I'm listening to this book talk from a progressive.
One thing that I find rather irritating about it is how, in parts, he refers to working in jobs that have a higher purpose, or a higher morality, than working for money.
The way capitalism works, when there is no government interference, is that the people who provide others with goods and services get rewarded with certificates of performance (money), with which they can reward others for their service.
If I cook ten meals and am rewarded with 200 certificates of performance, then haven't I done more good than someone who has only cooked one meal for twenty certificates of performance?
In this example, haven't I done more good?
Would I be more evil becasue I am richer?
Even if I only served becasue of my personal greed for more money and my own self interest, haven't I served more?
Even if you don't think that they are moral, Wal-mart does more good than all the non-profit groups in the world do. Wal-mart does not waste resources. A non-profit that gives more than is takes in is wasting resources. Wal-mart's low prices means that more people can have more food and clothing then they could at higher prices. This efficient and makes people richer which increases their standard of living.
Companies like Solyndra and Fisker (even if they are "green" and morally superior to evil capitalists) are wasting resources. They waste raw materials and they waste the labor and effort of their employees.
In a capitalistic world, without government interference, then person who serves the most receives the most.
The basics of economics are really very simple. Anyone can understand them. There is even an aptly titled book which will explain economics without complex formulas or graphs or charts.
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
Friday, May 17, 2013
First Fish of the Year
I was fishing for the first time this year on Wednesday. Improving my deer hunting property has taken up a lot of my time.
I can tell that you're impressed.
I can tell that you're impressed.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Who to marry?
Some blogger or commenter linked to this old post on inter-racial marriages.
It reminded me of an interesting thought that I've had.
The reason to get married is to have kids.
If you want to have kids, then you'll want them to be as successful as possible.
Your kids should have minimal disadvantages and maximum advantages.
The above linked post points out that east Asian men, and black women, are not as valued as mates as are others.
Interracial mixes, for girls, can be very good or bad. If you have a daughter, then she'll likely turn out to be her mother. So if her mother is good, then your daughter is likely to have the potential to be successful in life.
Ethnic Mix (& my favorite celebrity):
Sons may be a different story.
As we can see from the above posted data, east Asian males are the least appealing male race. The don't have disadvantages that cannot be overcome. And I've nothing against east Asian males (see No. 1 here). But we know that the "Asian" genes are dominant, and if you have a kid with an Asian wife, then that kid will look Asian.
That would be a disadvantage for him.
So, even though Uncle Elmer recommends Vietnamese, I want to go to the Philippines thanks to Naughty Nomad, and some of those east Asian girls are very appealing, I don't think an east Asian wife would be ideal.
The Philippines, Brazil, and Poland sound like the most appealing places to go for girls thanks to the manosphere travel writers. I have limited desire to visit Poland. And Brazil has always sounded interesting for girls, culture, and peacock bass. My favorite author's newest book even has a pair of chapters on the marvels of some of the economic freedoms in Brazil.
Ideally, if all goes to plan for me, more or less, and I want to get married, you'll find me in Brazil, not east Asia.
(East Asia is still cool though. I had my first legal drink in Hong Kong. And I'll continue to read more about China and Japan, and favor east Asian epic movies.)
It reminded me of an interesting thought that I've had.
The reason to get married is to have kids.
If you want to have kids, then you'll want them to be as successful as possible.
Your kids should have minimal disadvantages and maximum advantages.
The above linked post points out that east Asian men, and black women, are not as valued as mates as are others.
Interracial mixes, for girls, can be very good or bad. If you have a daughter, then she'll likely turn out to be her mother. So if her mother is good, then your daughter is likely to have the potential to be successful in life.
Ethnic Mix (& my favorite celebrity):
Sons may be a different story.
As we can see from the above posted data, east Asian males are the least appealing male race. The don't have disadvantages that cannot be overcome. And I've nothing against east Asian males (see No. 1 here). But we know that the "Asian" genes are dominant, and if you have a kid with an Asian wife, then that kid will look Asian.
That would be a disadvantage for him.
So, even though Uncle Elmer recommends Vietnamese, I want to go to the Philippines thanks to Naughty Nomad, and some of those east Asian girls are very appealing, I don't think an east Asian wife would be ideal.
The Philippines, Brazil, and Poland sound like the most appealing places to go for girls thanks to the manosphere travel writers. I have limited desire to visit Poland. And Brazil has always sounded interesting for girls, culture, and peacock bass. My favorite author's newest book even has a pair of chapters on the marvels of some of the economic freedoms in Brazil.
Ideally, if all goes to plan for me, more or less, and I want to get married, you'll find me in Brazil, not east Asia.
(East Asia is still cool though. I had my first legal drink in Hong Kong. And I'll continue to read more about China and Japan, and favor east Asian epic movies.)
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
When will you lefties stop defending Obama?
from here:
***
As dumb as Obama supporters are (I saw a bumper sticker last week that said "Dog Lover Against Romney") you supporters of republicans may be worse. You should know better. All politicians are awful, and I think that this idea is so overused that we do not really appreciate how true it is.
Those of you who support republicans know that government is incompetent and corrupt. Yet you continue to support some of these politicians. What do you have to show for it?
***
Vox noted that this latest fiasco* should be enough to impeach Obama. He also notes that nothing will happen.
I stopped watching TV in November of 2011, one reason was because I was tired of hearing political pundits make claims to the effect of: "this scandal will really hurt [insert politician here]." Those commentators spend so much time in Washington that they don't realize that no one cares about events like this one enough to do anything about it.
This new fiasco will be remembers by conservatives at appropriate times but nothing will come of it.
***
Everyone asks: "What can we do about it?"
Put some thoughts in the comments.
*I don't remember what this latest fiasco is about, even though I just read about it. Nothing will happen in any case. Any time I spend thinking about it would be time wasted. I could be thinking about more important things; like what my favorite ice cream flavor** is.
**I'm going with strawberry. Is simple, and yet not boring like vanilla or chocolate.
The Daily Beast published an article on Saturday criticizing Obama for kowtowing to his benefactors in the oft-reviled “1%” rather than doing anything substantive to aid those among the “99%” who fell for his populist class-war rhetoric. They noted that earlier this month, Obama nominated billionaire Penny Pritzker, who’d helped raise oodles of cash for him in both his presidential campaigns, as Commerce Secretary. Pritzker’s net worth is estimated to be about seven times that of Mitt Romney’s. Obama also appointed Mel Watt, who during his two decades in Congress reportedly received more contributions from the banking sector than any of his colleagues, as head of the Federal Housing Financing Administration. Obama also chose millionaire venture capitalist Tom Wheeler to head the FCC. Amid making all these appointments, Obama found time to deliver a commencement speech at Ohio State University about how Americans need to “reject a country in which only a lucky few prosper.”A champion of the poor indeed.
***
As dumb as Obama supporters are (I saw a bumper sticker last week that said "Dog Lover Against Romney") you supporters of republicans may be worse. You should know better. All politicians are awful, and I think that this idea is so overused that we do not really appreciate how true it is.
Those of you who support republicans know that government is incompetent and corrupt. Yet you continue to support some of these politicians. What do you have to show for it?
***
Vox noted that this latest fiasco* should be enough to impeach Obama. He also notes that nothing will happen.
I stopped watching TV in November of 2011, one reason was because I was tired of hearing political pundits make claims to the effect of: "this scandal will really hurt [insert politician here]." Those commentators spend so much time in Washington that they don't realize that no one cares about events like this one enough to do anything about it.
This new fiasco will be remembers by conservatives at appropriate times but nothing will come of it.
***
Everyone asks: "What can we do about it?"
Put some thoughts in the comments.
*I don't remember what this latest fiasco is about, even though I just read about it. Nothing will happen in any case. Any time I spend thinking about it would be time wasted. I could be thinking about more important things; like what my favorite ice cream flavor** is.
**I'm going with strawberry. Is simple, and yet not boring like vanilla or chocolate.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Paid Speaking
I just read that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair got paid $600,000 to give a speech in the Philippines.
Dear Whoever paid him that,
Give me $600,000 to visit you in the Philippines and give a speech and (less my expenses for getting there and back) I'll invest every dollar into the small businesses that exist in your country. And I'll give all of the speeches you want.
Then we can wait a year and see who has improves the lives of the Philippines more, Tony Blair with his no doubt wonderful, inspiring, and uplifting speech or my evil capitalistic investing.
Is it a deal?
Sincerely,
Tim
eltim164 at gmail.com
Dear Whoever paid him that,
Give me $600,000 to visit you in the Philippines and give a speech and (less my expenses for getting there and back) I'll invest every dollar into the small businesses that exist in your country. And I'll give all of the speeches you want.
Then we can wait a year and see who has improves the lives of the Philippines more, Tony Blair with his no doubt wonderful, inspiring, and uplifting speech or my evil capitalistic investing.
Is it a deal?
Sincerely,
Tim
eltim164 at gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)