Archive for the ‘economics’ Category

The cost disease part 2

Sunday, February 19th, 2017

Costs of many important things, in particular education, housing, and healthcare are rising in ways that create artificial first world poverty, the inability to afford a wife and children.

Scott Alexander wrote a superficially thoughtful and well informed examination of these problems, which analysis was made stupid by crimestop.

A lot of high intelligent well informed people responded with explanations of the problem which accurately described parts and details of the problem, but crimestop prevented them from seeing, or at least prevented them from mentioning, the big picture formed by the details they quite accurately describe. Scott has collected these intelligent and detailed responses.

Among the commenters, LukHamilton observes that increased education is likely of negative value to society, and fc123 observes we are spending an awful lot of money educating stupid people in things that are unlikely to be of use to them, but then fail to put two and two together, or if they did put two and two together, they refrain from mentioning it.

The things raising costs are described correctly enough, but are treated as an assemblage of random unrelated facts. Things just supposedly happen to be this way supposedly for no apparent reason, and the fact that we cannot seem to do anything about these things also supposedly has no apparent reason.

The cost disease

Saturday, February 11th, 2017

Some leftists and a PC libertarian have noticed that progress is not progressing: Education, healthcare, and infrastructure is getting much more expensive without improving in quality, and in many respects declining in quality. Doctors no longer make house calls. Education teaches ignorance and stupidity. Infrastructure has brutalist architecture. Naturally they are completely mystified about what is causing it because crimestop makes them stupid.

First world poverty – the inability to afford a wife and children – is as artificial as the Ukraine famine. It is not a natural result of technology. Rather it is a manifestation of ever escalating left wing repression. Parents are forced to pay ever higher prices to send ever fewer children to ever lengthier periods in institutions of left wing propaganda. Used to be that getting a school leaving degree at the age of twelve showed you were a smart hard working kid. Now getting a PhD in intersectional feminist basketweaving at the age of thirty shows you are an idiot.

The ever escalating suppression of jobs forces people to live ever closer to the revolving door between regulators and regulated. Anarcho tyranny destroys housing and prevents the creation of new housing. Credentialism intended to force people to attend ever lengthening lectures on leftism forces people to waste their youth.

Reverse degree inflation, children become profitable once more. Cut regulation, price of housing falls because people can get jobs without having to live next to the regulatory revolving door. Restore marriage 1.0. Marriage then gives you the security to produce children and invest in them.

In a previous post Fixing Housing Healthcare and Education, I address those fixes.

In this post I will also address the  problem of overpriced infrastructure spending.

The rise in education costs is runaway rule by priests. Most education is useless, and gets more useless at the higher levels. If you ask why we are giving more stupid people more useless education even though it costs much more than it used to, then you also have the answer to why it costs more. If you have priests in charge, they will make everyone go to church all the time. Our education system is the state church making everyone go to church and attend religious festivals. It is time for the Dissolution of the Monasteries. We need degree deflation.

Our education system is state church making everyone go to church and attend religious festivals. In other words, degree inflation To deal with this, needs a full on attack on priestly power. We need a revolutionary transfer of power analogous to the dissolution of the monasteries.

After crushing the priestly class, then we can deflate credentials.

The priests need to be subjected to the Bishop, the Bishops to the Archbishop, and the Archbishop to the King. The Dean of a university should be appointed by the board, the Dean should have the power to hire and fire professors, and all academic funding should go through university, which is to say through the dean. If the Pentagon wants a professor at MIT to research something, it should pay MIT, not the professor. I discuss disempowering the priesthood and dissolving the monasteries in Draining the Swamp and in The Cathedral Defined.

The problem with Healthcare is that a system of cross subsidies and transfers results in a non price system, where there is no competition on price and quality. They abolished the free market in order to provide hidden subsidies from men to women, from whites to blacks, and from the rich to the poor, resulting in socialist levels of efficiency. Compare and contrast with Singapore, India, and Thailand that have free market sectors in medicine.

When you regulate healthcare so that the husband of a woman with complications of pregnancy winds up subsidizing the services provided to half a dozen women getting abortions, the result is that both the facility providing pregnancy care, and the facility providing abortions are given regulatory immunity from price competition, resulting in socialist levels of efficiency.

For healthcare to be efficient, you cannot allow people for whom healthcare is free to go in by the same door and face the same triage nurse as people who pay for their healthcare. If you want people to pay for their healthcare, they had better not see a pile of drug addicts looking for free drugs and vagrants looking for free room and board in the queue ahead of them. And you will only get efficient reasonably priced healthcare if people do in fact pay for it themselves.

Infrastructure is inefficient to the extent that it is provided by socialist means.

If I hire some people to fix my privately owned road, they come in, fix it, are done in no time. Council workers fixing council roads take a little longer. If, however, a road is being done on a federal tourist development grant, being paid for by people far away, well, when the cat is away the mice will play. That road takes a couple of years to do. Socialism is bad for infrastructure costs, especially when Democratic Party Politicians start importing vote banks, and federal socialism is worse for infrastructure costs, even if Republicans are in charge.

Infrastructure costs reflect in varying degrees, socialism, Parkinson’s law, and Democratic Party vote banks: The subway systems tend to become welfare programs for blacks, employing large numbers of blacks for their votes without any real expectation of any useful work. The most egregious examples of outrageous infrastructure costs are Democratic party vote banks, where ever more people with a Democratic Party voter profile are employed to do ever less work.

Educational inflation, (degrees are inflated in the sense that even stupid lazy people get the degree these days, and they are also inflated in that they cost a hell of a lot more) is a reflection of priestly power. Priests need to be disempowered.

Medical inflation is a result of the non market economy, that medical facilities (doctors are mere cogs within a “facility”) do not compete on price and quality.

Housing inflation is a result of regulation, zoning, and ethnic cleansing.

Infrastructure inflation is Parkinsons law: Socialist production always gets more expensive over time – and Democrat politicians hiring Democratic Party voting blocks worsens this natural tendency.

Vox, observing gigantic bureaucracies flailing incompetently, says

By the same token, while we know now that it’s certainly possible to set up a Healthcare.gov website that works as intended, we also know that on the launch date the Obama administration had not, in fact, built such a website. That embarrassing governance failure undermined the president’s signature policy initiative in serious ways, with crucial long-term repercussions.

But Vox was disinclined to wonder why the Healthcare.gov website failed.

It failed because women and minorities were in charge of setting it up. They threw ever more enormous amounts of money at it. Nothing worked until they brought in an emergency team that just happened to consist entirely of white males and east Asian males. This closely parallels the fact that Democratic Party administrations whose infrastructure building teams are full of people who profile as Democratic Party voters tend to produce Democratic Party majorities but not to produce very much infrastructure.

The psychological benefits of protectionism

Sunday, January 29th, 2017

Free trade is good on average, but:

1. Protectionism declares production, which is at present condemned as fascist nazi sin against Gaia, to be righteous and good.  Protectionism strikes at the moral superiority of progs, who think that shutting down factories, mines, and sawmills is inherently virtuous.

2 .  International agreements like the Transpacific Partnership are not free trade, and impair people’s ability to form families and have children, which harms the kind of people that voted for Trump.

3.  Even genuine free trade, even though beneficial on average, hurts some people.  In particular free trade between China and the US tends to equalize worker’s wages between China and the US, which harms the kind of people that voted for Trump.  On the other hand, free trade between Britain and the US is fine for the kind of people who voted for Trump.

When Trump permitted two pipelines, conditional on them using US made steel in US made pipes, the delicious liberal tears flowed – for not only did they consider the pipelines sinful, but they considered US made steel and US made pipes sinful as well.  When Trump added those protectionist conditions to the pipelines, he used the bully pulpit to tell liberals that they were not holy, that producing stuff is right and good.  No matter what the detrimental effects of protectionism on efficiency, the effects of a moral climate that condemns work and production as sinful and illegitimate is a thousand times worse.  When Trump explained his permits to the American people, Trump told the people that a steel mill belching out carbon dioxide is a good thing.

Obviously free trade is good on average.  But international trade agreements that consist of thousands of pages of legalese like the Transpacific Partnership are not free trade.  Rather, they are arrangements to replace local regulation with regulation by “The International Community”.  But distant regulation is necessarily more rigid, inflexible, and out of contact with reality, than local regulation.

Local regulation is corrupt in that you have a beer with a friend, who has a beer with his friend, who arranges that the regulation will be overlooked for you.  Or one of your employees seduces the bureaucrat.  Distant regulation, international regulation, is corrupt in that you hire a team of Harvard lawyers and team of lobbyists, who occupy several towers in Washington and New York City and get to write the regulations that bugger your competitors more severely than they bugger you.  Thus distant regulation, the Transpacific Partnership, inevitably favors giant corporations in major cities, and crushes small businesses in small towns – favors the people who voted against Trump, and crushes the people who voted for Trump.  When Trump dumped the Transpacific Partnership, he took a boot off the throats of the people who voted for him.

Inevitably, international trade agreements like the Transpacific Partnership favor people in the big cities, and hurt people in flyover country, hurt the people who voted for Trump, benefit the people who voted against Trump. So people move from flyover country to the big cities.  And it is hard to marry in big cities, and there is nowhere for the kids.  Women in big cities, like women on international trips, are free from the watchful eyes of friends and family, and tend to fuck around, rendering them unmarriageable.  If you repeatedly reuse stickytape, it stops sticking, and women that fuck too many men become emotionally incapable of bonding to husband and children.  Also, in the big city, hard to know what your wife or girlfriend is doing.  In a small town, your wife will not misbehave, because she knows news will get back to her husband.  Because the big city makes it easier to cheat on your wife or husband, the big city makes it harder for men and women to cooperate to form families.  Notice that most of those women screaming in outrage about Trump grabbing women by the pussy are big city women who are old enough that they are quite safe from the likelihood that Trump might grab them by the pussy, are single, are too old to marry and have children, and are facing what they thoroughly deserve, a lonely and unloved old age.  Again, Trump benefits those who voted for him, and to hell with those who voted against him, to hell with those who are now screaming at him and weeping tasty tears.

Trump’s healthcare plan

Saturday, January 28th, 2017

Trump has explained the free market part of his healthcare plan in detail. It is heavily influenced by the free market part of Singapore’s tremendously successful free market healthcare system. I have no doubt that if implemented as described, it is going to work and work well.

Trumps plan for the free market healthcare system is great.

But what about Singapore’s socialist healthcare system for the poor and unfortunate?

Trump gets vague. Hospitals, he tells us, are going to get paid to take care of people “who really cannot take care of themselves”.

The trouble with this is that as I said earlier if bums, vagrants, and drug addicts go through the same intake, queue in the same line, and get the same treatment as you and me, there are going to be so many drug addicts looking for free drugs, and so many vagrants looking for free room and board, in line ahead of you and me that you and I are not going to get treated.

The way Obamacare deals with this problem is that you and I cannot afford to get treated because we are paying so much to look after drug addicts and vagrants.

Obamacare has provided insurance for everyone, by making everyone equally uninsured, provided equal access to everyone by equally denying everyone access. Obamacare has, predictably, collapsed. Ann Coulter cannot get insurance that covers broken bones and cancer. If you cannot get insurance that covers broken bones and cancer, not much point in having insurance at all. (Ah, but she is guaranteed free abortions, which get priority above broken legs.) If she suffers anything expensive, she will wind up with the same treatment options as the homeless bum who heads to hospital for free room and board. Which is to say, really crappy room and board, which is what you got in place of treatment in Cuban hospitals. Universal healthcare for the poor has become universal lack of healthcare for the well off.

The healthcare system has, predictably, collapsed, because it is being swarmed by bums, vagrants, and drug addicts.

When you fly, there is business class and cattle class. For Trump’s plan to work, hospitals are going to have to have separate intakes for those who are insured and paying deductible, and those who are getting free handouts. And those who are getting free handouts have to be made to really wish they were getting the kind of treatment that those who are insured and paying deductible get.

The big, big, problem, the problem he is being very quiet about, is preventing his plan for “Insurance for everyone” from devouring free market insurance the way Obamacare did. To prevent it from devouring the free market, you have to be mighty harsh on people who are getting medical care free.

You cannot adequately take care of bums, because bums will always demand more care than can be supplied. Thus a genuine universal scheme always winds up not providing care for anyone. If Ann Coulter breaks a leg or gets cancer, probably will wind up flying to Singapore, Thailand, or India.

For Trump’s scheme for “those who cannot take care of themselves” to work without destroying healthcare for paying customers, hospitals are going to have to have a separate door for “those who cannot take care of themselves”. And behind that door there needs to be someone with a taser, a stun gun, and a baton, plus doctors with a very simple and effective treatment for drug addition and obesity. They give the druggie no drugs till he completes withdrawal, and the obese person with no food at all till he is slim. Doctors have a hundred too clever by half rationales for not giving unpopular treatments. For non paying customers, however, need to give the most unpopular effective treatment possible.

The perils of government intervention in health care.

Monday, January 16th, 2017

It is mighty embarrassing if a sick person is turned away from hospital to die in the street because he has no money. So the kindly government insists that sick poor people be treated for free.

But if the hospital is going to treat poor people for free, then the hospital is going to besieged by people with carefully memorized symptoms for vague and difficult to treat diseases who show up looking for a bed, some food, and some human contact.

So, the next thing the government should do is empower to the hospital to turn away unwanted patients with a jab from a stun gun. But they don’t, because that looks kind of bad. But they do kind of sort of give the hospital some kind of monopoly power, and some power to hurry up patients who are taking too damned long to die. And then to the government’s surprise they find the hospital is mistreating and murdering affluent middle class patients. The government also finds that it still running up gigantic medical bills on bums, who are supposedly getting all sorts of extremely expensive medical treatment, though in fact they are getting this super expensive treatment only in the most superficial manner or not at all.

The hospital is rushing middle class patients out the door or into the morgue, while every corridor is piled high with incredibly expensive (and profitable) bums piled three to a urine soaked bed. (Yes, Canada, I am looking at you.)

When the government empowered the hospital to be quietly and furtively brutal and murderous, the intent was that the hospital only be brutal and murderous to the horde of bums besieging it – but they could not actually say that out loud, and if they had said it out loud would still find it difficult to get compliance.

So now the hospital is massively over treating bums, massively undertreating people who are genuinely ill with genuine diseases, and murdering any of its customers who are too sick and weak to protest. And medical costs are soaring.

So what should the government do?

Firstly, needs to hit who everyone lays down his head on a hospital bed with a high enough deductible that anyone who is not all that sick and who has to pay the deductible will not go near the hospital bed. It does not have to be all that high, does not need to be nearly as high as the Obamacare deductibles. Five hundred should do it. First thing that should happen on intake is a wallet inspection.

But suppose the patient does not have five hundred in his pocket, nor an acceptable credit card, and seems unlikely to pay. Then the nice friendly hospital for nice respectable middle class people sends him to the hospital for poor bums staffed by big ugly lesbian nurses with thick mustaches, where the first thing he meets is the death penal, with a big male guard holding stun gun, a baton, a taser, and a twelve gauge shotgun standing uncomfortably close beside him, and the death panel decides whether his treatment is likely to be cost effective.

Now at the nice friendly middle class hospital for nice middle class people we try to organize things so that the doctor and the hospital has to please the customer, if they are going to make some money, and the patient bears enough of the cost to scream bloody murder if overbilled or billed for nonexistent or barely provided services. Deductibles need to be high enough to hurt a bit, but not so high that they are, like Obamacare deductibles, frequently unpayable.

And at the hospital for poor bums, we provide all the wonders of socialist medicine so beloved by Bernie Sanders, modeled on the wonderful success of Cuban healthcare. </sarcasm>

If the hospital is in the business of handing out free beds and food, it is going to need to be able to whack undeserving customers with a baton, jab them with a stungun, and throw them into the street hard enough to bounce several times. On the other hand, you would probably prefer to send your elderly grandma to hospital that does not do that sort of thing. So we need to keep a good separation between the hospital that hands out freebies, and the hospital that does not hand out freebies.

Or, equivalently you need to have very different rules in place for treating the people who are getting free food and free beds, from treating the people who want to get out of hospital as soon as they can. You have to treat one lot pretty much the opposite of the other lot.

Replacing Obamacare

Thursday, January 5th, 2017

The major problem with the American healthcare system is that it has no prices, making it a completely non market system.  It also has a massive redistribution from whites to nonwhites, which wealth redistribution system disrupts the provision of healthcare.  What tends to happen is a hospital treats a hundred illegal immigrants for morbid obesity, and they do not pay their bills, and then it treats one white male, and he does pay his bill – which is set high enough so that the one person who pays covers the hundred people who do not pay.

The best system is Singapore, which has a socialist healthcare system for the poor, and the most Ayn Randian hard core capitalist healthcare system in the world for everyone else.  Which system provides healthcare at a fraction of the cost of everyone else’s system and for the most part healthcare of substantially better quality.

If you are poor and sick, or sufficiently healthy that the quality of your healthcare does not matter much to you, you go to a government owned hospital, consult with a government employed doctor, buy government owned medicines from a government owned pharmacy.  Otherwise, you just pay for it as if you were hiring a plumber to make modifications to your bathroom. The major government intervention in the private sector is making pricing information accurate and available.  Private healthcare practitioners are free to dump people who will not or cannot pay on the socialist sector, or just not let them through the front door if they fail a credit check.

So the explicitly socialist system takes care of the pity cases, and the explicitly capitalist system takes care of everyone else.  So everyone else gets the benefits of capitalism, and only the poor or the healthy suffer the consequences of socialism.

Nuclear Technological decline

Sunday, October 9th, 2016

The US no longer produces weapons grade plutonium. Supposedly this is a choice.

It has asked other countries to not produce weapons grade plutonium, and to get rid of the weapons grade plutonium they do have.

The economical way to destroy weapons grade plutonium is to burn it in nuclear reactors, to use it for power, which destroys some of it and irreversibly contaminates the rest with plutonium 240, making it unusable for weapons, though still usable for power.

Unfortunately, the US, in attempting to do so, ran into “massive cost overruns”, which is to say, technological decline. Putting it in breach of its agreements with Russia and Japan.

Under the US-Russian PMDA, originally signed in 2000, both parties agreed to dispose of at least 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium, enough to produce 17,000 nuclear bombs.

The US, however, has not disposed of any plutonium, despite spending a lot of money attempting to do so. If you cannot use it, probably cannot make it.

Civilization and dysgenesis

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016

We may reasonably suppose that the first six civilizations were founded by high IQ peoples. Their homelands are now all occupied by low IQ peoples, as for example Egypt and the Indus Valley. And any smart people currently in the vicinity of the Indus valley are descended from foreign invaders who conquered a low IQ population that had lost or was losing the capability to operate cities and irrigation.

The Maya created writing and the positional number system, and used it to accurately predict the motions of the moon and sun. Their descendents were for the most part homeless nomads, their largest city being two hundred mud huts. Their great cities were abandoned, even when they commanded key resources. The descendants of the Maya are obviously incapable of operating a great civilization, indeed, without white rule, could not even have cities, or political units larger than tiny tribes with poorly defined territories. They wound up running naked through the jungle with pointy sticks to the extent that they had any jungle.

You would think that positive eugenics is natural in a civilization. The smartest people get to the top, command and effectively utilize all the good stuff, so have more surviving children. And sometimes it does work like that.

But if the smart people are the ruling and fertile people, they will proceed to ensure that their smart children get all the top jobs. This will disturb the topmost rulers, who would like to have limitless freedom to appoint obedient people to the good jobs, regardless of ability, and more importantly, regardless of family. In particular, they would like the freedom to not appoint the sons of powerful rival families. If you have a bunch of fertile smart industrious men inserting their kids into the top jobs, then you wind up with aristocratic or semi aristocratic system. The Bishop is succeeded by the Bishop’s son, which bothers the pope no end. The colonel is succeeded by the colonel’s son, which bothers the general, which bothers the King. One drastic solution, popular in China, is to give the top jobs to eunuchs. You want a top job, have to give up your man parts. Note the striking similarity with today’s political correctness, which requires metaphorical castration of males, and prefers literal castration of males.

Affirmative action for women makes a lot more sense when we recall that working women, unlike working males, do not reproduce, therefore will not be succeeded by their children. If you are a ruler, able (aristos) fertile patriarchal families are a problem, working women and eunuchs are the solution. And if the very smartest women are not all that bright, all the better, will be less capable of plotting against you. So the smartest females do not reproduce. Even if working women are substantially less productive than working men, working men are threat, working women are not a threat. Similarly any measures to prevent the affluent white male children of affluent white males from getting ahead. Such measures are rationalized in the name of social justice, but such measures give the most powerful more power.

From the point of view of the emperor, eunuchs are a better solution than working women, since eunuchs are substantially smarter than women, and have zero offspring, not merely near zero offspring.

A system of rule by the best (aristos) will, if the best are fertile, tend to become hereditary or semi hereditary. Thus patriarchy plus meritocracy will give rise to aristocracy, because affluent patriarchs have numerous sons, the meritocrats start running the system as a job placement program for their numerous sons, and the Pope will not be happy. Conversely, when the King tries to do stuff to make it less hereditary, he is apt to make the best less fertile.

One would suppose the mandarinate to be eugenic, and indeed China, unlike other civilizations, has not become a low IQ wasteland. But mandarin exam was corrupted to select for grinds rather than smarts. Any test can be gamed. The more that scoring high in the test matters, the less predictive of accomplishment it is. Thus selecting people on the accomplishments of their family and recent ancestors is apt to produce more accurate predictions than over reliance on an examination system. If the outcome of an IQ test has little direct effect on your career, it will accurately predict accomplishment. If you hand out nice jobs on the basis of an IQ test, considerably less so. If nice jobs are handed out on the basis of the test, the test is apt to become a marathon of rote memorization, which is what happened with the Chinese mandarinate exam. But for obvious reasons, emperors were unenthusiastic about handing out nice jobs on the basis of family accomplishment, for accomplished families are rivals.

Fertility in our civilization is of course massively dysgenic, because women are artificially placed in the workforce and education, with the most able women being most forcefully helicoptered into courses and jobs far beyond their ability.

As “Smart and Sexy” demonstrates, our mandarinate exam (the SAT and LSAT) has been jiggered to avoid selecting too heavily for ability. If, however, our mandarinate exam was fixed as proposed in “Smart and Sexy”, and if we had patriarchy, our civilization, like the Chinese, could avoid becoming a desolate wasteland of low IQ savages running through the woods with sharp sticks. And it would not be hard to make our mandarinate exam better than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam.

The Chinese communist party currently selects on test results, on family accomplishment, and on individual accomplishment. This is likely to give substantially better results than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam. Unfortunately they also are affirmative actioning women, probably for the same reasons we are, and this is producing significant dysgenesis in China.

Common Core Explained

Friday, August 12th, 2016

tl;dr

Problem: If you try to teach children reading, writing, and arithmetic, People of Color will underperform. Thus teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic has disparate impact.

Solution: Yo Stop teaching dem dat racist whitey sheeit what ‘chew thinkin’ man?

A child who has been educated with common core is a child who cannot do maths, cannot spell correctly, nor write grammatically. He is cut off from the past two thousand years of civilization.

Fertility and corporal punishment

Sunday, July 31st, 2016

To 1933, wives in movies are never spanked by their husbands.

From 1933 to 1945, wives in movies are sometimes spanked, but it is shocking, unexpected and unusual.

From 1945 to 1963, wives in movies and on television are sometimes spanked and it is routine, respectable, and usual. For example in “I love Lucy” we are never shown a spanking on screen, but Lucy is regularly very afraid of receiving a well deserved spanking for her many amusing misdeeds.

In the Western “McLintock” the authority figure, representing virtue, middle class respectability, and normality, unambiguously endorses the husband beating the wife severely for gross misbehavior, with a small coal shovel.

From 1945 to 1963, appropriate and proportionate corporal punishment of wives is depicted as normal, proper, appropriate, expected, and respectable. As in McLintock, it is what respectable middle class husbands do ensure that their wives and families behave in a respectably middle class manner – since women, unless restrained, have a not at all middle class preference for drama.

This had a dramatic effect on marriage and fertility in the US, almost as spectacular as the disastrous fall in fertility that ensued when McArthur emancipated Japanese women. Marriage went up, fertility went up.

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives


USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

We see a significant rise in fertility when spanking starts being depicted, and massive rise in fertility when it starts being depicted as normal. When spanking stops being depicted as normal, stops being depicted at all, soon followed by a massive demonization of men who rule their families and a hate fest against them, which is to say, against marriage and husbands, as marriage was traditionally understood, fertility drops like a stone, as spectacularly as when women were emancipated in Japan.

The high high fertility period was the gap between first wave feminism (Amelia Earhart getting a ticker tape parade for being transported across the Atlantic by a man like a sack of potatoes) and second wave feminism.

During that period it once again became socially acceptable to refuse to hire women for jobs for which they are inherently unfit, and once again became socially acceptable to spank one’s wife (McLintock). During that period women were once again expected to aspire to becoming wives and mothers, rather than despise that role.

Before 1933, no corporal punishment of wives depicted in Hollywood. 1933 to 1945 portrayed as shocking and unexpected, though not necessarily wrong. It is often justified in the context of the movie, but it is also depicted as the act of an outlaw – illegal but romantic.

We first see corporal discipline of one’s wife (spanking) portrayed in the media as normal, legal, proper, and socially acceptable in 1945, and fertility abruptly rises, and this depiction continues to 1963. whereupon it abruptly, suddenly, and totally stops – and fertility starts falling.

As the MRAs argue, feminism has artificially raised female status above male status. When a man and a woman walk in opposite directions down the corridor, the man gives way and the woman walks right down the middle of the corridor. Women continually interrupt men with impunity. (Perhaps the reason I am not totally unsuccessful with women despite being old, fat, and bald is that I am competing with the likes of Scott Alexander.)

But the MRA demand, actual equality, feminism done right, is obviously absurd and unworkable, because of the obvious inferiority of women in the male sphere. (Obviously women are superior in the female sphere, such as babies, home, housework, and finding my car keys.)

Thus, for example, no one really expects women to bear the costs of their own decisions, because women really should not be making those kind of decisions unsupervised. Thus “equality” in practice means women make decisions and men pay the costs of those decisions.

So what we have to sell is the principle of patriarchy – that women should be ruled by fathers or husbands, that men really are superior, that women should give way and should not interrupt. All women should be deferential to all men, but should obey those men and only those men who are committed to care for them.

And we have to reject and dismiss consent culture. Consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong. Moment to moment consent is bad for everyone, and particularly bad for women. Women lack agency in sexual matters, making “rape” ill defined. The concept maps poorly to real life situations. “Rape” used to mean dating a woman without the consent of parent or guardian, irrespective of how she felt about it, or whether you physically had sex with her. We did not really have a word or concept for what we are now calling rape until the late eighteenth century or so.

The very concept of rape and consent attributes unrealistic agency to women. As in the old testament, we should give female consent as little moral and legal weight as possible, because the word is difficult to fit to real life events.

I don’t think women have agency in sexual matters, since between menarche and menopause their sexual actions are driven by volcanic forces of which they are scarcely aware. They do not want what they want, and they do want what they do not want. Nor do female children get “talked into sex”. If you have good preselection from adult women, female children with no breasts who have not yet experienced menarche will sexually harass you. The problem of adult men having sex with female children is primarily a problem of badly behaved female children, not badly behaved adult men. With women who have boobs, men pursue, and women choose, for sperm is cheap and eggs are dear. Pre boobs, and pre menarche, which is to say pre eggs, the shoe is apt to be on the other foot.

Thus, for example, Scott Alexander’s girlfriend consented to sex with lots of people, not including Scott Alexander, felt bad about it, felt that a gay man could do what she did without feeling bad about it or making Scott feel bad about it, so proceeded to surgically disfigure herself and declare herself to be a gay man. Clearly she would be much better off had she received a few severe spankings followed by some nonconsensual sex from Scott Alexander.

The population collapse is nothing to do with automation etc, since emancipated women in poverty stricken third world countries reproduce even less.

It simply a matter of whether or not men and women can enforceably contract with each other to durably form patriarchal families. If they can, total fertility per woman is around six or seven. If they cannot, total fertility per woman substantially less than replacement. If something in between (as for example the fifties when marriage as traditionally understood was illegal, but was nonetheless depicted on television as normal, normative, and respectable) then the fertility rate is something in between. The economy makes scarcely any difference, short of outright famine and hard Malthusian limits.

Timor Leste proves that if men have the opportunity to be patriarchs, they will not let poverty stop them. They will do whatever it takes.

Back in the fifties, when spanking was respectable, employers tended to advertise for married men, because they expected married men to be more highly motivated.

So we set up society so that prosocial behavior, reasonable competence, upholding order, and a bit of hard work pretty much guarantees a man will become a patriarch, and lo and behold, we will get prosocial behavior, order, hard work, and lots of well brought up children.

If, however you deny men the opportunity to become patriarchs, they hang out in their mother’s basements and watch cartoon porn, regardless of whether their society is rich or poor.

If patriarchy is the law of the land and I have a legal path to be a patriarch but no job, I can find a job, or create one, or scrape up a living somehow. If patriarchy is outlawed and I am legally prohibited from being a patriarch, I will be receptive to the life of the outlaw, the life of the bum, the vagrant, or hanging out in my mother’s basement. Jobs are not the problem. The lack of a reason to get a job is the problem.

If you look at high fertility and low fertility times and places, the factor that massively outweighs absolutely everything else by far, is whether or not a man and a woman can make a deal to form one household and have babies and expect their partner to be forced to stick to it. Patriarchy is necessary for this, since one household must have one captain, but patriarchy is in itself insufficient – the woman also needs protection that her children will neither be torn away from her, nor will she and they be abandoned by their father. The deal has to guarantee both the authority of the husband over his wife and children and the economic and emotional security of the wife and children, has to guarantee the father and husband obedience and respect, and the wife and children that they will be protected and looked after.

Reality is that wherever and whenever men have the option to be a patriarch, the overwhelming majority of men gladly make whatever sacrifice necessary to attain that role, even if extremely poor.

Hookers are only a marginal improvement over masturbation. What progressives offer men is just not what most men want, as revealed by men’s actions.

Yes, a harem is better than just one wife, but a changing rotation of whores is not a harem. The point of having more than one woman is having more than one woman. If I sleep with several women that is really great. If one of them sleeps with another man that is really bad and I will certainly dump her, probably beat her, and might well kill her. I will be very angry and sad for a very long time.

Look at the typical male polyamorist. He is psychologically scarred and mentally crippled for life. Having a bunch of whores rather than owning a woman, or better, owning two women, just really sucks brutally. Those guys are traumatized and damaged.

It unmans men, as if every day a bully beat them up, and they could do nothing about the daily humiliation but suck it up. Just look at what it does to men. It would be kinder to cut their balls off, which is pretty much what progressives are planning to do to us.

The typical male polyamorist looks as if a fat blue haired feminist has been beating him up every day – indeed, he would probably love it if a fat blue haired feminist beat him up every day.

Whores are a marginal improvement on beating off to anime. When men are reduced to such desperate straights, it totally crashes their testosterone and they buy an anime cuddle pillow and weep bitter tears upon it.

The criminalization of patriarchy was the criminalization of the deepest and most powerful need of white men.