Monthly Archives: January 2015

The Great College Debate

American Exceptionalism: The US Dollar Still Flying:

We have some degree of equality under the rule of law, but that’s as far as it goes and should go. As another blow to equality ,for things such as socioeconomic status, biological determinism means some people will be better than others. The left cannot come to terms with this reality, so they create bogus narratives about how IQ is not important or they try to soak the successful with wealth redistribution. The left seeks equality of outcomes, even if that makes everyone worse off, not equality of opportunity. We live in a society that increasingly rewards wealth and status for those in the top 5% or so of intelligence, with not that much for everyone else.

From Taki Magazine: The Tyranny of the Bookish

This article is really going viral compared to Derb’s other ones. Education is always a hot button issue, as the comment volume on the NYT on such matters would suggest. Pretty much everyone in American has attended school and can lend their own experiences or their children’s experiences to the discussion, and there’s no shortage of opinions from lay people and experts alike, unlike, say, topics like quantum physics or philosophy that require more requisite knowledge before one can lend their opinion.

Not being bookish is fine if you enjoy working a crappy job the rest of your life or you have the connection to join a guild. The evidence is clear: those who read more books (which I guess could include technical books) tend to make more money and without the need for as many connections. In Britain (and the rest of the world) during the years Derb’s youth there was an abundance of good-paying factory jobs that didn’t require much book learning; nowadays, not so much. In the post-2008 economy, cognitive capital translates into financial capital, and this leftist yearning for an earlier era when this wasn’t so won’t change reality. Republicans understand this, it’s the left, in their lack of understanding of economics, who wants to bring back the obsolete, overpaid factory jobs.

Regarding the recent spate of college bashing, the diploma helps get your foot in the door. It’s not a measure of the totality of your knowledge or a guarantee of success; it’s just an expensive piece of paper that signifies you are competent enough to complete college, the possession of which improves your odds of at least entering the middle class. People are getting worked up about this, like on the NYT and Huffington Post you see a similar us (the proletariat) vs. them (the ivy tower elite) trend trend of liberals saying that college grads lack street smarts, that college is a scam, or that college is useless. If you major in good-paying stuff like STEM and don’t take on too much debt, it’s a good deal. The average debt per student is around $20-30k, or about the same as a new car – except the college degree doesn’t lose 1/2 its value after your drive it off the lot.

The issue of expensive tuition and credentialism can be ameliorated to some degree by ending disparate impact lawsuits and expanding the use cognitive tests to replace costly diplomas, but of course this will run into much opposition from the left, who insist that such tests are racist because the wrong people score well.

The Daily View: IQ and Political Affiliation, Small Business, Obama, Healthcare, Women in STEM

Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

If low IQs are linked to poverty and, as shown below, poorer people vote liberal, one can surmise that liberalism is more highly represented among those with low IQs than conservatism. Look at Communism, a collection far-left ideologies specifically designed to appeal to poor, uneducated people.

Decline in small business formation not a big deal

According to the left, one reason why the economy is weak is becase the rate of new business formation is falling.

In a landmark 2014 paper, economists Ryan Decker, John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda showed that there has been a serious decline in business dynamism in the U.S. Simply put, fewer and fewer Americans are starting new businesses.

That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 60-90% of small business fail within the first five years, and the 2008 financial problem was exacerbated by small business failures and easy credit (CIT bankruptcy). Many people are wising up to the fact they can make more money with much less effort with stocks, web 2.0, and real estate than taking a gamble on an endeavor that has such a high failure rate.

That’s the way you get rich in the post-2008 economy…though apps, social networking…stuff like that. Or invest in already-successful, viral start-ups like Uber, Snapchat, Tinder, etc. Why anyone would go the brick and mortar route is beyond me. I would rather invest $100k in successful web 2.0 companies (like the ones I listed) and double my money in 6 months than start a crappy regular business which has a 50% chance within five years of totally failing and taking all my money with it. Like the Dire Straits song Money for Nothing, except it’s apps and web 2.0 instead of music.

Obama recovery? Not so fast.

Obama presiding over the recovery doesn’t mean he engendered it. Thank the fed and the consumer for that. Thank STEM and web 2.0. Thank high-IQ people. Thank free market capitalism. Thank the consumer for spending. Thank bondholders for having faith in America, even though the left wants America to fail. Thank profits & earnings.

Obama (or as some call big ears, purple lips, empty suit, etc) is an effete, uxorious wealth spreader. All he can do is take the wealth from people like me and give it to those who did nothing to earn it. I hate to say it but Hillary, yes Hillary, was right about Obama in 2008…about his inexperience, his subservience, being a pushover, being soft on terror, his connections to radical anti-Americans, his tendency to irk our allies and inability to connect with working, hard-working white Americans. He tried to take credit for the killing of Bin Laten, despite the fact the Bush administration did all the work. The biggest losers after Obama leaves office will whichever company is supplying Obama with his golf equipment and Bed Bath and Beyond (for supplying Michelle’s wardrobe). The biggest winners will be America and the rest of the world (except, perhaps, our enemies).

The GOP should return to the pro-growth policies that worked for Reagan and Bush: lower taxes, less regulation, strong defense, no class warfare, and to quit whining about the debt (no more debt ceiling standoffs). Repeal and replace Obamacare with something that requires insurance (or some ability to pay) or you get no healthcare, which would require abridging or voiding the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[12] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[13] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.[13]

However, because of the recent influence of managed care and other cost control initiatives by insurance companies, hospitals are less able to shift costs, and end up writing off more in uncompensated care. The amount of uncompensated care delivered by nonfederal community hospitals grew from $6.1 billion in 1983 to $40.7 billion in 2004, according to a 2004 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,[12] but it is unclear what percentage of this was emergency care and therefore attributable to EMTALA.

Healthcare isn’t free, and many people who can afford insurance choose not to get it, expecting the tax payer to front the bill. Maybe we need some sort of eugenics program as a long-term solution to reduce healthcare spending or as they say,’An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ We’re spending too much money on costly ‘cures’ and not effort addressing the root of the problem. Wishful thinking, forcing cancellations on existing policy holders, and soaking the rich won’t fix our spiraling healthcare spending problem.

Women and STEM: an exercise in futility

Some say we can narrow the gender wage gap by encouraging more women to pursue STEM, but the problem is – as Larry Summers famously alluded to in a speech in 2005, generating much outrage from the left – the majority of women are simply not cognitively capable of succeeding in STEM, or any high-IQ profession.

Men dominate the far-right of the IQ bell curve.

For not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman but also a clear and rather startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require.

For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That’s statistics, not sexism.

In almost 110 years of Nobel Prize history, only two women have ever won the Prize for physics, only four have won the Prize for chemistry and why no women at all have ever won the coveted Fields Medal for mathematics in eight decades of trying.

Cheer Up, Libs, Things Aren’t So Bad

To the left, America is always in decline – and that only more wealth redistribution from the coffers of the rich can pull us out of this imagined decline. From Braaaad DeLong, The American Economy Stumbles:

The American economy has done badly over the past generation or so. This is not to say other economies have done better: The American economy remains among the richest in the world. However, given the economic lead America had a generation ago, it really ought to still be well ahead of the North Atlantic pack, and it no longer is.

But it is. America is not just pulling ahead of the world, it’s running circles around it. I usually agree with brad on things like debunking the inflation doom and gloomers, free trade, and the efficacy of monetary policy, but he’s wrong here. Adjusted for inflation, the US economy has done better than all its peers since 2009. As Europe, Russia, Australia and South America and Teetered on either recession or hyperinflation due to falling oil prices and sluggish growth, in 2014, America, with its Goldilocks economy, is the superstar of the developed world. Look at the huge success of Facebook, Tesla, Uber other tech success stories. No shortage of innovation. Despite the whining from the left about America being in decline, US high-end real estate and most prestigious institutions of higher learning are still the envy of the world over and are inundated to no end with foreign applicants. It’s a great time to invest in America.

Regarding ‘bad schools’, remove the low IQ students and school performance shoots way up. If you compare American Koreans with Koreans in Korea, our Koreans score higher. But academic surveys lump everyone together. By ignoring the role biology plays in school performance, one may be mistaken to believe that our public schools are only churning out ignoramuses , when in fact, America has some some of the smartest and most talented students in the world; it’s just they they are mixed in with the dull ones, weighing down the average.

Yes, today Americans have remarkable access to incredibly cheap electronic toys. But those are a small part of expenditure, and the costs of securing the standard indicia of middle-class life–a home in a safe neighborhood with good schools and a short commute, college for the children, assurance that a major illness will not lead to bankruptcy, a secure and reasonably-sized pension–have all become more costly relative to incomes. This shift is astonishing: For 150 years before 1979 Americans had confidently expected that each generation would live roughly twice as well in a material sense as its predecessor, not find itself struggling against the current to stay in the same place.

Brad is also possibly alluding to bifurcated inflation, a topic this blog has covered extensively.

Entitlement spending is surging, indicating that while inflation adjusted prices may be going up, the government is fronting most of the the bills, not individuals. Hospitals, for example, cannot deny the latest, most advanced treatment to the uninsured, so that gets added to entitlement spending.

As the elite splinter form the rest of society, it doesn’t necessarily have to suck to be in the bottom 99%. Compared to generations ago, standards of living are much higher and your wages have more utility. Food expenditures fell from 18% of wages to only 10%:

In the 50′s, for example, you only had a couple channels on a blurry black and white TV, few choices at the black and white cinema, and a crackly radio with only a few stations to choose from. Now with Netflix you can theoretically watch any TV show or movie ever made, all at your command. Thanks to modern medicine, ff you get an infection there is a good likelihood you won’t die. Clean water, reliable electricity, food stores stocked with cheap, abundant food – all things that we take for granted that didn’t exist generations ago.

Maybe downward economic mobility is the new normal. We have to come to terms with the fact that biological determinism means millions of people are simply not smart enough to fully participate in the economic recovery and will have to wait their turn. They are falling between the cracks due to autonomous macroeconomic forces outside of anyone’s control, and no one can or should try pull them out.

Eliminative Materialism and Economic Misconceptions

It seems like we’re all becoming economists now. You’ve got Marc Andreessen, a technologist with no economics degrees, engaging in a credible debate with one of the greatest living economists, Larry Summers. Then there’s Peter Thiel, who received his B.A. in Philosophy from Stanford, pontificating about monopolies and the size of government. The 700-page tome Capital in the Twenty-First Century was a best-seller, a book that no one actually read in its entirety and was roundly debunked by leading economists, but at least it will have a productive future as a doorstop or paperweight.

It would seem that up until a decade or so ago, the only people who really cared about economics or had an opinion about it were economists. Now it’s everyone and everywhere. Pretty much every online discussion from subjects pertaining to things like debt, to student loans, to wages seems to bring out everyone’s inner economist, but like self-published ’5-star’ Amazon novels, some things are best kept to oneself (although Thiel and Andreessen are correct, they are in the minority).

From Wikipedia, Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a philosophy of mind that claims people’s common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist. Some eliminativists argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. Rather, they argue that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level.

Eliminative materialism does seem valid in countering the recent plethora of dubious pop-social science research (Gladwell,Daniel Kahneman, Ariely, Taleb, etc) that denies individual cognitive exceptionalism – a denial characteristic of liberal egalitarianism and leveling in that no one better than anyone else, and if someone is better it’s because of an unfair environmental advantage, not genes. Compare that to Pinker, Murray, and Harris and the like.

It also applies to how most people think of economics. Not surprisingly, due to the recent popularization of macroeconomics there are a lot of misconceptions being propagated such as the belief that America’s debt is unsustainable or that wealth inequality is bad for the economy. Anyone who says America’s debt is a crisis waiting to happen probably doesn’t understand modern macroeconomic principles, is in denial, or is blinded by some ideology. The libs who whine about slow growth and the debt don’t realize that slow growth lowers interest rates, creating a flight to America’s reserve currency and therefore making the debt more manageable. Second, they don’t understands that the debt can also be inflated away with high economic growth. Third, America’s $15+ trillion debt balance will never actually come due at once; instead, it is simply rolled over in perpetuity and only a small interest fee is paid. Despite the debt being at record highs, thanks to low rates and the global flight to safety, relatively speaking, the US is paying record low interest on its debt, going as far back as the 1940′s:

Other libs blame military spending, unaware or in denial that entitlement spending is the real problem:

Growth in entitlement spending far outpaces defense:

The next big misconception is wealth inequality and how, according to the left, it’s supposed to be bad for the economy.

From Oxfam: Richest 1% Will Own More Than All The Rest By 2016

The combined wealth of the world’s richest 1 percent will overtake that of everyone else by next year given the current trend of rising inequality, warned relief and development organization Oxfam America today ahead of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.

As mentioned earlier, the wealthy become wealthy for the economic value they create both directly and, most importantly, indirectly. Democracy and capitalism are not necessarily mutuality inclusive, and America was never intended to be a direct democracy. For years, the left has predicted, to no avail, the rising wealth inequality would be bad for the economy, and yet all economic data such as consumer spending, profits & earnings, and exports keeps being better than ever. Countries that have less inequality (EU nations, Japan) have had worse economic performance than the US post-2009. This is discussed in further detail including debunking austerity, which left wrongly blames for Europe’s sluggish economic performance.

More on Biological Determinism and Useless Degrees

From the New York Times: Among the Disrupted

This passage stood out:

And even as technologism, which is not the same as technology, asserts itself over more and more precincts of human life, so too does scientism, which is not the same as science. The notion that the nonmaterial dimensions of life must be explained in terms of the material dimensions, and that nonscientific understandings must be translated into scientific understandings if they are to qualify as knowledge, is increasingly popular inside and outside the university, where the humanities are disparaged as soft and impractical and insufficiently new.

He is right about the theme, but wrong to be pessimistic about it or oppose this direction society is headed. Biological determinism means millions of people are simply not smart enough to participate in the strong economic recovery. That’s just the inescapable reality of the post-2008 era we find ourselves in. As part of the post-2008 HBD insurgence or what some call social Darwinism 2.0, lay people and academics alike are perhaps becoming more receptive to biological explanations for socioeconomic problems because nurture-based explanations have fallen short. The war on poverty has failed as entitlement spending keeps growing, and that’s because politicians are trying to fix a problem that is biological in nature with a non-biological based solutions. Now millions of inquisitive people are waking up from the stupor of political correctness and asking, ‘Why are we wasting all this taxpayer money on programs that yield no results?’

Any degree from Caltech, MIT, or the Ivy League or a degree in STEM, economics, finance, literature, history or philosophy is worthy of respect, but the rest are pretty much crap. People with worthless degrees are disparaged, and rightfully so. The humanities, like millennials, are not homogeneous; there is a hierarchy with worldly subjects like philosophy, history, and literature residing at the top and detritus like ‘child development’ at the bottom.

MBA majors, not exactly being paragons of intelligence and because they use jargon like ‘results oriented’, are also frequent targets of derision by the smartest generation, who value intelligence and authenticity, as epitomized by STEM (and finance and economics), highly. But because the post-2008 era also celebrates wealth, an MBA major who makes a lot of money does gain some respect. This presents some complications that could be addressed in a future article.

In Defense of the Millennials

The Grey Enlightenment is probably the only conservative/libertarian themed blog that takes a more optimistic view of the millennials.

On millennials, Gavin McInnes writes:

Things have been getting progressively more insane since then. Today we have NYU students barricading themselves in the cafeteria, demanding the school provide them with Palestinian friends (see 10:16); Duke University almost wound up sounding the Muslim call to prayer on Fridays.

I dunno how true this is. He may be falling for the fallacy of composition. A few liberal wackos at a school doesn’t means everyone there is a wacko. From my observation, the overwhelming majority of young people online opposed the attack and expressed solidarity with the victims. That’s what irks me about some conservative commentators – they use the same flawed rhetorical devices as liberals. They point to a single instance of idiocy at a college and say it’s representative of the entire institution or the entire demographic, just like how libs point to a single instance of gun violence and use it to admonish all gun owners.

But the millennials are not a homogeneous group. They are a very numerous and diverse population that spans many ideologies. One one hand you have the useless SJWs, but then you also have millions of millennial STEM majors, the Red Pill movement, MGTOW, Internet Libertarianism, HBD, and so on. It was millennials on Reddit and 4chan who made 2014 a very bad year for the SJWs, exposing all their lies and omissions for the world to see.

2015 is starting off badly for the SJWs as everyone on Reddit and elsewhere rejects the left’s nonsense that the Oscars are racist.

More so than their baby boomer parents, millennials attribute biological factors for individual socioeconomic success or failure, rather than the left who tend to simply blame rich people and greedy corporations for the poor falling between the cracks. Many millennials are smart enough to understand that poverty cannot be fixed by trying to soak the rich, but by understanding that maybe some people are biologically preordained to fail at life (low IQs, poor impulse control) and that platitudes about ‘working harder’, as well leftist wealth redistribution programs, are counterproductive.

Millenials, being on the vanguard of post-2008 rise of nerd culture, know social skills are overrated compared to IQ and talent. All of the millennials’ intellectual and business heroes, from Steve Jobs to Mark Zuckerberg to Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, all demonstrate better skills at creating cool technologies than relating to people. Millenials equate poor social skills with authenticity, intellect, and honesty and see ‘good social skills’ as a crutch for the duplicitous, incompetent and disingenuous. That’s why millennials, unlike their baby boomer parents, don’t like Tony Robbins and Malcom Gladwell, but millennials love Charles Murray and Steven Pinker, agreeing with the later’s views on biological determinism.

In the post-2008 era, the celebration of IQ, authenticity, self-sufficiency, wealth and success has become the new national religion, with those having the more of the aforementioned qualities being more important people than everyone else. Millennials are the disciples, spreading the word and elevating the stature of these great intellectual and business giants. As an example of the celebration of intellect in the post-2008 era, the most up-voted comment on a Facebook post uses science to debunk erroneous liberalism:

Baby boomers, on the other hand, care more about superficiality and collectivism. Michael Lewis, famous for writing a book about baseball, is an example of a babyboomer liberal who attacks successful, smart rich people and who wants society to regress. There’s millions like like him. Millennials, while tending to be socially liberal, could more pro-business than earlier generation. Millennials celebrate the success of Tesla, Facebook and Uber – not begrudge it. They are optimistic about the future of the world and the technologies borne into existence by smart people.

What crotchety liberals call narcissism, millennials (as well as neo-conservatives) call self-actualization. By ‘selfishly’ eschewing leftist communal norms, they are creating better futures for themselves.

Another liberal laments about millennials (or any generation I suppose) being too self-absorbed to appreciate the world around them, “People nowadays do not notice the beauty of things like ancient cities or nature itself. They look at themselves from smartphones and take selfies instead, the latter the most obnoxious tool in the kit of digital narcissism. If it weren’t annoying enough to watch people photograph the food they’re about to devour, we now have to have it on celluloid.”

So what? Self-absorbed behavior, as repulsive as it may seem to outsiders who bear witnesses to it, does fit in the Randian framework of self-actualization and individualism over collectivism. The SJW left, on the other hand, want to stick their noses in other people’s business whether that person is a game programmer or a college athlete.

Once your sort out the rotten apples (OWS and the like), because of their intelligence, outspokenness, predilection for biological determinism, and capacity for abstract and original thought, and their support of capitalism and free markets, millennials could play a key role in undoing the damage and brainwashing wrought by decades of welfare liberalism.

Adults, Stop Giving Bad Career Advice to Young People

It’s better to self-actualize than work in a dead-end job . With all the free resources available online to acquire high-paying skills, why waste time with low paying, low-skill work – unless I guess you really need money.

Well-intentioned adults are giving bad advice to young people by encouraging them work dead-end jobs instead of learning valuable, high-paying skills like coding, econ and math. As we wrote before, according to studies, these low paying jobs offer no benefit. Look at the recent oil implosion. that’s a lot of blue collar jobs that will be going away, but STEM is doing better than ever. Then in 2006 you had the housing construction collapse, which again hit blue collar workers. Now since 2008 you have all this accelerating trend of outsourcing and automation, which will hurt low-income service sector workers the most. Not everyone is cognitively suitable for STEM, but it provides the best shot at good-paying, stable employment. Silicon Valley isn’t going away. Web 2.0 valuations aren’t going lower. Stocks will keep going up and interest rates will never rise. We live in a society that equates intelligence (like IQ, STEM), wealth an self-actualization with self-worth. Why put yourself or your children at a disadvantage by gaining useless ‘work experience’ when they should be gaining cognitive experience?

Now more than ever, it’s a great time to be rich and smart in America. Everyone else has to worry about losing their jobs and health insurance. And those who aren’t smart are typically faced with crummy job prospects, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

Are coding bootcamps a waste of money?

You can learn coding for much less by reading books and various online guides. A 12-week bootcamp is not going to make a novice competent at the major programming languages – there’s simply too much to learn, and then you also have to learn how to apply to code to varying situations that may arise, as well as how to integrate serverside code with clientside (ajax + php for example). Same for those sites like treehouse and code academy that seem to make the grandiose promise of being able to find a career after taking their courses. Then there is the whole IQ issue: if you cannot score at least 120, don’t bother.

Is the National Debt a Big Deal? Maybe not

From The Atlantic: Why the U.S. Government Never, Ever Has to Pay Back All Its Debt

For years the doom and glomers have insisted that America’s debt burden will result in some sort of cataclysmic, hyper-inflationary ‘debt crisis’, but yields have been falling in the intervening years since the bank bailouts, with the 10 and 30 year treasury bonds at near record lows. Relative to GDP Japan has an even worse debt burden than the USA and a weaker economy, yet they are in deflationary situation. Many established economists, not just liberals, agree that the debt, while perhaps undesirable, is sustainable and won’t end in crisis. The author is right about America’s reserve currency status, the insatiable demand for US debt, the fallacy of composition in likening the US economy to a household, and the auspiciousness of inflating the debt away. It’s just the facts; it’s not politics. Keynes is wrong in that the spending on govt. and welfare is an inefficient allocation of resources, and many economists agree the 2008 neo Keynesian resurgence, versus the success of TARP and QE, was a failure. The GOP approach of supply-side (Reaganomics) is better. Short term debts for pro-growth policy that expands the economy and enlarges the tax base. Although some on the left argue that the economy is weak, real US GDP growth is actually pretty good, especially compared to the rest of the world and could be evidence monetary policy is working. Such policy didn’t work in Japan because they have worse demographics, less dynamic business cycle, sluggish consumer , and their economy was in a much bigger bubble in 1990 than America ever was – they had much further to fall in 1990 than we did in 2008.

Long & short term treasury yields are still at historic lows. As shown below, the US is paying less interest on its debt relative to GDP than in the 80’s. The US dollar has out-performed over 95% of currencies since 2011.

The infamous Reinhart and Rogoff debt study may confuse cause and effect. It’s not that high debt weakens growth, it’s that growth is weak due to other factors that are concomitant with the debt. An economy that takes on a lot of debt may have other factors dragging it down and growth would have been weak, without or without the debt.

The World is Getting Safer, So Why Does this Make Libs Mad?

Upon first glance, one would assume that a Cato report about the world being safer is good news, but to the discontent left who yearn for class warfare and crisis, it isn’t. How Come? The left sees society as incomplete or imperfect, and unless they have things their way, they want everything to get worse. They use crisis as a catalyst to gain power and remold society to their liking, such as in 2008 and 1929. Oh, and then there are the numerous Communist/leftist revolutions though history (too many to list). Economic crisis spurred the French Revolution.

Not only is society malleable, so are individuals. To the left, humans are blank slates that can be programmed, such that no one is congenitally cognitively superior to anyone else. The left sees the huge success of web 2.0, the stock market, Silicon Valley, Wall St., IQ being a determinant for success at life, and America’s economic exceptionalism as an affront to their blank slate egalitarianism worldview, and they seek crisis, upheaval and violence to erase it like a shaken Etch A Sketch.

(1) By ‘left’ and ‘libs’, I am referring to the welfare left, which includes libs like Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Reich, not neo liberal pragmatists like Larry Summers and Steven Pinker.

What I Want

Until the stock market start going up there will be fewer posts. I can’t write about biological determinism, smartism, IQ and stuff like that if the market is not going up.

What I want:

1. A big spike in unemployment

This will:

a. Prolong zero percent interest rates, boosting both stocks and bonds

b. Lower Obama’s approval rating, helping the GOP win the presidency. Stocks will surge on news of Jeb or Romney beating out the Democratic front-runner in a hypothetical election.

2. Elizabeth Warren to run and become the front-runner. If she becomes the front-runner over Hillary, the market will rally huge on this news because she has no chance of winning in the general election. Class warfare never works. Voters want policy that creates wealth, not redistributes it from the most successful and productive of individuals to the least.

This will:

a. Hand the GOP the election

b. Cause the stock market to surge in anticipation of pro-growth economic policy under a GOP super-majority and control of all three branches. A GOP super-majority means NO more debt ceiling standoffs, no more whining about the debt or the fed.

3. Major foreign policy blunder and or upheaval. Republicans benefit from geopolitical tensions, but are hurt by economic problems. As evidenced by Carter and the Iranian hostage situation, libs fare poorly when there is foreign strife. A catastrophe of some sort in 2016 would help make Obama look more incompetent than he already is (assuming that is even possible).

This will:

a. Dramatically lower Obama’s approval ratings and give a tailwind to the GOP 2016 candidate against his opponent

b. Boost defense stocks, commodities, and the market in anticipation of military intervention and a GOP victory

4. Pain at the pump to get worse

It’s funny reading stories of libs blaming speculators or libs whining about how pain at the pump will hurt the economy. Where are the libs blaming speculators when oil lost 50% in 6 months? Hmmmmm? Speculation works both ways.

This will:

a. Give me an opportunity to write an article about pain at the pump

5. An article about IQ being important

This will:

a. Affirm my belief that IQ is important