at 185, and currently have started receiving more glances at 215 as I drop weight from 250

I'm a people watcher, you know that. Don't do something around me unless you want to be analyzed

[wufwugy]

My league consists of Ruxin, and we will make nasty unconventional love all day all night. BAM.

Yeah but what if he was 250

John Goodman recently said that most roles he's offered are ones where he's the bumbling fat guy. A fat guy being considered sexually attractive and a good hookup opportunity is quite rare. It can and does happen, but the amount of work that goes into it is basically the same as the amount for the opposite sex

[bikes]

Yeah but what if he was 250

John Goodman recently said that most roles he's offered are ones where he's the bumbling fat guy. A fat guy being considered sexually attractive and a good hookup opportunity is quite rare. It can and does happen, but the amount of work that goes into it is basically the same as the amount for the opposite sex

john goodman is also known for playing a bumbling fat man. niche acting and what not.

[d0zer]

ITT: wuggy tells women what they want and can beat up steven seagal, but is not more handsome than the kingslayer.

[aubreymcfate]

Wug I'm pretty sure we've been making the same point the whole time but to prove it feels too much like work.

Also biggie smalls: notable exception.

[wufwugy]

john goodman is also known for playing a bumbling fat man. niche acting and what not.

Yes, because that's the only role anybody thinks a fat person can have. This helps my point

[wufwugy]

If we were to list all the ways we think men and women are different, it would be a long list. But if that same list were dependent on the actual truth, it would be much shorter. An example is how it wasn't that long ago that men and women thought that women didn't care about sex as much as men. All sorts of logic and evidences would be used to make that point. But now we know that isn't true.

Given what we have learned about the minimal differences between men and women, the rule of thumb should be that the sexes are the same unless the evidence otherwise is overwhelming. BTW I looked at some pictures of Seth Rogan. He's not a good example. He looks like he's a little overweight but still an attractive person. Jonah Hill before he lost weight is a good example. Sure women might say they still would have liked him, but that's confusing his status with the issue. Hill's roles are always a "not attractive fat guy"

This guy is invisible





This guy, not so invisible






Storytime: I spent a decent amount of time with a chick in one of my classes. It was during winter so I was always wearing a bulky jacket. I could tell I just looked like a regular ol fat guy to her. Then one day it was sunny and I wasn't wearing a jacket, and it was the only time she saw that I wasn't just a fat guy, but had a decent amount of muscle. She looked at me differently after that and came on to me a couple times

This sort of thing shouldn't be a revelation to anybody. It should be common sense that "duh, chicks care about how hot you are just like any normal person". Also she was a chick who explicitly stated she doesn't care what men look like. I knew it was bullshit. She probably didn't, but that's what happens when you're raised in a society that tells you that you are a certain way. You believe it even when you aren't

[Chelle]

I know this is funny coming from me - but this is just starting to sound whiny now.

Yes, people don't have automatic attraction to someone they don't find attractive. That's terrible, especially if you base your opinion of yourself mostly of if someone wants your genitalia in or around them. Maybe this sounds harsh or cunt-ish, either way. Being resentful or holding some sort of negative feeling towards someone because they aren't finding you automatically attractive, it's dumb.

I've been called ugly a fuckton of times in my life - but that doesn't make me feel resentful. It used to. It used to be like, oh well, I must be this this this and this because so many people say it, but I haven't for a few years. Yes, it's lovely to be found attractive, but there are many more important things in life than oh wow someone just checked me out.

Michelles' Rules for Life
1) Love yourself
2) Push yourself
3) Repeat

In other news - there are no more pineapple upside down cupcakes.

[Galapogos]

The glances I get from women have slowly begun returning. At 250 I was basically invisible. The weight-loss stretch from 215 to 205 is harder than I expected, but I remember that 205 is when the attention from women picks up a lot. The final goal, 185, will be ridiculous

If somebody tells you women aren't as shallow as men, don't believe them. Back when I was athletic and hot I remember being blown away at how much attention I got. Then I got fat and was likewise blown away at how little I got. All the while, my personality changed in no way. I used to think my main attraction to women was wit and playful communication, but have since learned that means little short of shit. Attraction is a physical thing, through and through

This post is like the baby of a Lukie and wufwugy post.

[wufwugy]

I know this is funny coming from me - but this is just starting to sound whiny now.

Yes, people don't have automatic attraction to someone they don't find attractive. That's terrible, especially if you base your opinion of yourself mostly of if someone wants your genitalia in or around them. Maybe this sounds harsh or cunt-ish, either way. Being resentful or holding some sort of negative feeling towards someone because they aren't finding you automatically attractive, it's dumb.

I've been called ugly a fuckton of times in my life - but that doesn't make me feel resentful. It used to. It used to be like, oh well, I must be this this this and this because so many people say it, but I haven't for a few years. Yes, it's lovely to be found attractive, but there are many more important things in life than oh wow someone just checked me out.

Michelles' Rules for Life
1) Love yourself
2) Push yourself
3) Repeat

In other news - there are no more pineapple upside down cupcakes.

My point is not what you think it is. I'm not expressing any emotional position. I'm discussing this as if it's a hypothetical. I'm not "being resentful or holding some sort of negative feeling towards someone because they aren't finding you automatically attractive".

I am attempting to be academic (which is standard for me). This isn't about me, I'm just using examples from my life as data points and nothing else. I'm not judging people or looking for advice. I've basically made the thesis "women care about hotness as much as men" and have been using some of my personal experiences to substantiate the claim

If there's a different direction you'd like to take the discussion, that's fine. That's how these things work. Just know that this isn't me whining, just trying to state facts to better understand the world around me

[Chelle]

Ah, well then.

Still, my rules are awesome.

And the cupcakes are still gone.

[bikes]

I am attempting to be academic (which is standard for me)

awful lonely in that ivory tower of academia over there!

[wufwugy]

i extended you a ladder but you went

[BennyLaRue]

If we were to list all the ways we think men and women are different, it would be a long list.

There are no women wufwuggies.

TRUTHBOMBASPLODE

[BennyLaRue]

Fucking terrorists.

[wufwugy]

im sure there's a womewugy out there somewhere

[BennyLaRue]

Is she two-fiddy?

[wufwugy]

wufwugy hisself aint no two fiddy neemore. dose abs be a comin

[KoRnholio]

Sometimes I feel like my life is the personification of Socially Awkward Penguin comics. It's like I am midway between socially competent and autistic. The SAP moment itself doesn't bother me much, but the fact that I'll often ruminate about it off and on for an hour or two can be annoying.

Today's moment:

I was helping my sister out doing deliveries for her flower shop (Mother's day and all). There is an old guy standing outside his car in the driveway of the house I am walking up to. I notice him, he seemed preoccupied and may or may not have noticed me. I go to the door, woman answers and say "Hi, I have a flower delivery for ___." Brief thanks, I say "have a good day", no real pleasantries.

As I am walking back to my car, the old guy looks at me and says "I guess you aren't the kind of person to say 'good morning'" with what I interpreted as a condescending/shameful tone. I have literally no response to give him, so I just kept walking.

I still don't know if he was chastising me for not saying good morning to him and/or the woman inside, or if he's just some random cranky old fucker. My social radar is most certainly broken.

[aubreymcfate]

I feel you 100% on the somewhere between normal and autistic thing, lol. And the forever long ruminations looong after the fact. It's exhausting.

Unprompted old people commentary can be a jarring experience. Esp of that nature, fuck that guy lol.

I had a really awkward experience with Adam Driver about a week ago that still makes me squirm inside when I think about it, even though it really wasn't that bad. Not to mention no celebrity is going to remember all of the awkward fan experiences they endure, especially one as ultimately inconsequential as mine. Is that going to stop me from wasting energy thinking about it and feeling embarrassed? Not a chance.

[wufwugy]

Driver has PTSD from acting on Girls. You also have PTSD from watching Girls.

[Savy]

Or maybe you all are just normal and every little nuance in personality is thrown under so much scrutiny you think you have a problem. Maybe caring about your actions and feeling you came across as a dick or a weirdo is normal, because you know that's not a good thing.

Or maybe you're all just joining in the socially awkward scene to fit in.

I still don't know if he was chastising me for not saying good morning to him and/or the woman inside, or if he's just some random cranky old fucker. My social radar is most certainly broken.

It's for not saying it to him. You should at least smile at people in those situations. However the guy is a cunt to say something in the first place so fuck him.

[aubreymcfate]

Or maybe you all are just normal and every little nuance in personality is thrown under so much scrutiny you think you have a problem. Maybe caring about your actions and feeling you came across as a dick or a weirdo is normal, because you know that's not a good thing.

Or maybe you're all just joining in the socially awkward scene to fit in.


It's for not saying it to him. You should at least smile at people in those situations. However the guy is a cunt to say something in the first place so fuck him.

I agree with your assessment of the old dude and I agree with pretty much everything else. It's super common for people to self-diagnose themselves as neurotic and anxiety-ridden. It's something people tend to feel alone with because it's by nature such a solitary experience.

For me, dealing with my anxiety and feelings of awkwardness has been a significant source of emotional pain and stress all my life. At the same time, I've learned to use it as part of my charm (which is common for neurotic types that can still function relatively fine in society - which I can, I know I'm not an extreme case or anything). I remember watching Seinfeld when I was little and then later on becoming obsessed with Larry David in my adolescence, because the classic NY Jew humor of self-deprecation spoke to me even in the single-digits. When I heard that term, self-deprecating humor, I knew immediately that was me (whatever that means - I dunno, it resonated strongly). Being able to poke fun at myself constantly actually became a really helpful way to deal with feeling like an overly-analytical narcissistic freak.

But I still struggle with being a little more anxious than most... And I know people more anxious than me, so I know it could be worse. But it's difficult. Luckily I have a few awesome people in my life who are of immense help when I'm in a bad spot, Wufwugy being one of them. Wug is truly one of the most genuinely wonderful people I know, just have to say. Gem of a person. <3

I remember a couple of years ago, I was sitting in a doctor's office who observed that I grind my teeth constantly and was "sitting like you're in a plane that's going down," which was a wake-up call to how majorly tense I actually was. I hadn't even realized I was a teeth grinder till he said that and I'm still trying to work on it. I've developed a bad counter-habit now of trying to stretch my jaw which is probably equally bad, hah. I stopped biting my nails though, for the first time in 24 years. So I guess I'm getting better, if curbing the exterior indications of anxiety is any marker of that.

[bikes]

Greeks man. Greeks.

"Greeks talk a whole load of nonsense. " - Lucius Vorenus

[aubreymcfate]

now you guys all know that I'm ultra-sensitive and will obsess over any mean thing you say to me nooooooo what have i doneeeeeeee

[bikes]

now you guys all know that I'm ultra-sensitive and will obsess over any mean thing you say to me nooooooo what have i doneeeeeeee

i sorry! i watched that episode of hbo's rome today! fantastic episode.

context

[wufwugy]

^^all hail the most hardcore tv character of all time

[Chelle]

Dear Miss.Aubrey,

Anxiety is a bitch, but, it's a bitch that it's okay to beat. I still beat the hell out of mine on a daily basis. Went to a store yesterday, went in alone, had a panic attack but breathed through it. Faced it. Sucked for about 2 minutes pretty bad, but then I went back to looking at undies. Used to I would have fell over with a seizure even though I was taking SSRI's.

It gets better, with determination and the stubbornness of not giving in to the rush of adrenaline that comes through your veins. You just breathe, and release. Especially if you're needing a new bra and don't want to be pushed around by the son-of-a-bitch anxiety is.

Sincerely,
Chelle

[aubreymcfate]

<3 thanks Chelle. Yeah, learning to ride the panic attack through and sort of distance yourself from the sensation really helps. It's important not to let your emotions completely define or take control of you. I've learned some breathing/focus techniques lately that have helped.. nothing anyone taught me, just something I kind of found for myself. Things that help me distance my head from the whirlwind of my emotions so I can actually process them without getting caught in the undertow.

[Chelle]

<3 thanks Chelle. Yeah, learning to ride the panic attack through and sort of distance yourself from the sensation really helps. It's important not to let your emotions completely define or take control of you. I've learned some breathing/focus techniques lately that have helped.. nothing anyone taught me, just something I kind of found for myself. Things that help me distance my head from the whirlwind of my emotions so I can actually process them without getting caught in the undertow.

You're welcome sweetheart. I was taught too, and I fucking hated doing it - but it helped more than anything else. I'm getting my license back in June after not being able to drive since 2008 because the seizures. I know how bad anxiety can get, and fighting it makes you want to say fuck it, because it never truly goes away, and when you think you're good, life throws a pile of shit in your face.
You got this, just make anxiety your bitch VS it making you it's.

[aubreymcfate]

I made anxiety my bitch and turned it into UV face paint. woo!

edit: the song thread isn't on the front page (and if it is i didn't see it so too late) so for all y'all with good taste i've been listening to this obsessively - OBSESSIVELY - it's so good, and as a pianist so exhausting to listen to. but so beautiful. if you have an ear for classical (well this is 20th century but i still think he is considered a classical composer, in the romantic tradition) and haven't heard this, listen immeeeediiiaateelyyyy

[wufwugy]

I see you exchanged the moldface cara maria for the pigtail latina

[bikes]

I see you exchanged the moldface cara maria for the pigtail latina

Hi! I'm wufwugy. Or as d0zerz might call me, woof woo goo guy!

[Chelle]

Getting a mode of transportation tomorrow. As well as the license to drive it.

Holy. Fuck.

[bikes]

and the 21 hour work day begins now @_@

[jackvance]

Russia is kicking NASA out of the space station.

[Chelle]

Bam bitches. Passed that mother fucking test on the first try without driving for 6 years.

[a500lbgorilla]

Look at this monkey

[rong]

You're right, I can't, and I'm not.

"A select few" is very problematic, but that's not the case we're dealing with. The monied interests are very dynamic and a large enough portion of the populace that the rules of competition are in place. We always talk about the Kochs, Murdoch, and Adelson, but their contributions to politics are still just a fraction of the total. Furthermore, they're losing. The big money doesn't win because it's the big money; it wins when the value behind it wins

The media and popular discussion of this issue is mostly anti-fact. I never see any discussion of what the money actually does, and I assume the reason I don't see that is because, when the money is investigated, the idea that it controls the system breaks down

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310...tics-explained

The general public / average voter has very little influence and what the rich want they get.

And want they want is to maintain or increase their wealth and power

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5581272...loop-oligarchy

The trickle down theory is about giving the population/worker bees just enough to keep them where they are and keep them occupied to stop a revolt. It is not in the best interest of the people.

I'm starting to think that the optimal system for a population needs to evolve. I think capitalism is optimal for a while but if left unfettered it will eventually destroy itself. I don't know what's next but I'm sure a system built on greed can only get you so far. But I have nothing to back that up.

[Renton]

OK you're stating that the rich tend to get what they want in all of the highly socialized societies of the world. What that tells you is that we need some sort of grand change in our socio-economic system. What it tells me is that rich people have a lot of power innately and it doesn't matter what government policy attempts to intercede. You cannot negate the influence of money on the way things are so you may as well just allow it to run its course and revel in all the good things about a monetary society. Fighting it just makes things worse for us all, but worse for the poor and middle class by a larger metric than for the rich.

[wufwugy]

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310...tics-explained

The general public / average voter has very little influence and what the rich want they get.

And want they want is to maintain or increase their wealth and power

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5581272...loop-oligarchy

The trickle down theory is about giving the population/worker bees just enough to keep them where they are and keep them occupied to stop a revolt. It is not in the best interest of the people.

I'm starting to think that the optimal system for a population needs to evolve. I think capitalism is optimal for a while but if left unfettered it will eventually destroy itself. I don't know what's next but I'm sure a system built on greed can only get you so far. But I have nothing to back that up.

A series of posts and a lecture by one of my favorite economists on the subject. In case you're skeptical, Caplan is a PhD and could be called "the most liberal person ever" due to his support of open borders, but his support for basic economics would make many call him just another in the marching band of greedy spinsters

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._democrac.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...nce_erudi.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._gilens_v.html




Long story short: because voters know so little about economics and social policy, a capitalist approach to policy-making produces better results than a purely democratic one.

I think this is true and I think the best evidence for why it's true is found in the causal links between most of what we currently consider bad policy and/or know is bad policy. I've listed many examples before, but here are a couple more that don't get any attention: wanna save the rhino? How do you propose doing that when the majority of democratic voters oppose the very capitalistic policy that would (by breeding and selling horns legally)? Wanna increase global living standards by a fuckload? How do you propose doing that when the majority of democratic voters oppose the capitalistic policies that would (by allowing the sale of kidneys)?

There are millions of things that elected officials make illegal based on voter-backed sentiments that are causing many of the world's biggest problems. There are just a handful of problems that capitalistic incentives are the cause of.

Since the evidence is that money in politics = good. How about we get more of it? Sounds blasphemous, I know, but how about we make it so those who receive contributions can't know the source. That would greatly hinder the ability for regulatory capture without hindering the ability for the money to counter the batshit voter sentiments that cause most of our socioeconomic problems


FWIW, the idea that the masses do not rule as well as the elites isn't new. The problem of social policy construction by the masses was acknowledged by the founders of democracy. Like Plato's philosopher kings.

[wufwugy]

Also two of the go-to arguments found on the web about why the rich are screwing people do not hold water: inequality and taxes. Inequality tells us virtually nothing. Without going into a bunch of detail, it should be noted that the data shows that the top 1% is made up of the top 19% due to all sorts of measurements that nobody talks about (like if you sell your home you're in the top 1% for a period of time), only 10% of Forbes 400 from 30 years ago are still on the list, and virtually everything that increases living standards also increases inequality (a company that makes a cancer cure drug would get incredibly rich and inequality would rise, yet we'd all be infinitely better off because of it). "Income" is not a meaningful statistic, as well (consumption is the relevant measurement, income is merely an abstraction that measures nothing concrete). When economic inequality is considered instead of income inequality, inequality looks much different. As for taxes, economic incidence is the right measure, not legal incidence. Popular data always uses legal incidence to try to make an agenda of inequality, but economic incidence tells a much different story. Hell, most (all?) inequality and income data doesn't even bother to factor in all sorts of relevant factors like subsidies.

[wufwugy]

holy paragraph and parentheses, batman. i tried to pack as many points and explanations in as small space as possible

[d0zer]

FWIW, the idea that the masses do not rule as well as the elites isn't new. The problem of social policy construction by the masses was acknowledged by the founders of democracy. Like Plato's philosopher kings.

Yeah except plato's idea of a philosopher king ruling with philosophical wisdom is hardly like the self-interested plutocracy we have and always have had.

[d0zer]

Hey wuggy, aren't you a trust fund baby? Small wonder you're always gobbling elite cob.

[wufwugy]

Yeah except plato's idea of a philosopher king ruling with philosophical wisdom is hardly like the self-interested plutocracy we have and always have had.

Do you see the point I was making? The philosopher king idea acknowledges the problems of populous rule and the need for elite (read: expert) input. As far as I can see, capitalism has made a system that better provides this input. I can't think of any other way of getting a system that provides a mechanism by which people with a lot of skin in the game or understanding of the issues can make their voices heard.

If you have a plumbing problem, you don't want to get public opinion on how to fix it. You want the opinion of plumbing experts. The same is true of politics, society, and economics. We should not be that interested in the opinions about political policy by those who do not know much about political policy. Attaching a value to political policy construction (like how paying a plumber to do plumbing is attaching a value to the service) does more good than harm. The kinds of problems that you can correctly lay the blame on the so-called oligarchy is nothing in comparison to the immense problems you can lay the blame on the populace.

Polsci101 says voters rule. Amateurpoliticalopinion101 says voters are feeble at the hands of the all-powerful rich. One of these is the opinion of those who study the topic, the other is not.

Hey wuggy, aren't you a trust fund baby? Small wonder you're always gobbling elite cob.

LOL! Who even started this rumor? I swear I've seen it before

Don't be alarmed, there is no wealth in my family, and every one of us knows what it's like to live at or below the poverty level

[d0zer]

I see the point you're making, but it's moot because public opinion doesn't dictate public policy, despite your recent best efforts to portray the people as having so much power. Politicians lie to get into office, making promises that coincide with public opinion, and then ignore all that shit, creating policy that benefits those that paid for them to be in power. Your characterization of the power that the masses have is absurd.

I don't disagree with the notion that "the masses" are ill equipped to be dictating complicated policy, but you're acting as if we have a democracy instead of an oligarchy-controlled republic.

[wufwugy]

I typed this up before your latest post and don't want to reword everything, so here it is:


Watch the lecture. He does a great job showing why public opinion is atrocious on most policy issues.

BTW, it's said that what we have is capitalism and it would be better to move in a different direction. My response is that what we have isn't nearly as capitalist as people say, and it would be better to move towards more capitalism. List all the things that don't hurt people that you can't sell, and for each one you find, erase a "capitalist" mark. You'll find that there's a shitload of ways in which we have a non-capitalist state.

What I propose is a system of capitalism with democratic fittings. It's probably ultimately a good thing for people to have the vote, but as we've seen, democracy still creates authoritarian state juggernauts. But there are ways to fix the flaws of democracy. I think those fixes involve putting values on things and allowing them to compete, even something like your vote itself.

There isn't some fundamental reason why supply and demand (read: capitalism) has turned incredibly expensive and bland food into super cheap cuisine yet can't do that for other things like poverty or poor education. It seems that we take for granted all the good capitalism has done, but then look at problems that capitalism hasn't solved, despite state inhibiting the resolution pathways, and blame them on capitalism

I see the point you're making, but it's moot because public opinion doesn't dictate public policy, despite your recent best efforts to portray the people as having so much power. Politicians lie to get into office, making promises that coincide with public opinion, and then ignore all that shit, creating policy that benefits those that paid for them to be in power. Your characterization of the power that the masses have is absurd.

I don't disagree with the notion that "the masses" are ill equipped to be dictating complicated policy, but you're acting as if we have a democracy instead of an oligarchy-controlled republic.

I think Bryan Caplan addresses a lot of this in the lecture. Also I think it's obvious that I disagree with the assessment that we have a society run by the oligarchs. I think it's more appropriate to say that we have a society that runs despite the public unwittingly trying to destroy it. In the lecture, one conclusion Caplan comes to from examining the data is how amazing it is that society isn't so much worse since public opinion is so terrible. In that sense, we do have something run by oligarchs, and it is a very good thing. It's like public opinion is the child running in the street and expertise (which is mostly backed by a capitalism-influence oligarchy) is the adult that pulls him off the street before a car hits him. This sounds like hyperbole and quite distasteful since the common man is romanticized by all of us, but I think it's true nonetheless

[wufwugy]

Take the current biggest social issue in the US today: gay marriage. Who's running the show, the populace or the oligarchs? The populace, obviously. It's because of public opinion that gays have been so horribly discriminated against, and it's because of the change in public opinion that they are now being discriminated against less so. An argument could be made that the big money has mostly fought on the side of good throughout all this

The second biggest social issue is the same: marijuana. The money didn't make it illegal and it isn't money that is now reversing those laws. The story is public opinion again.

On the economic side, doesn't the fact that the so-called oligarchy can't even get the simplest laws that supposedly favor them passed show that it's the populace that's really running the show? Even the most left-wing economists are a bit more right-wing about economics than our current policy. Economic policy rarely changes to reflect the views of economists because public opinion rules the day and has a mind of its own

[bikes]

i have written you down you will live forever

[Chelle]

going to a local mma fight saturday. pretty excited. gonna get all prettied up and watch people beat the shit out of each other. i feel like a kid on christmas eve.

[d0zer]

Take the current biggest social issue in the US today: gay marriage. Who's running the show, the populace or the oligarchs? The populace, obviously. It's because of public opinion that gays have been so horribly discriminated against, and it's because of the change in public opinion that they are now being discriminated against less so. An argument could be made that the big money has mostly fought on the side of good throughout all this

The second biggest social issue is the same: marijuana. The money didn't make it illegal and it isn't money that is now reversing those laws. The story is public opinion again.

These are both examples of where the public actually has the potential to influence things: when there aren't huge money interests involved. The biggest opposition to gay marriage and pot legalization are religious and enforcement-related government agencies and private prison. That's not like oil or pharma or military monies.

[rong]

OK you're stating that the rich tend to get what they want in all of the highly socialized societies of the world. What that tells you is that we need some sort of grand change in our socio-economic system. What it tells me is that rich people have a lot of power innately and it doesn't matter what government policy attempts to intercede. You cannot negate the influence of money on the way things are so you may as well just allow it to run its course and revel in all the good things about a monetary society. Fighting it just makes things worse for us all, but worse for the poor and middle class by a larger metric than for the rich.

Just for kicks read that post and everywhere where you say "the rich" or "money" say white people (or words to that effect to make the sentence make sense) and think 60 years ago.

It's effectively saying that we are not born equal, do not all have a fair chance of success and do not have an equal say in society but that it depends on who you are born to. That doesn't sound very American to me.

[bikes]

america doesnt sound very american anymore

[rong]

God dam it. Imma need to get my laptop to respond to this shit, phone ain't gonna cut it.

[rong]

Long story short: because voters know so little about economics and social policy, a capitalist approach to policy-making produces better results than a purely democratic one.

I think this is true and I think the best evidence for why it's true is found in the causal links between most of what we currently consider bad policy and/or know is bad policy. I've listed many examples before, but here are a couple more that don't get any attention: wanna save the rhino? How do you propose doing that when the majority of democratic voters oppose the very capitalistic policy that would (by breeding and selling horns legally)?

Not everything needs to have a price. This is fault of capitalism. Why can't we just not hunt or kill rhinos? If you're suggesting that allowing breeding and/or hunting is the most efficient way in terms of resources required to save the rhino then you are probably correct. But it's not always about efficiency. I mean you could probably make a market for killing humans for sport, or cats and dogs or w/e, but we as a society get to have a say on what is or isn't acceptable. That's the point of a democracy. This is a prime example of allowing money to decide things and money has no sense of right or wrong. ethics and morality don't come in to play. If money is deciding things, then those with the most money have the most sway and that is huge part of the problem.

Another approach to the rhino issue could be to employ a ton of people to protect them. This would give lots of people in that area of Africa a job, which would increase economic prosperity there and therefore reduce the need for Africans to slaughter rhinos to earn money. It would cost more but that doesn't mean it isn't a better option.

Wanna increase global living standards by a fuckload? How do you propose doing that when the majority of democratic voters oppose the capitalistic policies that would (by allowing the sale of kidneys)?

Again, this would undoubtedly force some people into having to sell a kidney. The combination of private healthcare and the opportunity to sell a kidney would mean a ton of poor people with a sick kid now have only one kidney. SO those born wealthy don't have to sell a kidney to save their sick kid where as those born poor do. This is not a good way to improve living standards. We have all these resources squirreled away at the top that could solve a ton of issues but rather than distributing them in a more equitable way you're suggestion is let the poor sell their kidneys.

[rong]

Also two of the go-to arguments found on the web about why the rich are screwing people do not hold water: inequality and taxes. Inequality tells us virtually nothing. Without going into a bunch of detail, it should be noted that the data shows that the top 1% is made up of the top 19% due to all sorts of measurements that nobody talks about (like if you sell your home you're in the top 1% for a period of time), only 10% of Forbes 400 from 30 years ago are still on the list, and virtually everything that increases living standards also increases inequality (a company that makes a cancer cure drug would get incredibly rich and inequality would rise, yet we'd all be infinitely better off because of it). "Income" is not a meaningful statistic, as well (consumption is the relevant measurement, income is merely an abstraction that measures nothing concrete). When economic inequality is considered instead of income inequality, inequality looks much different. As for taxes, economic incidence is the right measure, not legal incidence. Popular data always uses legal incidence to try to make an agenda of inequality, but economic incidence tells a much different story. Hell, most (all?) inequality and income data doesn't even bother to factor in all sorts of relevant factors like subsidies.

From the links I gave earlier:

1) Let's begin with the economics. A new study by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman shows that the richest one percent of US households have almost doubled their share of the nation's wealth since the 1960s. One percent of the country owns more than 40 percent of the wealth — and that share is rising.
2) In contrast, the bottom 90 percent of the country owns less than 30 percent of the nation's wealth.
3) If you look closely, the rise of the one percent is actually the rise of the 0.1 percent. In the 1960s, this group owned about 10 percent of the nation's wealth. By 2012, they owned more than 20 percent.
4) It's well known that as the rich have gotten richer, the top income tax rate has gone down. In 1960, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent. It's now 39.6 percent.

5) Similarly, as the wealthy have gotten wealthier, the estate tax — which taxes inheritances — has been declawed. In 1960, the tax began at estates of $60,000, and the top rate, which hit estates above $10,000,000, was 77 percent. Today the estate tax doesn't even begin until the estate is worth $5,340,000 — and after that, the top tax rate is just 40 percent.



Seems to me that the wealthy elite seem to be gradually changing things to ensure they maintain their wealth.

[rong]

Do you see the point I was making? The philosopher king idea acknowledges the problems of populous rule and the need for elite (read: expert) input. As far as I can see, capitalism has made a system that better provides this input. I can't think of any other way of getting a system that provides a mechanism by which people with a lot of skin in the game or understanding of the issues can make their voices heard.

If you have a plumbing problem, you don't want to get public opinion on how to fix it. You want the opinion of plumbing experts. The same is true of politics, society, and economics. We should not be that interested in the opinions about political policy by those who do not know much about political policy. Attaching a value to political policy construction (like how paying a plumber to do plumbing is attaching a value to the service) does more good than harm. The kinds of problems that you can correctly lay the blame on the so-called oligarchy is nothing in comparison to the immense problems you can lay the blame on the populace.

Polsci101 says voters rule. Amateurpoliticalopinion101 says voters are feeble at the hands of the all-powerful rich. One of these is the opinion of those who study the topic, the other is not.

Great rhetoric in the last paragraph.

Capitalism isn't needed to ensure the best people make decisions. That's the point of democracy in itself. Not that politicians get voted in because they follow popular opinion but because the populace believe they will make the best decisions on our behalf. And certainly not because they got huge financial backing from some wealthy folk and now have to return the favour with policy.

[rong]

I see the point you're making, but it's moot because public opinion doesn't dictate public policy, despite your recent best efforts to portray the people as having so much power. Politicians lie to get into office, making promises that coincide with public opinion, and then ignore all that shit, creating policy that benefits those that paid for them to be in power. Your characterization of the power that the masses have is absurd.

I don't disagree with the notion that "the masses" are ill equipped to be dictating complicated policy, but you're acting as if we have a democracy instead of an oligarchy-controlled republic.

Basically this.

[rong]

I typed this up before your latest post and don't want to reword everything, so here it is:


Watch the lecture. He does a great job showing why public opinion is atrocious on most policy issues.

BTW, it's said that what we have is capitalism and it would be better to move in a different direction. My response is that what we have isn't nearly as capitalist as people say, and it would be better to move towards more capitalism. List all the things that don't hurt people that you can't sell, and for each one you find, erase a "capitalist" mark. You'll find that there's a shitload of ways in which we have a non-capitalist state.

What I propose is a system of capitalism with democratic fittings. It's probably ultimately a good thing for people to have the vote, but as we've seen, democracy still creates authoritarian state juggernauts. But there are ways to fix the flaws of democracy. I think those fixes involve putting values on things and allowing them to compete, even something like your vote itself.

There isn't some fundamental reason why supply and demand (read: capitalism) has turned incredibly expensive and bland food into super cheap cuisine yet can't do that for other things like poverty or poor education.

I can see no reason why capitalism would choose to solve this, a great education for everyone is not in the best interests of teh financial elite.

It seems that we take for granted all the good capitalism has done, but then look at problems that capitalism hasn't solved, despite state inhibiting the resolution pathways, and blame them on capitalism

As I said above, I think capitalism makes sense as part of the evolution of society but it reaches a point where it no longer benefits society, or maybe just isn't optimal.

I think Bryan Caplan addresses a lot of this in the lecture. Also I think it's obvious that I disagree with the assessment that we have a society run by the oligarchs. I think it's more appropriate to say that we have a society that runs despite the public unwittingly trying to destroy it. In the lecture, one conclusion Caplan comes to from examining the data is how amazing it is that society isn't so much worse since public opinion is so terrible. In that sense, we do have something run by oligarchs, and it is a very good thing. It's like public opinion is the child running in the street and expertise (which is mostly backed by a capitalism-influence oligarchy) is the adult that pulls him off the street before a car hits him. This sounds like hyperbole and quite distasteful since the common man is romanticized by all of us, but I think it's true nonetheless

I actually really like that analogy. But again I'm not suggesting that public opinion should be the sole consideration for policy, that would be ridiculous. But as the same time it is inevitable in a capitalistic society that wealth gets accumulated by very few people and those people then have a huge incentive to use that wealth to ensure they never lose it and that includes using that wealth and power to effect policy. There must be a tipping point where enough wealth and power is accumulated by a few where decisions in general no longer benefit society but just benefit those few, whilst they ensure the rest of us don't realise it, or at least are too busy trying to feed our selves or buy consumer crap that those with power have convinced us we need, to actually do anything about it.

[rong]

More about kidneys, how many are even needed. I'm pretty sure if we start at a decent price supply will outweigh demand by a huge amount and good old demand and supply would probably get it down to about $1,000 per kidney. You'd have to be desperate to be considering that.

[Chelle]

Did shit just get real in the randomness thread?

[wufwugy]

These are both examples of where the public actually has the potential to influence things: when there aren't huge money interests involved. The biggest opposition to gay marriage and pot legalization are religious and enforcement-related government agencies and private prison. That's not like oil or pharma or military monies.

The big money isn't influencing these things that much. Of the three things you listed, the first two are about the voters (religious and government backing) and the latter doesn't have nearly as big an effect on it as thought (private prisons)

Policy and changes therein on gay marriage and pot are stellar examples of voter sensibilities influencing policy far more than capital interests.

[d0zer]

The big money isn't influencing these things that much. Of the three things you listed, the first two are about the voters (religious and government backing) and the latter doesn't have nearly as big an effect on it as thought (private prisons)

Policy and changes therein on gay marriage and pot are stellar examples of voter sensibilities influencing policy far more than capital interests.

Yeah, my point is that voter sensibilities have the capacity to influence these policies because big capital interests aren't particularly interested in them. But they're relatively small issues compared to something like foreign policy.

[wufwugy]

Made a giant response to Rong and moved it hurr http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ty-197456.html

[d0zer]

[bikes]

fucking deer, sdjhklghsadjlghldsaglhjksd shoulda hit the fucker

[aubreymcfate]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/0...0DY0JS20140518

my cousin is the leading candidate in the mayoral elections for Athens

[Chelle]

So, MMA fights live are even better than on TV, obviously. But, oh wow.

Fuck yeah first time driving in the downtown city area, ever, and I did amazing.

Oh, and braces might be coming off Wednesday.

[bikes]

would like to thank my parents and my boss and my friends at the police for everything involving this stupid deer.

[bikes]

one time pls lee.

[d0zer]

meh, I'm sure cars don't really need all that anyway.

[rong]

Where's the deer?

[Chelle]

Should have got the deer and put it on the roof.

Fuck, I dislike deer, unless I'm eating them. Even though they're pretty and shit, they're dumb.

Insert Lewis CK's skit about deer here.