Monday, October 05, 2015

Episode #114 of The Clarey Podcast

Swing dancing in Wisconsin
Young people don't live
Human nature is against you
Cappy vs. ISIS
Baby Boomer Talk Radio will DIE!!!!



Saturday, October 03, 2015

Weekend Podcast Linkage

After my treatise on how women vote is undermining Western Civilization and working on archiving my blog for my next book "Captain Capitalism - Reserved" I'll be taking the weekend off and hitting up Davina and the Vagabonds in scenic Niellsville, Wisconsin.

In the meantime please feel free to listen to this podcast-linkage-orama for your weekend listening pleasure:

Kerry Lutz on precious metals and a review of September's financial markets.

Davis Aurini's "Bad Audio Hour"

"Stuff You Missed in History Class" - this is my newly discovered favorite blog.  Amazing stuff there you can get lost in for days.

Uncie Bern Bern

Geek out with the Bechtloff!

And hang out with the Black Brigade!

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Things Liberal Arts Majors Can't Build

One man tanks.

MGTOW Flow Chart!!!

Are you confused about whether you're a VirginTOW MGTOW?  Not too sure what it takes to be in this elite group of men?  Never fear, Cappy's here with his easy to understand flow chart!  Just answer "yes" or "no" to the questions below and find out if YOU have what it takes to be VirginTOW MGTOW! (may have to click to get original size)

Everything You Needed to Know About China's Economy in One Post

This is some of the finest economic work I've seen.

Blue Collar Guys are Beneath White Collar Women

Even though they make more than them.  Oh well.  Enjoy you cats.

Seriously, THIS is Why I Have Guns

These are zombies.   Liberals, but zombies none the less.  They will be coming for you if society lets them.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Blame Women (Disproportionately) for the Collapse of Western Civilization


Human history has basically been the struggle for freedom.  And it has been a struggle against two things:

1.  Natural elements or "limitations" (such as starvation, thirst, disease, famine, cold, heat, predators, etc.)


2.  Other humans.

The natural elements that limit human freedom have been fought against (and largely won) with advances in technology, agriculture, economics, and science.  We've eliminated starvation and thirst through agricultural technology, cured diseases through medicine, and though we have yet to unlock the secrets of immortality, the majority of people today do not spend their time searching for a clean water source or worrying about where their next meal is coming from.

However, whereas "natural limitations" to human freedom can be solved through vaccines, technology, and other cures found in the physical world, the human-induced limitations to freedom (called "tyranny") cannot.  By their very nature they are human, which means in "eradicating" humans would wipe us all out, tyrants and innocents alike, leaving no human history to speak of.  Thus, instead of "simple" solutions such as vaccines, farming methods, economic advances, etc., the solution to human tyranny has been 6,000 years of


and other incalculable amounts of human suffering.

However, slowly, but surely human kind has made advances in pushing back the tyranny that once enslaved us all.  First it was fighting against the warlords and tribal chieftains who merely enslaved entire tribes for their own enrichment and pleasure.  Then it was against religious theocracies who, again, merely used deities and the threat of hell (or burning at the stake) to enslave entire populations for their own advancement.  Monarchs and kings were nothing more than glorified warlords who were "benevolent" enough to let their peasants participate in the euphemism of slavery called "serfdom."  And even today, after billions of gallons of human blood has been spilled we have outright dictators and despots who, again, use their people as cattle to live high off of.

But still, after all of this, some humans have managed great advances against tyranny.  And after many wars, reformations, revolutions, Magna Carta's, and constitutions, a genuinely free society in the form of Western Civilization formed, arguably with the United States of America as its most refined product.  For the first time in history humans can do what they want, say what they want, believe what they want, but above all else, be entitled to the vast majority of the fruits of their labor.  They are no longer slaves to a tyrant, slaves to a theocracy, or serfs to a king.  They are their own masters who self govern themselves.  And it is this - that man has freed himself from not just nature, but other men - that is the pinnacle achievement of human kind.

This freedom, which has cost more than anything else in terms of human blood, time, toil, suffering and sacrifice, is the greatest gift humans have ever given themselves.  In letting people keep the majority of the proceeds of their time and have agency over their own lives humans have made the most incredible of advances over the past 300 years (which is roughly when freedom started to become prevalent in Western Civilization).  We have solved hunger, we discovered automation, we discovered electricity, we achieved flight, we've eradicated disease, founded computing, unlocked chemistry, and a million things more, all of which have allowed us to create lives for ourselves that are so amazing and rapidly advancing they were incomprehensible to merely a single generation before.

It is the proverbial finger free men can give the past 6,000 years of tyrants.

But all of this, ALL OF IT, hinges on one thing - that people are allowed to remain free and be entitled to the vast majority of their own production and be the masters of their own lives.  And if we lose that, we lose everything.

Enter in women.


Women, in a historical context, of course have always been here.  They are a part of human history as much as any man.  However, they are not the primary actors, participants, or determiners of human history, largely in part because of biology and nature's "natural tyrants."  Women are physically weaker, thus less prone to wage war and participate in battle.  They also are the ones to get pregnant, again physically limiting what they can do in a world largely ruled by "might makes right."  They also are more nurturing, psychologically predispositioning them to stay at home and rear the children.  And they also have boobs (which if you didn't know) was nature's kind of authoritative way of saying, "Yeah, you're the one who's going to stay off the battlefield and rear the children."

This is not to belittle or besmirch the role of women in history (of which there are many examples of women in history).  It is however to point out that the vast majority of human history has been determined and made by men.  Consequently, this greatest gift of freedom, that was so hotly contested for over these past 6,000 years, was bought and paid for by the deaths, blood, toil and suffering of hundreds of millions, if not, billions of men.  Additionally, it is men who have availed themselves of this freedom, well beyond that of women.  The VAST majority of all scientific advances have (once again) been discovered through the mental sweat and toil of men.  And while we can all certainly rush to point out the occasional female scientist or inventor, this fact is blatantly apparent, even today, where the majority of STEM students are men, and the majority of "social work" majors are women.

The point, however, is not a competition as to "who created what" and what the sex ratio of corpses were on history's battlefields.  The point is this freedom, and the commensurate AMAZING technology and INCOMPREHENSIBLY easy life that came with it, was available to both sexes even though men largely earned it.  And with these amazing advances in technology, life got so easy (in historical terms) that humans no longer had to worry about the natural tyrants that historically oppressed them (disease, starvation, sanitation, etc.), but could now focus their efforts on much lesser problems.

What were these problems?  Well, more of the sociological variety.


However, a very interesting one was the issue of women's suffrage and equality.

Previous to this, and admittedly by nature, women were just plain not allowed into the management and leadership of society.  Men had paid the price, literally, in blood, sweat, and toil, and it was laughable at the time that women would have a say in economic and political affairs.  However, with technology (invented by men, afforded to them by the freedom they paid a dear price for), pressing matters such as war, famine, disease, etc., were becoming less and less frequent.  Additionally, labor saving devices created by the industrial revolution (*COUGH*, MEN!) allowed women not to be anchored at home, as well as allowed them to work, earning a keep just like men.  Furthermore, it wasn't as if raising children and maintaining a home was not work itself.  Ergo, there was a good and compelling argument to consider letting women have the vote.  And so, in 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified in the United States and women were allowed to vote.

However, whatever the logical, economic, philosophical, not to mention, MORAL reasons there were to let women vote, you cannot deny there would be HUGE consequences in literally DOUBLING the voting population to include a group of humans who are biologically, psychologically, mentally, and emotionally different than men.  And the primary fear that would result from such a dramatic shift in voting rights is that the world's greatest gift humanity gave to itself (freedom) would be undone.  Women would vote for more state intervention, reinstating the human tyrants, essentially undoing what hundreds of millions of men had fought for over the past 6,000 years.

Of course, on the face of it, this is laughable.  No doubt such concerns were scoffed at during the early days of women's suffrage, just as they would be today.  Why would women CONSCIOUSLY vote themselves and the rest of humanity back into tyranny?  Who wants to be ruled by a dictator?  Who wants to slave away for the government?  However, if we are to look at the empirical data and see how women have handled the responsibility of voting we see that is PRECISELY what they're doing.  And there is sadly no debate about it.

Again, the vast majority of human history has been a struggle for freedom from its oppressors.  It has been minimizing the government that lords over them and maximizing the individual.  It has been allowing people to keep the majority of the fruits of their own labor and control over their destiny.  And the way you can tell whether somebody in Western Civilization is for freedom or not is quite simply this:

Do they vote for more government?
Or do they vote for less?

This further simplifies into the direct actions of:

Do they vote left?
Or do they vote right?

Do they vote labor?
Or do they vote conservative?

Do they vote democrat?
Or do they vote republican?

And while admittedly, there are certainly flaws with ALL political parties, it is the voting action that belies the intention of the individual.  And women's intention has been for more government, a larger state, and less freedom.

Unfortunately, the data is not perfect as it only goes back to the Eisenhower administration (and please provide me better data if you have it), but it will suffice.  The best data I could find on voting patterns for women is the presidential Gallup Poll that measures the lead (+) or deficit (-) democrat candidates had among men and women.  (This graph takes a bit of thinking to understand, but for the sake of simplicity it's best to read it as (if there's a positive sign) men/women like the democrat +X or (if there's a negative sign) men/women hate democrats -X.)

But regardless of the complexity and shortcomings of the chart, the point is very clear.  Women prefer a larger state and less freedom to men.

However, within this chart there are two other important observations.

One, (you have to read the numbers, not just look at the right column) originally women actually preferred the republican candidates over men, especially during the Eisenhower administrations.  They even preferred the ugly Richard Nixon over the hot and handsome John F. Kennedy in 1960 (though not by much margins).  It wasn't until 1972, and especially 1976 did women switch to preferring a larger state.

Two, this switch accelerated rapidly from 1976 to 2012, going from just an 11 point preference over men for a larger state to a full 20 point preference with Obama's second election.

This doesn't make a lot of sense since if women were supposed to be the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for Western Civilization, then why did they wait a full 50 years to start voting in a larger state?

The answer may be found in a study conducted by Dr. John Lott and Dr. Lawrence Kenny

Just because women were granted the right to vote didn't mean they all went to the polls that day in 1920.  A lot stayed home.  A lot voted the way their husbands told them.  Some of them still didn't find it their place or right to vote.  It takes about a generation or so for different groups of people to fully avail themselves of the franchise.  This makes a lot of sense in that if you add roughly 50 years to 1920 you get 1970 where women voted "in force" and showed their true "pro-government colors."

But while this may explain the increase from Gertrude voting in 1924 to Janis Joplin voting in 1972, it doesn't explain the increasingly passionate love-affair, nay, stalker-like-obsession women have had with the government from 1972 to today.  Why are women increasingly fanatic about having a larger government?

Well the answer can also be found in the dates.  1972.  Feminism.

While the Susan B. Anthony's of the 1890's wanted the right to vote, own property, and sign legal contracts, the radical feminists of the 1970's were nothing but outright marxists who cowardly hid behind their genitalia claiming it caused sexism and thus entitled them to a lifelong government check.  While for the most part they could be written off as such, unfortunately they largely got into a key position in society that would further influence future generations of women to come.  The only place that would take them.


And it was from our colleges, universities and other educational institutions that feminists have very successfully convinced two full generations of young girls (Gen X and the Millennials) to vote against freedom and for an increasing state.

Now I could go on measuring the various ways women vote for tyranny over freedom, but the point is that for whatever reason they do.  And worse, increasingly so.  They vote for the government at the expense of the individual.  They vote for dependence rather and independence.  They vote a government check before a paycheck.  And while we can sit here and debate about whether that's the price we have to pay for equality, or that maybe men were wrong this entire time, and that maybe its time for a different approach, they ARE doing precisely what we feared.  They are undoing what all of human history fought for these past and painful 6,000 years.  They are undermining freedom.  They are destroying Western Civilization.

The question is whether we as a people, both male and female, love the freedoms afforded to us by the countless sacrifices of countless generations before us enough to have the courage to merely state this fact.


But while women (as a group) tend to vote for tyranny, the question is whether they do this consciously.  Whether they do it maliciously.

Do women wake up every morning, licking their chops saying, "I can't wait to bring down Western Civilization today!"

Or are they just naive, blissfully believing the sweet lies politicians tell them about free education, free health care, free child care, free food, free housing and free everything?

The answer is rather clear.

Very few people are genuinely evil and wish bad things upon others.  And we can safely say that the majority of women are NOT evil people who wish to destroy the best development of human history.  And though there are some genuinely evil people who DO wish to destroy and harm others (feminists and SJW's) the vast majority of women are well intentioned, caring people.

The problem, however, is you can be the sweetest woman with all the best intentions in the world.  If you're naive or ignorant to the point you're wrong, you'll still have the same effects of being an evil, malicious person out to cause damage.  Thus, whether out ignorance or evil, society is going to pay the exact same price no matter what your intentions.  And so, as women vote and make other decisions in life about how the country should be run, Western Civilization suffers because of their ignorance and naivety.

The first and most obvious of these is money.

Money is not the root of all evil or some kind of tool of control of evil capitalists.  It is your time.  It is your life.  It is what you get in exchange for forfeiting a fraction of your FINITE life in the form of labor.  You then use this "root of all evil" as a means to SUPPORT YOURSELF and KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE.

The freedom of speech is one thing.
The freedom of religion is another.
But the freedom to be entitled to the majority of the money you make is the most important freedom as it is your LIFE.

But women think nothing of voting in tyrants who want to take it.

Readers of my blog are already intricately aware of the amount of money governments take from their citizens every year.  They are aware of government spending to GDP.  They are aware of government debt to GDP.  They are aware 70% of the state's budget goes to income redistribution.  They are aware of the difference between a million and a trillion.

Your average Western Civilization female voter is not.

You average female voter is a by product of her evolution, environment, genetics and upbringing.  And therefore your average female voter is stuck in "stage one" thinking where she:

1. Wants to solve a problem, but
2.  Doesn't know how much it will cost, but
3.  Doesn't care because she never looked at the budget anyway because
4.  She thinks "the government has unlimited money" because
5.  She really doesn't know the difference between a million and a trillion


6.  Votes for more government spending anyway.

The problem is she LITERALLY does not realize that money just doesn't come from "poof" out of nowhere.  And she CERTAINLY does not understand how the government just "printing off more money" would result in hyper-inflation.  Thus, in a very naive and child-like way, she will do what is logical to a 7 year old.  Vote for more government money, consequently voting the country that inch further into tyranny and enslaving us all that micro-second more in taxes.

Now, you multiply this times 150 million women, over the course of now four generations and you get what we're all familiar with.  Debt to GDP of 110%.  Government spending as a percent of GDP of 40%.  Slowing economic growth, etc.  But the larger point is the relationship between women voting and government is not merely one of more "socialists" being elected, but increased government spending which DIRECTLY lessens the amount of money and TIME we have to ourselves.

Unfortunately, the costs female naivety does not stop at a simple increase in our tax bill.  The consequences cascade horribly from there.  For in voting for an ever increasing government, you by default crowd out the people it governs.  And with government accounting for now 40% of GDP

"something's gotta give."

The first thing that gave was men, specifically in their role as fathers, husbands, and heads of households.  Previous to women's suffrage and the massive expansion of government, men were the nucleus of society and the economy.  It was around a man families and society were raised.  And it was his economic production that supported them all.

However, as women voted in more and more social spending they effectively replaced men with the government.  It was no longer the man who brought home the bacon, but the mailman who delivered the government check.  It was no longer dad who would feed the kids, but the EBT card afforded to you by Barack Obama.  And it was no longer father who paid the mortgage and kept a roof over the family's head, but HUD and their section 8 housing.

Soon women started asking the question 1970's feminists were dying them to ask all along:

"Why do we need a man?"

And sure enough 73% of black women, 51% of Latinas and 28% of white women agreed.  Why did they need a man?  And those respective percentages of women went forth and had illegitimate children thinking a government check was a superior substitute to a father.

Sure enough, without purpose or agency in life, and their birthright as a man taken from them by a government check, more and more men lost all hope and started checking out of society.  They started marrying less, working less, substituted real women with porn, and lived vicariously through video games.  They were no longer the strong and intrepid men like their WWII ancestors, but unincentived lifeless men with no direction and purpose.  And with the economic nucleus of Western Civilization disheartened to the point of inaction, economic growth started to slow.

With the engine of Western Civilizaiton sidelined from their original roles of fathers and husbands, the next chip to fall was, naturally, the family.  Without a father around the American family started to disintegrate.  There were of course pre-ruined families called "single parent" home, denying children from birth the right to a stable nuclear family.  But even those children "lucky" enough to have been born to a husband AND wife, only stood a 50/50 shot of having a normal childhood as half of all marriages ended in divorce.

The wife wasn't "haaaaaapppyyyyy"
And she needed to "fiiiiiind heeerselllllffff"

and the feminists were there egging them on every inch of the way.

Sure enough more than half of all children born from the 1970's on would be brought up in non-stable, non-nuclear families.  And while this may have been championed by feminists and other true enemies of Western Civilization, it took a devastating toll on those children who were the future generations of America.  Depression, suicide, crime, debt, divorce, alcoholism, nearly every single social and psychological ailment you can think of is positively correlated without having a stable, nuclear family to be brought up in.  Alas, not only did half of America's future endure this, it left such a bad taste in their mouths the smart ones said, "never again," swearing never to have children, tanking the birthrate and putting an end to American families.

This relates closely to the third domino to fall, lost sovereignty. 

Since leftist politicians (as well as rightists) want to stay in power, they will do whatever they can to ensure they are in control of the government.  This not only means bribing the naive portion of the population with "free everything," but it also means sacrificing the nation itself.  As long as these tyrants don't have to work real jobs they, will do whatever they can to stay in power.

Enter in immigration.

I find three things cute, endearing, and ironically tragic:

1.  The "refugee crisis" going on in Europe
2.  The illegal immigration debate in the US and
3.  The rape epidemic in Sweden

In all three cases men and women, rightists and leftists alike, are against, if not aghast at what is happening in their respective countries when it comes to immigration (and well, that whole rape thing).

In Europe nearly everybody is against the allowance of 2 million "refugees," but their governments still allow it to happen.

In the US 76% of democrats are against illegal aliens and amnesty, but again, our government allows it to happen.

And in Sweden, ahhhhh, lovely socialist, very pro-feminist Sweden.  There's a "bit" of a rape epidemic going on due to the immigrant Muslim population there.  But nobody dares grow the balls to kick them out in fear of being accused of racism.

Now in all three cases the women, I presume (and especially in Sweden), are against these immigrants coming into their respective countries.  However, even with broad support from people all across the political spectrum the governments (leftists ones mind you) ignore the desires of their people and let these immigrants in knowing full well they will never return to their countries of origin.


Because it will keep the left in power.  It will expand and ensure future government control.  Those are all future leftist voters who will demand future leftist politicians.

Alas, this is the perfect example of how women's naivety deals another blow to Western Civilization.  Even though women are generally against illegal immigration (and I would presume also rape), they never get past stage one thinking of:

"Well the democrats/labor/left is for children/the little guy/the poor/the old/fluffy bunnies, so I'm going to vote for them."

But then are surprised when leftists like Tony Blair or Jack Kennedy sell the sovereignty of their nation to foreigners who plain don't care to adhere to Western Civilization, if not outright hate it, so they can ensure they and their party remain in control of the government.

Again, it doesn't matter what women's intentions or expectations are when they vote.  If they vote for the wrong people the effects will be the same as if a malicious and evil person, intent on destroying the country, voted.  And allowing a people from a culture that is non, if not anti-Western Civilization is arguably the final blow to the long term survival of Western Civilization.


To be frank there is none.  This entire post is merely one for posterity wherein I will be able to say "I told you so" for the rest of my life, as well as an exercise in philosophical and theoretical thought.  The left is too heavily funded, well too positioned in education, media, government, and the universities, and have done such a great job of brainwashing women that there will never be a significant percentage of women that will wake up and heed the points I've made above.  Additionally, (in a comedic, but still 100% truthful sense), in the wise words of Bill Burr,

"Women are surrounded by this tornado of misinformation [about how great they are], and nobody corrects them because we want to f#ck 'em!"

However, if we are serious about not throwing away the best gift humanity has ever given itself, and we do not wish to dishonor the untold number of men who paid incalculable prices over the past 6,000 years, we need to look at who has the right to vote.

The obvious solution is to rescind women's suffrage.  The various leftist political parties in western nations would never recoup from such a loss and we could very easily enact (or rescind) the legislation necessary to put Western Civilization back on the fast track.  However, this is not the answer.  If we rescind women's right to vote, then why not blacks?  If not blacks?  Why not Jews?  If not Jews, why not dashingly handsome half-Irish economists with a penchant for video games and motorcycle riding?  That road merely goes back to the tyranny we're wishing to stave off.

The answer lies in the founding principle of Western Civilzation - Merit.

Admittedly, I've been very hard on women in this treatise (but rightly so).  However, while the majority of women do vote against freedom we all know women personally who are not naive, who do not vote with their hearts, who are not stuck at stage one thinking, and actually do know the difference between a million and trillion.  We know women who DESPERATELY love their husbands, desperately love their children, and take the time to study the finances, economics, and politics of this nation before ditzily casting off their vote for the politician who promises them the most money.  Concurrently, we also know blacks, hispanics, asians, Jews, Madagascarians, gays, eskimos, Indians, Muslims, agnostics, Catholics and lesbians who also earn their keep, study the country's finances, and also desire to vote for freedom and against the state.  Ergo, we cannot rely on mere physical traits or religious beliefs, but rather whether they are contributing members of society who have EARNED the right to vote, not merely "spat out of a vagina within the US' borders."  And there ARE ways to do that, some of which have already been done.

For example, in the embryonic years of the United States you not only had to be a white male to vote, you also had to own property.  The founding fathers had this requirement because not only did they not want blacks or women to vote, but because they also didn't want stupid white men to vote!  You couldn't just have been "born a white male."  You also had to prove you could work and manage your finances accordingly that you were a productive member of society.  And requiring ownership of property was a proxy for that hurdle.

However, while that may have had the intended effect in 1790, today we have the technology that a much better and much more meritorious voting franchise can be given - taxes.

Very simply, if you want to vote you need to have paid taxes.

If you collect a government check.  No.
If you're on EBT.  No.
Are you on TANF?  No.
Disability?  No.
Social Security?  No.
Housing assistance?  No.
Attending a state university and getting a subsidy from the taxpayer?  No.

You MUST BE a contributing member of this society, paying into the government to have a say in how the country is ran.  You must NOT BE a parasite collecting a government check making you by definition a ward on the state.  This discriminates against no one, but ensures those who are paying for the government are the ones determining how it is managed, and is thus far in my economist's mind of thinking the best way to award the right to vote.

Of course, sadly, as I said before, this is all academic.  Too many people who are too vested in the demise of Western Civilization already have the vote.  And too many people (both men and women) are just plain too damn stupid, ignorant and naive to listen to reason, evidence, logic, and reality.  But let it be said and noted that when Western Civilization finally collapses, when Rome v. 2.0 falls, when humanity's greatest gift to itself is taken away it was the female voter and her naivety that was disproportionately to blame.  And those 6,000 years of human pain, suffering, sacrifice, blood and war was undone by 60 years of childish, spoiled, petulant feminism.

Enjoy the decline.
My Books
Amazon Affiliate

The Big Short

As you know there is a movie coming out about the housing bubble called The Big Short.  However, for the new readers you may not know that it was the housing bubble that led the ole Captain to his writing career and his first book "Behind the Housing Crash."

If you were interested in the goings ons of the finance and banking industry back then I cannot recommend a better book.  Not because I wrote it, but because it is that good. 

Anyway, if you wanted to throw the ole Captain some coppers consider picking up "Behind the Housing Crash."

The Great Matt Baldoni Breaks in His New Guitar

If you didn't know, Matt had a guitar custom made in his honor.  Figured some of you (particularly of the female persuasion) would like to see him break it in:

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Robert Stacy McCain, Father of Six

Schools feminist-communist 19 year old who obviously has no father.

(I love the picture of the feminist vs. McCain's children.  Tell me who is living the happier childhood?)

Monday, September 28, 2015

Warm Fuzzies


Daughters Don't Need No STIIIINKING Fathers!

As we all know, father's are completely unnecessary and unneeded.  They are obsolete given government checks have arrived.

But I'd love to see a government check pull off this.

Episode #113 of The Clarey Podcast!

Cappy's monster basil plant
Sushi economics
The people of Trader Joe's
Academia tries to be its own government


in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

EMERGENCY PREDICTION: Accused of Transgenderism

It is a prediction that is too easy to make and one I'm going to do here, because if you can predict people it means you understand them perfectly and know what drives them.  And the SJW's, specifically of the transgender variety, are going to go apeshit over the website ""


Well, psychologically speaking they're worthless people (not transgendered people, I'm talking the SJW's who are going to protest this) and so they offer nothing of worth to society.  However, just because they're worthless doesn't mean they want people to know that.  Their egos are too big and fragile for that.  Ergo, they constantly search for fake injustices to lash out at in a heroic and crusaderist way making it seem they offer something to this world.  Of course they're just lazy, spoiled brat children who whine constantly and nobody in the real world likes, but that's what psychologically drives them.

But more specifically, THIS is going to make them see red:

See, for those of us who are normal, we are going to harken back to our childhoods during the 60's, 70's, and 80's and say,

"OH CUTE!  I can become a Charlie Brown character!"

But the valueless parasites of our society will purposely look past the fun and innocent intent of this site and attack it because (once again) these people are worthless and need to fabricate faux meaning in their lives.

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge the SJW shitstorm hasn't happened yet.

But it will.

Oh, it will.

Enjoy the decline!

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Today's Office

Remember kids!  If you go to school, get good grades, go to college, heed baby boomers, and follow your heart...

You'll never ever see this in your entire life

Saturday, September 26, 2015

There Is No Such Thing as "Market Failure"

"Whatever happens, happens."
         -Spike Spiegel

"Market failure" (depending on which economist you ask on which day) is when the market "fails" to provide the optimal outcome for society.  It is NOT at its peak efficiency, NOT delivering the most utility to the people, NOT delivering its maximum goods and services, and therefore is failing the population.

This then gives rise to the call for (wait for it!) "government intervention."

You see, with this magic medicine called "government intervention" we can repair the market, making it efficient once again.  So we lower interest rates here, jack up taxes there, perhaps regulate or deregulate an industry (again depending on which economist you ask and what time zone he's in), and POOF!  All better.

Historical examples of market failure are:

The Bank Panic of 1907
The Great Depression
The Stagflation Days of the 70's
The Dotcom Bubble and
The Housing Bubble

Those gosh darn stubborn economies of those times just weren't behaving like they were supposed to damnit!  And by gum, the federal government had to go in there and set things right either through inventing a central bank, or implementing the New Deal, price controls, massive expansionary fiscal policy, or good ole fashioned trillion dollar bailouts.

Immediately, leftists, socialists, internventionists, Keynesians, and other varied sorts of parasites are quick to point out the recovery that invariably ensued after these market failures.  And if you were to dare ask "well, what if we just left the market alone" they all hold hands and sing in a cappella that old, standby classic tune "It Would Have Been Worse If We Did Nothing."

But while we can debate (impossibly) about whether or not intervention in these various financial crises accelerated recovery and remedied "market failure," I want to pose a different argument that is much less theoretical, much more logical, and simply one of definition.  And that is calling into question if there can even be a thing called "market failure."

While true theoretical economists can debate about the technical definition of it, the operational definition of market failure, the one we have witnessed in the real world, has been one not of "a non-optimal use of resources," but rather "the government should prevent bad things." 

Great Depression?
FDR will blow billions (by today's standards trillions) on the New Deal.

Nixon will just simply institute "price controls!"  See, all better now!

Great recession?
Bush will bail out the banks, while Obama will piss away thrice that amount on poor unproductive people.

But the problem in having the government "just prevent bad things" is that it is antithetical to a free market.  The nanosecond the government intervenes the market is no longer a market, but a hybrid, that neither operates nor behaves as it normally would if it were completely void of government interference.  Ergo, if the government is constantly intervening, we never get around to finding out if there is such a thing as market failure or that markets can, and will, inevitably heal themselves no matter how severe the "failure."

The real issue, however, is not whether governments should intervene to prevent "bad things from happening."  It's an issue of pain avoidance and speed.

Very much like slowly peeling versus rapidly ripping off the bandaid, most humans are cowards and fear the immense and immediate pain of the rip.  Therefore they prefer "government intervention" in the form of taking the time to gently and meticulously peel the bandaid away.  However, this only delays the inevitable, amortizing the pain over a much longer time period than had you just ripped the bandaid off.  But in either case, the bandaid would have come off and you would have gone out to play as you normally would anyway.

Regardless, the exact same scenario played out with the Great Recession.

We COULD HAVE let markets work their magic.  CRUSH the bankster scum that deserved to have their fortunes and careers destroyed.  Let the banks fail teaching them a lesson they'd at least remember for a generation.  Have the financial system go into disarray, and send the economy into a much deeper and harsher recession than we endured.

But prices would have dropped rapidly.
Assets would have become cheaper.
Labor much cheaper as well.

And soon it would be profitable once again to start ventures, business, companies anew, bringing about a quick end to the economic recession.

Instead (again, the cowards that we Americans have become) wanted to believe the lies and poppycock of an "intelligent affirmative action hire Harvard man" who assured us he would pull the bainaid off slowly, and gently, and if there was going to be any pain it would be those rat bastard rich people.  And so, now 7 years later (of still-significant economic pain mind you) we are FINALLY getting back to (what can at best be charitably called) "normal" in terms of unemployment, jobs, economic growth, and income....A place we could have been at 6 years ago had we just bit the bullet.

The point is not one of whether Barack Obama's, FDR's, Bush's, Nixon's, or any other presidents' fiscal policies were correct.  The point is that if left alone, the economy would have recovered just fine without government interference. Ergo, "market failure" does not really exist.  But our fear of paying the full price for our economic sins, and our naivety to think politicians can some how "wash them away" does.  And that, my fine young junior, deputy, aspiring, official, or otherwise economists, is the true definition of "market failure."

I Ask, Did the Victims Vote Left?

Because voting left is doing the right thing and that's all that matters.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Guess I'm in the Plot Line for Day By Day

Actually made an appearance in Day By Day!  Didn't know I'd be part of a plot line!

If You Think the Millennials are Wimps

Just wait for THIS generation to circle 18 times around the sun.

Replacing Husbands With Government Checks

Actually, the father COULD be reached for comment, but he was in Chicago.

Regardless, this is what happens when the leftist dream is installed where women trade boring, reliable, employed husbands in for sexcapades with multiple losers and government checks.