I never found Seinfeld funny. Simpsons was more my speed.
Printable View
I never found Seinfeld funny. Simpsons was more my speed.
Fruitlessly searching for funny Simpson's clips reminded me to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzweAb6WRwo
Even that hasn't aged well, opening ATC isn't that rare HU and waiting for hands is a terrible strat to counter it.
I think you're missing the point if you judge the quality of that video on the poker advice therein.
I don't know how it fares as comedy, but it's certainly amusing, entertaining and clever.
I've been getting into the idea of systems (as opposed to goals) a lot recently. I was talking about it with a non-FTR poker guy, and he recommended me this: How to Overcome Self Improvement Problems. The basic idea is kind of similar, and I've done sort of similar stuff in the past myself.
I got this iPhone (my first smartphone) a couple of months ago, and I've been really playing with the idea of using it as the "control panel" of my systems in general. Maybe this needs its own thread if I'm not the only person doing this sort of thing.
I think Seinfeld has aged better than any other comedy.
On a different note, it was one of the most revolutionary shows in TV history. Nearly every element in the modern sitcom completely changed after Seinfeld and are still today replicating it. Larry David is the closest thing to Shakespeare we have
Yeah, I've been realizing this slowly over the last several years, but never had a good way to verbalize it. Then I heard CPGGrey talking about it on the podcast Hello Internet. I find that I get way more done, and I tend to enjoy a lot more of my time even though I'm spending far less of it as what I normally would have thought of as free time.
If you like Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara you might like this new Canadian comedy, Schitt's Creek. http://www.cbc.ca/schittscreek/episodes/
Personally, I think Daniel Levy is revelation in this.
Surely you can't be serious. Why is a comedy best judged on the ROFLs scale? I don't really ROFL with Leslie Nielsen comedies but they are among the funniest ever. The same goes for Seinfeld. It's a clever comedy with jokes that'll live on for another 20 years. The ROFL scale sucks my ass.
NC go hard
My problem is that I don't think surely and Shirley sound alike enough for the joke to work. It's stupid. When I see other people chirp this line, I tend to groan. It's even less funny when it's not Leslie Nielson saying it.
One rhymes with early, the other rhymes with poorly. Which one are you saying wrong?
Cr'eek' vrs Cr'ick'
I say Shirley and Surely very similarly. And if you think that's wrong, the world will be a better place after you die.
http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/o...dden-internet/
Read it, motherfuckers.
Surely like poorly sounds like shore-ly. Shore, I'd love to go to the movies... give me a break.
Or do you call them the walkie-talkies in England, too?
What makes this scene funny to me is what makes every Leslie Nielson movie funny. It's that Leslie Nielson isn't funny. Most comedic actors: very funny people. Gene Wilder: very funny, John Cleese: very funny, Robin Williams: hysterical. Leslie Nielson... not very funny at all. In fact I imagine something like the Liam Neeson sketch in Life's too Short happening during Leslie Nielson's audition for Airplane! Incidentally very similar names.
You take a serious dramatic actor and you give him the silliest lines possible and it will never fail to make me laugh. It's simply something unexpected, which is the absolute essence of comedy, or the least effort you can make in comedy, depending on your perspective.
35 years and 10.000 reruns later it is no longer unexpected, so it can't be funny anymore, but I assure you it was very funny the first time around.
I like the "I am serious. And stop calling me Shirley." line for the above reasons (including the groan induction), and also one more:
When someone says, "Surely, ..." and what follows is false, that's pure unadulterated irony, and I just can't help but revel in pointing it out.
The added dimension of "Surely, you can't be serious." being a personal judgement makes it even more rich to me for a blatant misuse of the word "surely."
The retort, "I am serious." is so enticing, and playing the pun afterward is plain, old, undying dad-humor.
(I'm not a dad, but you know what I mean.)
This conversation for some reason reminds me of the movie Dragnet, which I'm possibly alone in thinking was a great movie and kinda reminds me of the naked gun films.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLt5U7VcHw8
Only takes about 15 seconds for the joke to land.
The article's not bloated. It's played up a bit by the author, but I like what he's on about.
Plus, I had to google define like four words, so you know he's smart.
A Jewish person attacking herself and blaming racist people? Shirley not.
I tripped at the Museum of Natural History on Saturday and saw Bill De Blasio with his son there. There was a used pad on the bathroom floor and a middle-age man tried to hit on me by asking me if I was a warrior after giving me an unprompted explanation of neolithic weaponry. The lady at the coat check-in didn't know a) what an iPad was and b) if it qualified as an electronic (apparently you are not allowed to check them in).
I'm a huge Seinfeld nerd. At one point in my life I could tell you who wrote any of the seasons 1-7 Seinfeld episodes just by hearing the dialogue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgIH4tTtRo
This and its related videos of Jason Alexander talking about various aspects of Seinfeld are super interesting.
1) Not making laws against everything that is in poor taste or could be considered a personal vice by some (drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, fatty foods, incandescent light bulbs, hot water heaters, dildos, etc).
2) Not putting people in rape cages for breaking the above laws.
3) Not instituting soft bans on products through excessive taxation (cigarettes would be an example of this).
4) Not having a justice system that is so bogged down in trying to enforce the above shit that it has single digit conviction rates for most violent crimes.
5) Letting businesses fail or succeed by their own merits, profits, and losses.
6) Not having a political system that allows big corporations to create barriers for competitor entry, nor letting them lobby for subsidies that they then directly cash in on.
7) Not taking 40-50% of the money everyone in the economy makes to pay for the above shit.
I could probably think of a few dozen more things but I'm afraid your question may have been rhetorical.
An excellent job is producing wealth. Any serious economic historian would agree that basically all of the wealth created in the world has been through market forces, not government direction.
It isn't that the government is doing a crappy job and only creating some wealth, but that it's doing the job that its design determines, which effects into inhibition of wealth creation. A government that does an excellent job is a government that does no job because excellence = enhancement of prosperity, which is something government doesn't do.
Note that if the government did something that was good, it would mean that the incentive was already there for the market to do the same thing. This is because the inputs received by government are fundamentally no different than what the market receives. The reason government stymies, however, is that its outputs are different than market outputs. The foundation for why this difference exists is that entities within markets do not receive mandatory revenues; whereas, the only revenue source for government is mandatory.
At the risk of going too long and repeating myself: make McDonald's the government, and you provide a sort of social science proof for why government does not create wealth. Nobody thinks the food industry would work better if McDonald's received revenues based on mandatory taxation and then distributed service and product based on bureaucratic judgment. Because the price system (the thing McDonald's uses to create wealth) has in it baked all other factors of society, a mandatory neglect of the price system provides zero value. This is true for all things, even threat from asteroids and war. I say this because the fear people have in reducing government is the idea that things like war become greater threats. That isn't true because the social and psychological factors that go into a bureaucracy arbitrating war/defense policy is no different than the inputs markets get. Maintenance of defense even after the deletion of the draft is all the evidence we need to demonstrate that government is not needed for defense, since all those who replace the draftees do so by choice.
"Wealth creation" was not a thing until governments started inhibiting their own power. As far as all the data I've seen, every time a government has tried to create wealth, it has only detracted from it. We think of empires as a way to create wealth for the central command of those empires, but they never actually did. Private property with legal recourse against the legal monopoly -- and the cult of production -- is what gave rise to the concept of rising living standards
Oil.
And before that Europe made its nut off precious metals from America. I remember reading about how Portugal (or Spain) was basically just making silver coins and they were holding the whole world's economy afloat (I'll dig for it later).
And before that, let's go with slaves. edit And conquest.
Rome had a pretty robust wealth through conquest by government direction scheme working.
The interesting aspect of that article was how people and a market place without one central thuggish enforcer eventually needs to invite thuggishness into the fold. That's an argument I stumbled into and I like it sourced from the Italian mob side of things.
Here's where the kids on reddit take a crack at it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/c...now_by/cotj2tz
IMO:
1,2&4 have more to do with the prison industrial complex and it's effect on the govnmnt.
3 is about trying to keep the populace, well, not dead. Instead we'd have Indonesia. See john oliver's big tobacco.
5 couldn't agree more. All this too big to fail nonsense is just that, nonsense.
6 we should be looking into the bribing game. The recent battle for net neutrality was a good showcase of this.
7 taxes are a necessary evil, but so is making sure the tax money collected doesn't get wasted on unnecessary shit, like tanks for police stations. The best societies all tax a ton, because money is needed to run things, the difference is that the resources a rallied where they have to be in order to ensure crime is minimal, education and health is maximal, etc. See the Nordic countries, also john oliver's piece on Ferguson mo, civil forfeiture .
I could include all the relevant links to these things but I'm in a foreign country on my phone, internet is kind of limited. So I couldn't verify the videos.
Further inspection of the silk road article has him just blatantly making shit up about Ross Ulbricht and other things that happened. Some of what he has to say about the problems of total anonymity make a lot of sense, but if a black market weren't necessary for the goods being sold, anonymity wouldn't be so necessary either. So yeah when you completely subvert the free market, don't expect the black market to work as well as it might have worked as a white one.
The author just reeks of someone who is pro-establishment and will frame any story he can to support his pro-establishment views. Pointing at a black market run by a libertarian idealist and saying "a ha!" when it doesn't run absolutely pristinely was an easy way to do this. He provides no useful comparison to the real world regulated market and the entrenched problems there in. That would be too difficult!
Woo capitalism woo.
Do I fit in yet?
If you outlaw something, you will inevitably be creating a black market because demand for the product in question will not just cease. That is why the people most interested in having something not ve legal, and therefore not regulated, are the providers if such black markets. Case in point, many people made a killing during the prohibition era.many people are making a killing nowadays with coke and weed. These are the same which would never want these products to ever be legal nor regulated.
And because of this,they must be regulated. Prostitution? Regulated. Give the pimps the middle finger . Marihuana? Regulated. No need to go to the shady dealer at the street's corner, and being hustled in the process.
The only people who have a vested interest in keeping these, ahem, 'sanctions' in place are those who are nowadays making all the moolah. Drug kingpins, private prisons, phizer et al who sell their version of whichever drug, etc. And will use their money and influence to keep things exactly as they are
I basically agree with most of this. I just think the leftist answer of "but if only we fixed the system!" is inadequate when there is so much evidence and theory to support the fact that the system is inherently hurtful to people. Yeah I'm sure there are reforms to make the government less of a societal parasite and, believe me, I'm for those reforms, but the pro-regulation folks aren't willing to even admit what an uphill battle they have on their hands.
A resource with which governments have close to fuckall ability to create wealth. All their technology to do so comes out of the private sector. The only governments that have sustained profitability with oil for several decades are the ones where it's really, really cheap by default. All the other ones, where they need to innovate to compete, get crushed on the regular. Most notably, that which crushes them is private enterprise creating new sources through technology.
Government is capable of taking credit for something that is easy, for something that others already did all the work. But every time it has gotten about more than that, government fails. There appear to be zero exceptions.
European governments made no nut on this. Colonialism and empires have always produced more costs than profits. This is ultimately why they keep collapsing. Important to note: resource extraction is not wealth creation. Production is, with its piggyback in productivity. Empires taking things from one region and bringing it to another doesn't create wealth. In fact, it deteriorates it since all it does is create a higher cost ratio. Additionally, mercantilism, a sort of proto-pseudo-capitalism, was only able to produce new product (create wealth) through merchant market behavior.Quote:
And before that Europe made its nut off precious metals from America. I remember reading about how Portugal (or Spain) was basically just making silver coins and they were holding the whole world's economy afloat (I'll dig for it later).
Slavery was profitable in a world where capitalism was next to nothing. Productivity of slaves is ridiculously low. Slavery dies whenever there is a semblance of competition. It doesn't take that much robustness in markets to totally kick slavery out of the frame based purely on supply and demand.Quote:
And before that, let's go with slaves. edit And conquest.
Slavery is fundamentally like colonialism/imperialism in that it thieves that which already exists and doesn't innovate. By definition, this is not wealth creation.
Redistribution is not creation. Production was not increased by Rome's actions. In fact, I would wager that it was dramatically decreased. Killing and enslaving people and ruining lands and homes decreases production by magnitudes. The US government is destroying wealth with its actions overseas in the procurement of oilQuote:
Rome had a pretty robust wealth through conquest by government direction scheme working.
Which brings me to what think I see is a foundational issue in this discussion. It's that the broken window fallacy is at the core of how people view economies work (even though it's not true). Most people think wealth is the same as spending, or in some way the same as demand. It's not. Wealth is production. Increases in wealth are increases in production, and in a roundabout way, productivity. Production is what creates new things, which is what creates new wealth. Productivity is what comes out of utility of those new things.
Viewing economics like a zero sum game is deceiving. Doing so makes it look like state-level redistributions are prosperity creating when they're anything but. We need to get it out of our heads that the broken window fallacy is true. War is not good for the economy. It is a shame that Krugman and pals have perpetuated this myth. He should go take beginner macro classes again and then apologize for letting his political beliefs override his education on this matter.
The pro-state argument: the people with the least information about you or connection to you are those who are in the best position to make decisions regarding you.
The anti-state argument: when did we all lose our damn minds?
Sorry for so long of posts. I wanted to address specific things. I hope there is sense to be made in them.
Causality is backwards. The demand for private imprisonment is created by the government. There is no profit in imprisonment whatsoever except that government, through its shitty laws, create a large supply of convicts that it is unable to house. This creates the demand for housing of convicts, for which the private sector vies for contracts.
Sadly, it doesn't work. We'd have to get into rules of supply, demand, and moral hazards to see why "health and safety" policies make things worse for health and safety.Quote:
3 is about trying to keep the populace, well, not dead. Instead we'd have Indonesia. See john oliver's big tobacco.
This is caused by #3. The moral hazards created by things like the FDIC are exactly why "too big to fail" exists. On the surface, mandates like your #3 appear reasonable, benign, and beneficial, but they're truly anything but. What we want to do is avoid more #5s by not creating more #3s.Quote:
5 couldn't agree more. All this too big to fail nonsense is just that, nonsense.
While it is not a good thing that companies can lobby governments for special treatment in the broadband field, it is also not a good thing to have net neutrality -- where the government monopolizes policy areas of the internet. It should be noted that the primary culprits for special treatment in the broadband arena are not companies, but are instead unions and municipal residents. Comcast and Time Warner have not been able to get nearly as much special treatment as those two groups. This is why the only competition growth in the field we see is in areas where unions and municipalities have not created too many laws against laying new line.Quote:
6 we should be looking into the bribing game. The recent battle for net neutrality was a good showcase of this.
The last thing we want is net neutrality. The FCC fucked up radio and fucked up TV, and it will fuck up the internet in some form or another. The better option is deregulation in the vein that allows competitors to grow. Google Fiber is doing everything it can, but it is stymied exclusively by one thing: regulations. Apple would probably enter the field if regulations were lower too. There are several other broadband companies that would likely expand too.
Exactly like how the food industry is amazing because regulations are extremely low, which promotes competition, broadband would also be if regulations were low.
Nordic countries are heavily subsidized by capitalism in the West. If taxes were a necessary evil, it would be true that taxes and subsequent regulations on anything (yes anything) is also a necessary evil. But we know that's not the case, as we see that even in the most complex of fields, where the government doesn't do much, prosperity is incredible. Likewise, where we see lots of government involvement, no matter how simple the field is, it's an utter disasterQuote:
7 taxes are a necessary evil, but so is making sure the tax money collected doesn't get wasted on unnecessary shit, like tanks for police stations. The best societies all tax a ton, because money is needed to run things, the difference is that the resources a rallied where they have to be in order to ensure crime is minimal, education and health is maximal, etc. See the Nordic countries, also john oliver's piece on Ferguson mo, civil forfeiture .
It isn't that money is needed to run things therefore taxes must be collected, but that profits are needed in order to run things sustainably. Government doesn't create profits and everything it runs sucks. If we exit the pro-state lefty bubble, we see this. For example, Europe is a terrible, terrible analogy to use for why government works. But for some damn reason, we never ever hear about this. We never hear about the shitass high structural unemployment, we never hear about horrible business environment created by distorted incentives from regulatory and welfare policies. We never hear about them because the media is made up of a bunch of pro-statists who view Europe with rosy glasses.
Most economists point to political policies for why unemployment is so much higher in Europe than US, yet journalists won't touch it, because, well, economics is hard and journalism is not
John Oliver is a great guy, but he has a lot of things backwards. When we talk about physics, we ask physicists. But apparently when we talk economics, a comedy actor's voice is as good as anybody's.Quote:
I could include all the relevant links to these things but I'm in a foreign country on my phone, internet is kind of limited. So I couldn't verify the videos.
This is ridiculously funny: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heathe...b_6595428.html
Cliffs:
- Woman is a super shitty wife
- Woman thinks her husband's flirty with a coworker and admits the logistics wouldn't have allowed an affair
- Woman thinks that she can pull her husband back into the marriage with more sex
- It doesn't work, so she's automatically a victim
If you're not looking for sustainability, then you can isolate like you have and make a claim that when prosperity levels are abysmal, it is possible for government to make it slightly less abysmal. Of course, we can't do that because sustainability is a necessary factor in wealth creation.
In something as devoid of complexity as farming, we have all the evidence we need that government destroys wealth. Sure, if the USSR started with 0% farm production, central command could have brought that up to 5% or so. But what actually happened was that USSR production was really high before central command intervened. Then it plummeted. I forget the exact numbers, but one is something like 1% of USSR farms were not operated by central command, and those farms produced something like 50% of the total food. All the other farms were productive until they became collectivized.
The current state of things is that the more the government involves itself in oil, the less wealth is created.
Seems more like she's acknowledging that she went the wrong way about it out of a misguided assumption that it was all about sex. "I chastised myself -- a once smart, confident woman -- for being so ridiculous."
The husband sounds deceitful as fuck too. He's def having some kind of intimate emotional affair, if not physical.
I don't personally think anything is inherently wrong with having emotionally romantic connections with other people when you're with someone... or even physical for that matter. But I do think it's wrong to do it under wraps when your relationship clearly isn't defined in that way. He's definitely disloyal and deceitful.
She's silly for thinking nonstop sex could in any realm be a viable option over just, I don't know, having a real, straightforward conversation with him about it? And it's predicated on this retarded notion that sex is the sole thing that drives him because he is a man, and that it could be some magic solution to dissolving his connection to this other person. This is what happens when people let gender stereotypes (even if those stereotypes are rooted in some kind of truth, which of course they sometimes are) guide the way they treat their partner. You're both humans, just fucking talk to each other.
Also, when having nonstop sex with your partner is "completely unenjoyable," your life is 100% wrong, lol. That's definitely some kind of limbo.
tl;dr they're both dumb. And I did find the story to be, on the whole, preposterous & hilarious.
My other point isn't gov't versus some theoretical optimal, it's looking back through time and seeing gov'ts everywhere and wondering why that is and settling on - probably because it's the end game of man's violent nature.
Then you keep talking about how it'd be awesome if there were no states, and I just wonder what pulling away that artifice will unleash.
"Every time I saw him, I pounced. He was confused at first, but went along with it like a child reluctant to turn away free ice cream" this is just the saddest goddamn thing I've ever read.
>And it's predicated on this retarded notion that sex is the sole thing that drives him because he is a man, and that it could be some magic solution to dissolving his connection to this other person.
Ok, but I'm pretty sure it worked for as long as she was working it.
Quote:
Going through his texts had become a staple in our marriage, and there was no amount of guarding his phone or passwords that could keep me out for long.
What a fun girl.
it didn't though, he just aloofly banged her after deciding it wasn't worth being too perplexed over because hey, my wife is fucking me all the time, and she just ended up feeling like even more of an asshole and left anyway. and he kept connecting with the other girl the whole time anyway so it was a through and through fail.
I don't think it's the endgame but the beginning. States exist for the purposes we see with why there are alpha gorillas and alpha chimpanzees. Those societies are very primitive. Primitive human societies proved to be no different, and the state rose out of the threat of violence.
But that's not where we're at anymore. Capitalism (and civil liberties) changed everything because it introduced a brand new element. That element is mostly the capacity for risk assessment. In a world with shitty technology, states were important because the ability to assess risk was minimal. Secure societies were ones that assumed high risk of invasion and subsequently supported states that assumed it as well. The only real job of the state for the longest time was to just assume threats exist and prepare for them
But now we can actually assess threats instead of assume them. Technology and the law of supply and demand provide this capacity. We are at the point now where even the state uses these tools. This necessarily means that non-state uses them as well (or would if the state didn't monopolize).
You think that without a government that assumes invasion threats, we'd all be at the mercy of an invader. I think that without the government, the amount of money put into foreign relations and international security would actually be higher than it currently is, because the problem solving mechanism would be fully engaged. If your position that we need government for security was true, it would also be true that we need the draft, because it would necessarily mean that nobody would choose to defend themselves. But we don't have a draft and everybody in the military is there by choice
I appreciate your hesitation and thoughtfulness on the subject. It's a necessary facet. To find the solution, you need people on the brakes as well as the gas.
Putin would have nothing on Google, Amazon, and Walmart. Putin's self-preservation is weak in comparison. Imperialism is a money sink. Market entities exist only by creating profits. Being invaded is the money sink of the market. I'll take a modern market over Putin every day of the week. I'll do it because I know he's losing money from his conquest and those fighting against him are doing so because it saves them money. Invasion was "profitable" only when it amounted to control of farmland. We don't have this dynamic today.Quote:
Then you keep talking about how it'd be awesome if there were no states, and I just wonder what pulling away that artifice will unleash.
But it wouldn't even come to fighting. Putin would get assassinated because market entities would cut incredibly profitable deals with market entities close enough to him to stop him.
It should also be noted that war is a state vs state thing. There are not that many examples of thriving economies getting invaded, and when one did (US in WW2), it was because the economy was so gangbuster that it could out-produce its enemies. Even in that situation, I don't support an absence of the state. It is likely that the mere assumption of war that the state exists upon is why an atom bomb was created. That US did it first meant good things for the world. Killing the state is something that should only happen when the threat of war is minimized enough. I think if we got on a long-term plan to minimize the state, we'd be well beyond what is needed to create a secure, stateless society.
Long story short: Carthage doesn't get invaded in today's society because the most powerful incentive for powerful actors is profit, as well as the ability for entities in Carthage to assess the risk of invasion is very high.
Why cant y'all talk about fun shit so I can numb my brain while I'm in class?
I guess what I'm saying is that fundamentally it didn't change anything, which seems clear regardless of it only being her side because a) they aren't together and b) her checking his messages to see that he was still engaging in that kind of connection seems pretty cut and dry.
Seriously, the phone thing gives me the chills. The relationship behaviors I've witnessed in adult people is downright disturbing.
I remember you introduced me to Robert Sapolsky. I think he's where I was pretty much sold on the fact that we're naked apes.
Naked, story-telling apes. With clothes.
btw I'm enjoying our sleuth-like speculation on this pointless story.
http://i40.tinypic.com/6oj52d.gif
a) Staying a couple requires agreement between the pair. She left. That says nothing about him.
b) He kept an ego-booster in his pocket. And you don't know that he was connecting with her or aloofly keeping her at arms length for the sort of free energy a young smitten woman might give you.
I'm betting he was trying to angle for the best of both worlds where his wife is insatiable because of her dirty 30s or who knows and get some on the sly, but I could be wrong.
The man is legit.
We are apes, and like with all other apes, incentives are our ultimate destiny. The incentive for an alpha defender is very real, until it's not. I've been trying to provide reasons to believe it is no longer real for modern civilization. Like when I see that private enterprise has successfully applied a value to the risk of car crashes (something that to primitive humans is basically magic), I wonder why the same can't be done for other risks. But even if not, doesn't the fact that people in government care about security mean that people outside of government do as well (since those people are no different)?
Hell I could be wrong saying the state ever needed to exist. For example, proto-Russia is one of the best examples of a strong state coming into existence for the purpose of defense, and subsequently defending itself. However, it was through technology created by non-state actors that the proto-Russians were able to repel the Khanates in the first place
Gulyay-gorod.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lyay-gorod.jpg
Could it be that proto-Russians rallying around a strong state was their apelike miscalculations? Could it be that it was innovation of its citizenry that stopped the invasions afterall? I guess it does make perfect sense that, because humans really are those Sapolsky bigger-brained chimps, that we would solve a problem yet then then create a new problem by poorly assessing how we actually solved the problem in the first place
This thread reminds me of that wikipedia game where you pick two things and see how many clicks it takes to go from A to B but here it's always from A to free markets in 1 click.
From the first wiki link of the google search of your user name + wiki to free market
800 pound gorilla > American English > British colonization of the Americas > British Empire > Slavery > Labour economics (via wage slavery) > Market (economics) > Free market
booya!
Nothing shows up for imsavy so using imsavvy
The watch fund (is a link with imsavvy in it)
Singapore
Market Economy
Free Market
He should have been seeking out other relationships with other women considering his wife was a fatass who didn't keep a house and didn't keep him sexually satisfied. She tried to manipulate him with sex, he played it perfectly, and now it's wah wah look at me being an attention whore.