I will quote it:

"It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."

Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
both

- unmarried, and
- without clear economic prospects

and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.

I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
toys.

And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.

So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
alternatives): vat-girls.

John Savard

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 1:46:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> I will quote it:
>
> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>
> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
> both
>
> - unmarried, and
> - without clear economic prospects
>
> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>
> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
> toys.
>
> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
>
> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
> alternatives): vat-girls.

That's not an implementable solution.

pt

On 2022-06-06 11:46 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> I will quote it:
>
> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>
> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
> both
>
> - unmarried, and
> - without clear economic prospects
>
> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>
> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
> toys.
>
> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
>
> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
> alternatives): vat-girls.
>
> John Savard

Because it's beyond your capacity to imagine that frustrated lonely
women could cause trouble.

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> I will quote it:
>
> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>
> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
> both
>
> - unmarried, and
> - without clear economic prospects
>
> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>
> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
> toys.
>
> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
>
> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
> alternatives): vat-girls.
>
> John Savard
If this is a reference to https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221074647 there is a much more interesting message, which risks being ignored because it does not fit a very popular political narrative that demonises inequality.

....We present two arguments: despite being a key explanatory variable in existing research, perceived lower economic status vis-à-vis other individuals (an indicator of relative deprivation) is unlikely to motivate people to participate in violence; by contrast, although virtually unexplored, a projected decrease in one’s own economic status (prospective decremental deprivation) is likely to motivate violence.
....

Reformers that actually want to improve the prospects of the least well off should be looking to inspire economic growth and apply the benefits of this to the worst off without reducing the standard of living of the better off, as this will minimise opposition to their policies. Reducing inequality is the wrong target, and risks turning politics into a zero sum game played between different blocks of recipients of state aid.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6c82bdf9-d723-4177-bc01-ea03c88440ecn@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 1:46:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I will quote it:
>>
>> "It’s an established principle of political science — sup
> ported by studies that
>> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher
>> chance
> s of
>> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if
>> their populati
> ons contain
>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>>
>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man
>> has to be
>
>> both
>>
>> - unmarried, and
>> - without clear economic prospects
>>
>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and
>> making more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>>
>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_
>> rather than
>
>> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness
>> than toys.
>>
>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women
>> really have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what
>> they need.
>>
>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to
>> take away women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into
>> loving the traditional role (or opting for "sexual freedom"
>> either)... I came up with a solution
>
>> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than
>> _those_ alternatives): vat-girls.
>
> That's not an implementable solution.

Nor is it any different than "take away women's rights or otherwise
brainwash them." But Quaddie's too sexually frustrated to get that.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:t7lh7m$k74$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2022-06-06 11:46 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> I will quote it:
>>
>> "It’s an established principle of political science —
>> supported by studies that look back as far as the 1600s —
>> that countries have higher chances of terrorism, civil war,
>> rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>>
>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man
>> has to be both
>>
>> - unmarried, and
>> - without clear economic prospects
>>
>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and
>> making more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>>
>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_
>> rather than an end in itself, and love is much more conducive
>> to happiness than toys.
>>
>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women
>> really have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what
>> they need.
>>
>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to
>> take away women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into
>> loving the traditional role (or opting for "sexual freedom"
>> either)... I came up with a solution that respects the rights
>> of women (well, at least more so than _those_ alternatives):
>> vat-girls.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Because it's beyond your capacity to imagine that frustrated
> lonely women could cause trouble.
>
It's not like he is capable of viewing them as *people*.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote in
news:c1ca2fac-4c94-49c9-b0d8-4b7ae81c5b59n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I will quote it:
>>
>> "It’s an established principle of political science — sup
> ported by studies that
>> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher
>> chance
> s of
>> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if
>> their populati
> ons contain
>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>>
>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man
>> has to be
>
>> both
>>
>> - unmarried, and
>> - without clear economic prospects
>>
>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and
>> making more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>>
>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_
>> rather than
>
>> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness
>> than toys.
>>
>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women
>> really have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what
>> they need.
>>
>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to
>> take away women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into
>> loving the traditional role (or opting for "sexual freedom"
>> either)... I came up with a solution
>
>> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than
>> _those_ alternatives): vat-girls.
>>
>> John Savard
> If this is a reference to
> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221074647
> there is a much more interesting message, which risks being
> ignored because it does not fit a very popular political
> narrative that demonises inequality.
>
> ...We present two arguments: despite being a key explanatory
> variable in existing research, perceived lower economic status
> vis-à-vis other individuals (an indicator of relative
> deprivation) is unlikely to motivate people to participate in
> violence; by contrast, although virtually unexplored, a
> projected decrease in one’s own economic status (prospective
> decremental deprivation) is likely to motivate violence. ...
>
> Reformers that actually want to improve the prospects of the
> least well off should be looking to inspire economic growth and
> apply the benefits of this to the worst off without reducing the
> standard of living of the better off, as this will minimise
> opposition to their policies. Reducing inequality is the wrong
> target, and risks turning politics into a zero sum game played
> between different blocks of recipients of state aid.
>
And therein you have summarized the core values of the left:

Take from those who have more (than the lefties in charge) and give
to those who have less (and will vote for lefties if you give them
free shit.)

The core principle involved is the desire for everyone (except
themselves) to be equal. Since people who have half a brain (which
is about what most lefties have) know that there are a lot of
people who are too lazy, stupid or dishonest to ever thrive on
their own, regardless of opportunity, and will live their lives in
squalid poverty no matter what society does, the only possible way
to make everyone (except themselves) equal is to reduce everyone
(except themsleves) to the same level of squalid poverty.

The rank and file are, for the most part, those lazy, stupid or
dishonest types (like Quaddie) who just want free shit without
having to work for it, but the leadship are smart enough to get it.
Which means that destroying the middle class and reducing everyone
(except themselves) to indentured servitude is a deliberate,
soncsious goal.

They don't even pretend otherwise any more.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:09:13 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 1:46:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I will quote it:
>>
>> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
>> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
>> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>>
>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
>> both
>>
>> - unmarried, and
>> - without clear economic prospects
>>
>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
>> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>>
>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
>> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
>> toys.
>>
>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
>> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
>>
>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
>> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
>> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
>> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
>> alternatives): vat-girls.
>
>That's not an implementable solution.

Not with current technology.

Selectively aborting male babies would have the same result and is
technologically feasible, although in the US the people who oppose it
are the ones with all the guns so the politics would be a different
story.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I will quote it:
>>
>> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
>> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
>> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>>
>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
>> both
>>
>> - unmarried, and
>> - without clear economic prospects
>>
>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
>> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>>
>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
>> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
>> toys.
>>
>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
>> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
>>
>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
>> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
>> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
>> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
>> alternatives): vat-girls.
>>
>> John Savard
>If this is a reference to https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221074647 there is a much more interesting message, which risks being ignored because it does not fit a very popular political narrative that demonises inequality.
>
>...We present two arguments: despite being a key explanatory variable in existing research, perceived lower economic status vis-à-vis other individuals (an indicator of relative deprivation) is unlikely to motivate people to participate in violence; by contrast, although virtually unexplored, a projected decrease in one’s own
economic status (prospective decremental deprivation) is likely to motivate violence.
>...
>
>Reformers that actually want to improve the prospects of the least well off should be looking to inspire economic growth and apply the benefits of this to the worst off without reducing the standard of living of the better off, as this will minimise opposition to their policies. Reducing inequality is the wrong target, and risks
turning politics into a zero sum game played between different blocks of recipients of state aid.

Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 11:33:48 -0700, Andrew McDowell wrote:

> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I will quote it:
>>
>> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by
>> studies that look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher
>> chances of terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if
>> their populations contain lots of unmarried young men without clear
>> economic prospects."
>>
>>
>> John Savard
> If this is a reference to
> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221074647 there is
> a much more interesting message, which risks being ignored because it

The OP's quote doesn't appear in that paper.

On 2022-06-06 11:34 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I will quote it:
>>>
>>> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
>>> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
>>> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
>>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
>>>
>>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
>>> both
>>>
>>> - unmarried, and
>>> - without clear economic prospects
>>>
>>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
>>> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
>>>
>>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
>>> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
>>> toys.
>>>
>>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
>>> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
>>>
>>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
>>> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
>>> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
>>> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
>>> alternatives): vat-girls.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>> If this is a reference to https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221074647 there is a much more interesting message, which risks being ignored because it does not fit a very popular political narrative that demonises inequality.
>>
>> ...We present two arguments: despite being a key explanatory variable in existing research, perceived lower economic status vis-à-vis other individuals (an indicator of relative deprivation) is unlikely to motivate people to participate in violence; by contrast, although virtually unexplored, a projected decrease in one’s own
> economic status (prospective decremental deprivation) is likely to motivate violence.
>> ...
>>
>> Reformers that actually want to improve the prospects of the least well off should be looking to inspire economic growth and apply the benefits of this to the worst off without reducing the standard of living of the better off, as this will minimise opposition to their policies. Reducing inequality is the wrong target, and risks
> turning politics into a zero sum game played between different blocks of recipients of state aid.
>
> Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.

You keep right on believing that...

....and the super-rich will thank you

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 4:08:23 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-06-06 11:34 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> > <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> I will quote it:
> >>>
> >>> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
> >>> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
> >>> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
> >>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
> >>>
> >>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
> >>> both
> >>>
> >>> - unmarried, and
> >>> - without clear economic prospects
> >>>
> >>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
> >>> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
> >>> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
> >>> toys.
> >>>
> >>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
> >>> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
> >>>
> >>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
> >>> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
> >>> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
> >>> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
> >>> alternatives): vat-girls.
> >>>
> >>> John Savard
> >> If this is a reference to https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221074647 there is a much more interesting message, which risks being ignored because it does not fit a very popular political narrative that demonises inequality.
> >>
> >> ...We present two arguments: despite being a key explanatory variable in existing research, perceived lower economic status vis-à-vis other individuals (an indicator of relative deprivation) is unlikely to motivate people to participate in violence; by contrast, although virtually unexplored, a projected decrease in one’s own
> > economic status (prospective decremental deprivation) is likely to motivate violence.
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Reformers that actually want to improve the prospects of the least well off should be looking to inspire economic growth and apply the benefits of this to the worst off without reducing the standard of living of the better off, as this will minimise opposition to their policies. Reducing inequality is the wrong target, and risks
> > turning politics into a zero sum game played between different blocks of recipients of state aid.
> >
> > Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> > help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
> You keep right on believing that...
>
> ...and the super-rich will thank you

Keeping with the 'Guess what I just read on the Internet' theme, there's this:

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/954451

"A new paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, published by Oxford University Press,
indicates that removing cash welfare from children when they reach age 18 greatly
increases the chances that they will face criminal justice charges in subsequent years. "

We've had a huge increase in labor productivity in the past few decades. But the
increased wealth that has created has gone largely to the business owners and
C-suite executives.

I do think we're in need of some mechanism to rebalance that. The rapidly declining
working-age population will force some of that, but I suspect we really need some form
of UBI.

pt

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 10:46:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>I will quote it:
>
>"It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
>look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
>terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
>lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."

Silly me.

I thought the normal result of lots of excess males was to start a
ground war so they could die gloriously in combat.

Well, they gotta have /some/ use.

<snippo vat-girl nonsense>
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 10:37:31 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 10:46:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >I will quote it:
> >
> >"It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
> >look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
> >terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
> >lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."

> Silly me.
>
> I thought the normal result of lots of excess males was to start a
> ground war so they could die gloriously in combat.
>
> Well, they gotta have /some/ use.

Historically, that indeed _is_ how societies have coped with the
issue. But that is also something worth making an effort to avoid.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:32:43 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Selectively aborting male babies would have the same result and is
> technologically feasible, although in the US the people who oppose it
> are the ones with all the guns so the politics would be a different
> story.

Of course, that brings up the issue of killing people who haven't been
born yet; I'm trying to avoid violating anyone's rights.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:34:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.

Oh, that's something I agree with. Successful businessmen are like
the goose that produces the golden eggs - businesses that benefit
society by providing opportunities to create wealth and useful
innovations are valuable.

Not all businesses are good corporate citizens, however.

Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
got that way by robbing the peasants. This is what makes their
political culture more amenable to left-wing ideologies.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 11:33:36 AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 4:08:23 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> > On 2022-06-06 11:34 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> > > <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > >>> I will quote it:
> > >>>
> > >>> "It’s an established principle of political science — supported by studies that
> > >>> look back as far as the 1600s — that countries have higher chances of
> > >>> terrorism, civil war, rising crime, and political chaos if their populations contain
> > >>> lots of unmarried young men without clear economic prospects."
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course, to be a troublemaker according to this, a young man has to be
> > >>> both
> > >>>
> > >>> - unmarried, and
> > >>> - without clear economic prospects
> > >>>
> > >>> and so this would be fixable merely by fixing the *economy* and making
> > >>> more jobs; we wouldn't need vat-girls.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm not so optimistic. I think money is a _means to an end_ rather than
> > >>> an end in itself, and love is much more conducive to happiness than
> > >>> toys.
> > >>>
> > >>> And that feminism _has_ meant that a sizable fraction of women really
> > >>> have decided that marriage and kids aren't really what they need.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, as I _reject_ the idea of changing our society so as to take away
> > >>> women's rights or otherwise brainwash them into loving the traditional
> > >>> role (or opting for "sexual freedom" either)... I came up with a solution
> > >>> that respects the rights of women (well, at least more so than _those_
> > >>> alternatives): vat-girls.
> > >>>
> > >>> John Savard
> > >> If this is a reference to https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221074647 there is a much more interesting message, which risks being ignored because it does not fit a very popular political narrative that demonises inequality.
> > >>
> > >> ...We present two arguments: despite being a key explanatory variable in existing research, perceived lower economic status vis-à-vis other individuals (an indicator of relative deprivation) is unlikely to motivate people to participate in violence; by contrast, although virtually unexplored, a projected decrease in one’s own
> > > economic status (prospective decremental deprivation) is likely to motivate violence.
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> Reformers that actually want to improve the prospects of the least well off should be looking to inspire economic growth and apply the benefits of this to the worst off without reducing the standard of living of the better off, as this will minimise opposition to their policies. Reducing inequality is the wrong target, and risks
> > > turning politics into a zero sum game played between different blocks of recipients of state aid.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> > > help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
> > You keep right on believing that...
> >
> > ...and the super-rich will thank you
> Keeping with the 'Guess what I just read on the Internet' theme, there's this:
>
> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/954451
>
> "A new paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, published by Oxford University Press,
> indicates that removing cash welfare from children when they reach age 18 greatly
> increases the chances that they will face criminal justice charges in subsequent years. "
>

Since we are talking about 18=year-olds, "children" might not be the correct term. "Youths"
or "young adults" might be better. "Youths" is what the study's authors use.

[quote]

In response to SSI removal, youth are twice as likely to be charged with an illicit income-generating
offense than they are to maintain steady employment at $15,000/year in the labor market. As a
result of these charges, the annual likelihood of incarceration increases by a statistically significant
60% in the two decades following SSI removal. The costs of enforcement and incarceration from
SSI removal are so high that they nearly eliminate the savings from reduced SSI benefits.

[/quote] - https://sites.google.com/view/mdeshpande

SSI is not the main US Federal program of welfare payments. That would be TANF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Security_Income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

{Prior to 1996, there was a program known as AFDC.}

SSI is available for adults, but, as noted those who have hit age 18 have to be re-evaluated.

The program has been criticized for incentivizing (a) parent(s) to have their
children diagnosed with learning disabilities - ADHD for example - and even
medicated as a way of qualifying for, in the words of the BOSTON GLOBE,
"the other welfare."

http://archive.boston.com/news/health/specials/New_Welfare/

[quote]

US Representative Richard Neal, a Democrat from Springfield and an outspoken critic of the
program, said the new data reinforce his belief that the children’s SSI program, although it
helps many low-income families who have children with serious impairments, may be evolving
into a loosely run alternative welfare system. He said veteran school officials in Springfield
and other poor urban areas continue to complain to him that many indigent families face
incentives to label their children disabled, or to put them on psychotropic drugs, “simply to
secure the benefits.’’

[/quote]

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/11/as_ssi_costs_rise_critics_step_up_call_for_tighter_controls/

> We've had a huge increase in labor productivity in the past few decades. But the
> increased wealth that has created has gone largely to the business owners and
> C-suite executives.
>
> I do think we're in need of some mechanism to rebalance that. The rapidly declining
> working-age population will force some of that, but I suspect we really need some form
> of UBI.
> >

The UBI idea has been kicking around for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend

....and, on-topic for the group:

https://vector-bsfa.com/2020/04/27/basic-income-in-science-fiction/

--
Kevin R

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:34:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> > help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
> Oh, that's something I agree with. Successful businessmen are like
> the goose that produces the golden eggs - businesses that benefit
> society by providing opportunities to create wealth and useful
> innovations are valuable.
>
> Not all businesses are good corporate citizens, however.
>
> Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
> that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
> got that way by robbing the peasants. This is what makes their
> political culture more amenable to left-wing ideologies.
>
>

The usual progressive counter to any purer motives here in the Americas
is that European settlers stole the land from earlier migrants from Asia,
or swindled them out of it.

It's complicated. A wealthy US family may have become wealthy trading with
native people. New York's Astors, supposedly the original arbiters of who was
who in Society, made much of their money in the fur trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_fur_trade

I don't claim that trading with the tribes was designed to destroy their
traditional economies, but eventually that happened, though there were
other causes.
--
Kevin R

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:34:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
>> help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
>
>Oh, that's something I agree with. Successful businessmen are like
>the goose that produces the golden eggs - businesses that benefit
>society by providing opportunities to create wealth and useful
>innovations are valuable.
>
>Not all businesses are good corporate citizens, however.
>
>Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
>that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
>got that way by robbing the peasants. This is what makes their
>political culture more amenable to left-wing ideologies.

People who don't have a knee-jerk "Ayn Rand is the Antichrist"
reaction might find the "Atlas Shrugged" movie to be of interest.
Dagny Taggart's brother is an incompetent buffoon with money, power,
and connections, and much of Dagny's time is wasted cleaning up his
messes and working around his mismanagement of what should in a
rational world have been _her_ railroad. I don't recall now how
accurately that reflects the novel--it's been a long, long time since
I read it.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:34:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> >> help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
> >
> >Oh, that's something I agree with. Successful businessmen are like
> >the goose that produces the golden eggs - businesses that benefit
> >society by providing opportunities to create wealth and useful
> >innovations are valuable.
> >
> >Not all businesses are good corporate citizens, however.
> >
> >Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
> >that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
> >got that way by robbing the peasants. This is what makes their
> >political culture more amenable to left-wing ideologies.
> People who don't have a knee-jerk "Ayn Rand is the Antichrist"
> reaction might find the "Atlas Shrugged" movie to be of interest.
> Dagny Taggart's brother is an incompetent buffoon with money, power,
> and connections, and much of Dagny's time is wasted cleaning up his
> messes and working around his mismanagement of what should in a
> rational world have been _her_ railroad. I don't recall now how
> accurately that reflects the novel--it's been a long, long time since
> I read it.

Haven't watched the films, but have read AS a time or two.
Your assessments of Jim and Dagny Taggart are accurate.

Dagny may have been a wish-fulfillment fantasy for Rand -
her heroes and heroines do tend to be Sue/Stu-ish - but,
unfortunately, the real world had plenty of Jim Taggarts.

I'm not sure how common legacy CEOs are nowadays, given
how many of such once dominant firms have been merged into
larger operations, if they haven't been eclipsed by newer ones
based on tech not yet invented when the novel was written.

--
Kevin R

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 1:45:21 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:34:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > > Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> > > help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
> > Oh, that's something I agree with. Successful businessmen are like
> > the goose that produces the golden eggs - businesses that benefit
> > society by providing opportunities to create wealth and useful
> > innovations are valuable.
> >
> > Not all businesses are good corporate citizens, however.
> >
> > Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
> > that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
> > got that way by robbing the peasants. This is what makes their
> > political culture more amenable to left-wing ideologies.
> >
> >
> The usual progressive counter to any purer motives here in the Americas
> is that European settlers stole the land from earlier migrants from Asia,
> or swindled them out of it.
>
> It's complicated. A wealthy US family may have become wealthy trading with
> native people. New York's Astors, supposedly the original arbiters of who was
> who in Society, made much of their money in the fur trade.

The Astors got a start on the family fortune with fur trading, but they got *really*
rich trading NYC real estate. The family was known as 'the landlords of New York'.

pt

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:34:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >
>> >> Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
>> >> help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
>> >
>> >Oh, that's something I agree with. Successful businessmen are like
>> >the goose that produces the golden eggs - businesses that benefit
>> >society by providing opportunities to create wealth and useful
>> >innovations are valuable.
>> >
>> >Not all businesses are good corporate citizens, however.
>> >
>> >Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
>> >that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
>> >got that way by robbing the peasants. This is what makes their
>> >political culture more amenable to left-wing ideologies.
>> People who don't have a knee-jerk "Ayn Rand is the Antichrist"
>> reaction might find the "Atlas Shrugged" movie to be of interest.
>> Dagny Taggart's brother is an incompetent buffoon with money, power,
>> and connections, and much of Dagny's time is wasted cleaning up his
>> messes and working around his mismanagement of what should in a
>> rational world have been _her_ railroad. I don't recall now how
>> accurately that reflects the novel--it's been a long, long time since
>> I read it.
>
>Haven't watched the films, but have read AS a time or two.
>Your assessments of Jim and Dagny Taggart are accurate.
>
>Dagny may have been a wish-fulfillment fantasy for Rand -
>her heroes and heroines do tend to be Sue/Stu-ish - but,
>unfortunately, the real world had plenty of Jim Taggarts.
>
>I'm not sure how common legacy CEOs are nowadays, given
>how many of such once dominant firms have been merged into
>larger operations, if they haven't been eclipsed by newer ones
>based on tech not yet invented when the novel was written.

My mother once fixed me up with the daughter of the legacy CEO of a
very large life insurance company. If I had known then what I know
now, I would have made better use of that connection--at the time life
insurance was beneath my dignity as a lordly _engineer_ but now that
I'm working in it I find that I like it better than engineering. But
Emelia Hartford the girl was not--she had the Ferrari but no
personality whatsoever.

That insurance company no longer exists, and the one where I work now
changes CEOs regularly as a matter of policy, so no legacies.
>

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:16:37 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:34:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> >> >> help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, that's something I agree with. Successful businessmen are like
> >> >the goose that produces the golden eggs - businesses that benefit
> >> >society by providing opportunities to create wealth and useful
> >> >innovations are valuable.
> >> >
> >> >Not all businesses are good corporate citizens, however.
> >> >
> >> >Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
> >> >that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
> >> >got that way by robbing the peasants. This is what makes their
> >> >political culture more amenable to left-wing ideologies.
> >> People who don't have a knee-jerk "Ayn Rand is the Antichrist"
> >> reaction might find the "Atlas Shrugged" movie to be of interest.
> >> Dagny Taggart's brother is an incompetent buffoon with money, power,
> >> and connections, and much of Dagny's time is wasted cleaning up his
> >> messes and working around his mismanagement of what should in a
> >> rational world have been _her_ railroad. I don't recall now how
> >> accurately that reflects the novel--it's been a long, long time since
> >> I read it.
> >
> >Haven't watched the films, but have read AS a time or two.
> >Your assessments of Jim and Dagny Taggart are accurate.
> >
> >Dagny may have been a wish-fulfillment fantasy for Rand -
> >her heroes and heroines do tend to be Sue/Stu-ish - but,
> >unfortunately, the real world had plenty of Jim Taggarts.
> >
> >I'm not sure how common legacy CEOs are nowadays, given
> >how many of such once dominant firms have been merged into
> >larger operations, if they haven't been eclipsed by newer ones
> >based on tech not yet invented when the novel was written.
> My mother once fixed me up with the daughter of the legacy CEO of a
> very large life insurance company. If I had known then what I know
> now, I would have made better use of that connection--at the time life
> insurance was beneath my dignity as a lordly _engineer_ but now that
> I'm working in it I find that I like it better than engineering. But
> Emelia Hartford the girl was not--she had the Ferrari but no
> personality whatsoever.
>

Did Ms Hartford share the name of the city, or the underwriter?
An alias to protect the lady?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hartford

The Hartford was engulfed and devoured by ITT in 1970,
but was spun off in 1995, and has been an independent
firm, since.

Fun fact: the call letters of the Hartford stations (AM, FM & TV)
WTIC stand for the old ownership: Travelers Insurance Company.
Travelers started divesting itself of those sticks in 1973.

I guess a neo-acronym could be The Insurance Capital.

> That insurance company no longer exists, and the one where I work now
> changes CEOs regularly as a matter of policy, so no legacies.
> >

--
Kevin R

In article <d8b004b7-b984-444b-bee8-451f3d1da495n@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> writes:

> > >> >> Exactly. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The people who want to
> > >> >> help the poor by pulling down the rich don't get that.

It depends.

> > >> >Also, while the people in America who are rich generally got
> > >> >that way by making themselves useful, in Europe the rich
> > >> >got that way by robbing the peasants.

I think that you need to factor slavery into the equation.

> > >> People who don't have a knee-jerk "Ayn Rand is the Antichrist"
> > >> reaction might find the "Atlas Shrugged" movie to be of interest.

Not the antichrist, but a huge hypocrit. In her later years, she lived
off of welfare. She also denied that her smoking had anything to do
with her lung cancer. Difficult to find someone more stupid.

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:03:24 AM UTC-6, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

> Not the antichrist, but a huge hypocrit. In her later years, she lived
> off of welfare. She also denied that her smoking had anything to do
> with her lung cancer. Difficult to find someone more stupid.

The beginning of right and wrong is not to commit aggression. Don't
steal from others, don't push them around.

The Libertarians and similar types have that part right. However,
their mistake is to think that this is the whole of right and wrong.

I remember one thing I read from Ayn Rand that I found to be
hypocritical: since the Native Americans hunted instead of farming,
they didn't change the land, so they had no ownership of it, so no
injustice was done to them when settlers pushed them aside.

In my opinion, this is faulty reasoning.

It would be like a man who murdered his wife by smothering her
with a pillow... attempting to use, as a defence, the fact that she
did not have any ownership rights to the Earth's atmosphere.

You can injure people by cutting them off from a commons, in
other words; this is why the Robin Hood stories are so popular,
for example (the King's Deer and all that).

Although Libertarians are the opposite of Marxists, they
commit the same error, just in different ways. Capital has
real value; its absence limits the efficiency of production.
Our free market system, by acknowledging that, permits
the efficient deployment of capital.

Marxism includes the "labor theory of value"; Capital may
_contribute_ to production, but it doesn't enjoy the fruits of
production, while people need them. So the fruits of labor
should all go to the workers!

Except, of course, that capital is still needed, so all that
happens is that instead of businessmen taking profits,
and using them to expand... the government collects taxes
to build the factories under socialism.

And governments don't face _competition_, which helps
to make it likely for that to end badly.

Libertarianism, of course, is good with capitalism;
but what it fails to recognize is that access to some
amount of capital is a basic necessity for all humans.

So in a country with a small population, and much
unused arable land - there's a safety valve. People can
go off and become peasant farmers, and support
themselves that way, if for whatever reason existing
employers do not offer satisfactory terms. (They need
not be evil; a world-wide depression might mean they
can't afford to pay decent wages.)

However, at least in the past, that has _never_ been a
stable, permanent, situation. There's arable land for
the taking? The population grows to fill it, and the land
becomes crowded.

At that point, people don't stop having children, and instead
start making war to steal from each other. Unless steps are
taken to consciously manage things - in just the way that
Libertarians claim the law should strictly forbid.

They seem to imagine that people can grow food in the
air.

Of the factors of production, then, capital is the Rodney
Dangerfield: it gets no respect.

John Savard