Friday, April 01, 2016
Cappy's Analysis on the $15/Hour Minimum Wage
Their fatness belies two facts:
1. They aren't starving
2. The reason they make so low a wage is because they're lazy, not underpaid.
1. They aren't starving
2. The reason they make so low a wage is because they're lazy, not underpaid.
Misjudging Hipsters
This has now happened three times which compels me to make a meme as an apology.
Though I will plead with these "conservative hipsters" to ditch the salmon jeans, hit the gym, and get a real haircut. You have no idea how much you're wearing the enemy's uniform and confusing the rest of us.
Though I will plead with these "conservative hipsters" to ditch the salmon jeans, hit the gym, and get a real haircut. You have no idea how much you're wearing the enemy's uniform and confusing the rest of us.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
More on Freedom vs. Economic Growth
Expounding upon my previous research I wanted to take global economic growth and compare it against the average government take of global GDP in terms of spending. To the naked eye no real trend can be identified, but if you correlate the two you get a CC of -.39. Again, proving the more governments take/spend the less economic growth there is. It's very simple. You crowd out the private economy with an inefficient (or worse) parasitic public sector, expect your economy (and tax based) to shrink.
*Missing from the data as it is not on the OECD is China and Russian, which I would VERY MUCH like to include. If anybody knows where I can get 20 years worth of RGDP data for them AND total government expenditure as a percent of GDP I would appreciate it.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
New SURE FIRE Retirement Plan for Boomers!
Look! You can "fight the system maaaan" AND retire at the same time! Free food, clothing, lodging and health care!
"Poetry" to Save Detroit Youth
It's stuff like this that makes me knight Katie Couric with the official title of "Baroness of the Bint."
"There once was a man from Nantucket...."
"There once was a man from Nantucket...."
More Proof Freedom is the Best Economic Policy
Many years ago, and by "many" I mean about 20, I decided to embark on a mission to pull all the data I could and empirically prove or disprove all the economic philosophies and beliefs I held. In short I didn't want a "philosophy" or "belief" or "ideology," I wanted proof. I was sick of arguing with leftists and liberals, sick of wasting logic or common sense on pointless college-student-late-dorm-room-night debates, and all I wanted was some simple, mathematical proof I could point to and say, "There. Now have a cup of STFU."
And about 20 years ago, I did precisely that. Arguably one of my best charts I ever compiled proved me correct - government spending as a percentage of GDP versus economic growth. Albeit boring and now making your eyes glaze over like Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day off, the chart showed a NEGATIVE correlation between government spending and economic growth with a correlation coefficient of around .3.
The problem is that was 20 years ago and the data I had was not the greatest, merely what was available on the OECD at the time. So I figured it was time to pull new data and see if this relationship still held true. And boy howdy has it!
Not only did the relation between government and economic growth continue to be negative, but the strength of the relationship increased to a correlation coefficient of -.55 (-.56 if you only use a decade's worth of data).
Now like all economic studies there are caveats and considerations. The data above does not include Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, China or Greece. I have NO idea why the OECD doesn't have enough data on these countries to make a 20 year study, but they simply don't (though the 10 year correlation I calculated DOES include Japan). So it's merely the data I had to work with. And of course, the OECD does not include most 2nd and 3rd world nations. Only the nations who have been providing them with their economic data. Still, all these asides, if we are to look at the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE economic growth is VERY NEGATIVELY correlated with the size of government. Even more so since you'd think SPENDING as a percentage of GDP would correlate positively with economic growth...but that is in a deluded Keynesian wet-dream world.
Regardless, this new data only merely re-proves what we all know to be logical and common sense:
A freer people are a more productive people. If you let people keep the majority of their wealth and fruits of their labor they will work more, create more, innovate more, and your economy will grow more. It's not only logical and empirically proven, it's simply moral. Of course, the parasites of society will whine and contest and complain otherwise, desperate to use the force of government to enslave you to support them, but it doesn't change the fact that a smaller government results in a better and ever-more progressing society. The issue is simply if society wants to vote for parasitism and dependency of excellence and independence.
And about 20 years ago, I did precisely that. Arguably one of my best charts I ever compiled proved me correct - government spending as a percentage of GDP versus economic growth. Albeit boring and now making your eyes glaze over like Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day off, the chart showed a NEGATIVE correlation between government spending and economic growth with a correlation coefficient of around .3.
The problem is that was 20 years ago and the data I had was not the greatest, merely what was available on the OECD at the time. So I figured it was time to pull new data and see if this relationship still held true. And boy howdy has it!
Not only did the relation between government and economic growth continue to be negative, but the strength of the relationship increased to a correlation coefficient of -.55 (-.56 if you only use a decade's worth of data).
Now like all economic studies there are caveats and considerations. The data above does not include Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, China or Greece. I have NO idea why the OECD doesn't have enough data on these countries to make a 20 year study, but they simply don't (though the 10 year correlation I calculated DOES include Japan). So it's merely the data I had to work with. And of course, the OECD does not include most 2nd and 3rd world nations. Only the nations who have been providing them with their economic data. Still, all these asides, if we are to look at the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE economic growth is VERY NEGATIVELY correlated with the size of government. Even more so since you'd think SPENDING as a percentage of GDP would correlate positively with economic growth...but that is in a deluded Keynesian wet-dream world.
Regardless, this new data only merely re-proves what we all know to be logical and common sense:
A freer people are a more productive people. If you let people keep the majority of their wealth and fruits of their labor they will work more, create more, innovate more, and your economy will grow more. It's not only logical and empirically proven, it's simply moral. Of course, the parasites of society will whine and contest and complain otherwise, desperate to use the force of government to enslave you to support them, but it doesn't change the fact that a smaller government results in a better and ever-more progressing society. The issue is simply if society wants to vote for parasitism and dependency of excellence and independence.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Cappy's on Engineered Truth
Where Matt was kind enough to have me on his show where we discussed what I thought were the 12 biggest lies we tell society:
Davis Aurini Launches the Sarkeesian Effect
After much anticipation, Davis finally releases his video.
Denis Tukhmanov: Hero
Picture has surface of the Russian soldier that called in the air strike that not only killed a bunch of ISIS terrorists, but himself. Figured he was owed at least some notoriety here on Cappy Cap:
Vote Trump or Die
This is not an endorsement of Trump. Merely an observation about the balance of power in the Republican party.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Episode #141 of The Clarey Podcast
When the fuck is Jesus coming back?
Cappy is joining Satan!
The Pioneer Podcasters
Do Ozzies hate Yanks?
Muslim kills leftist teacher
Peter Gunn and Herschel Bernardi
AND MORE!
in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!
Cappy is joining Satan!
The Pioneer Podcasters
Do Ozzies hate Yanks?
Muslim kills leftist teacher
Peter Gunn and Herschel Bernardi
AND MORE!
in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!
Nothing Good Ever Came Out of a Business Meeting
Found this interesting. A calculator to measure the cost of a meeting.
I remember one time being so bored in a meeting I was calculating how much money we were costing the shareholders.
I remember one time being so bored in a meeting I was calculating how much money we were costing the shareholders.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Yaaawwwnnn Another Terrorist Attack
My my my. My prediction about terrorist attacks just becoming the "new normal" is becoming true.
Perhaps we can "make some arrests" and "kill the third in command of ISIS!"
Oh oh! I know may be we can
fly the flags at half staff (again)
or
hold a candle-lit vigil (again)
or
put the Pakistani flag on our facebook profiles!
You go Western Civilization!
Perhaps we can "make some arrests" and "kill the third in command of ISIS!"
Oh oh! I know may be we can
fly the flags at half staff (again)
or
hold a candle-lit vigil (again)
or
put the Pakistani flag on our facebook profiles!
You go Western Civilization!
The "Street Fighterfication" of Super Hero Movies
Twin Peaks, if you were unfortunate enough to waste your precious life-seconds on that derisible show, was based on a simple premise:
Have everybody intertwine with everybody else.
Bob was having sex with Amy.
But Amy was married to Steve.
But Steve was Bob's boss.
Who was Abitha's conjugal visited inmate.
Who was the father of Amy's daughter.
Who was having an affair with Billy's uncle.
And who was Laura Palmer?
And frankly nobody gives a shit.
In short, you wasted the viewer's life watching a show that in reality had no real creativity behind it except for the gimmick of creating false drama by interweaving every character with each on on different levels.
Oh the "wit."
In short, "Twin Peaks" was nothing more than playing a game of "Street Fighter 2" wherein everybody else fights everybody else with no particular allegiance to good or bad, right or wrong, sane or insane, plus not real plot to begin with.
And thus is the EXACT same formula for the upcoming spate of "Super Hero vs. Super Hero" movies. Batman vs. Superman, Marvel "Civil War," and whatever other movies Hollywood execs are concocting but haven't come out with yet, because I (like I always am) am way ahead of the curve on this one.
I knew Batman vs. Superman was not going to bode well because it does/proves two things:
1. It pits two GOOD MEN against one another (which nobody likes) and
2. Proves Hollywood ran out of ideas and now they're just going to have the good guys fight each other.
It's like the WWE in the 1980's where you try every permutation of fight to drive up ratings.
The problem this formula presents to movie makers is you have to make one good guy the bad guy and the other good guy the "more good" guy. This delivers you into a world of murky/gray/foggy/morality drama where a slight disagreement in morality or principles leads to two men/super heroes having a VERY unlike fight.
"You have to ask yourself what's right."
"In times like these there are no heroes."
"But if you don't who will."
I haven't seen the movie, but am I right that these sorts of amorphous, Twin Peakish, WWE-ish, Street Fighter-ish dramatics were in Batman v. Superman?
This will not necessarily be the downfall of superhero movies, but the plateauing of them. You're going to not only force people watch two beloved heroes duke it out (like child watching their divorce-bound parents argue, and hey! how fun is that!!!!???), but you need to at least spend 2/3rds of the movie creating a faux drama/crisis so you can spend the next $200 million on that epic 1/3 of the movie fight! All while watching mom and dad beat the shit out of each other.
Yeah, that's a recipe for success.
The truth is nobody wants to see Superman and Batman beat each other up. And nobody will want to see Captain America and Tony Stark beat each other up. There are plenty of true villains in this world super heroes could battle. Communists, terrorists, Hillary Clinton...which, I know, I know, are protected classes of evil people we can't attack in public. But if Hollywood is so void of ideas they have to have the good guys start fighting each other, they have every right to gamble $400 million on what is nothing more than watching your parents fight. And I'm sure in today's America we can all get that for free at home in AMAZING real-life digital quality with front line seats no less.
Have everybody intertwine with everybody else.
Bob was having sex with Amy.
But Amy was married to Steve.
But Steve was Bob's boss.
Who was Abitha's conjugal visited inmate.
Who was the father of Amy's daughter.
Who was having an affair with Billy's uncle.
And who was Laura Palmer?
And frankly nobody gives a shit.
In short, you wasted the viewer's life watching a show that in reality had no real creativity behind it except for the gimmick of creating false drama by interweaving every character with each on on different levels.
Oh the "wit."
In short, "Twin Peaks" was nothing more than playing a game of "Street Fighter 2" wherein everybody else fights everybody else with no particular allegiance to good or bad, right or wrong, sane or insane, plus not real plot to begin with.
And thus is the EXACT same formula for the upcoming spate of "Super Hero vs. Super Hero" movies. Batman vs. Superman, Marvel "Civil War," and whatever other movies Hollywood execs are concocting but haven't come out with yet, because I (like I always am) am way ahead of the curve on this one.
I knew Batman vs. Superman was not going to bode well because it does/proves two things:
1. It pits two GOOD MEN against one another (which nobody likes) and
2. Proves Hollywood ran out of ideas and now they're just going to have the good guys fight each other.
It's like the WWE in the 1980's where you try every permutation of fight to drive up ratings.
The problem this formula presents to movie makers is you have to make one good guy the bad guy and the other good guy the "more good" guy. This delivers you into a world of murky/gray/foggy/morality drama where a slight disagreement in morality or principles leads to two men/super heroes having a VERY unlike fight.
"You have to ask yourself what's right."
"In times like these there are no heroes."
"But if you don't who will."
I haven't seen the movie, but am I right that these sorts of amorphous, Twin Peakish, WWE-ish, Street Fighter-ish dramatics were in Batman v. Superman?
This will not necessarily be the downfall of superhero movies, but the plateauing of them. You're going to not only force people watch two beloved heroes duke it out (like child watching their divorce-bound parents argue, and hey! how fun is that!!!!???), but you need to at least spend 2/3rds of the movie creating a faux drama/crisis so you can spend the next $200 million on that epic 1/3 of the movie fight! All while watching mom and dad beat the shit out of each other.
Yeah, that's a recipe for success.
The truth is nobody wants to see Superman and Batman beat each other up. And nobody will want to see Captain America and Tony Stark beat each other up. There are plenty of true villains in this world super heroes could battle. Communists, terrorists, Hillary Clinton...which, I know, I know, are protected classes of evil people we can't attack in public. But if Hollywood is so void of ideas they have to have the good guys start fighting each other, they have every right to gamble $400 million on what is nothing more than watching your parents fight. And I'm sure in today's America we can all get that for free at home in AMAZING real-life digital quality with front line seats no less.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Why Every Leftist Needs to Listen to Khrushchev
I've been listening to a podcast series called the "Russian Rulers History Podcast" and it has given me a better, more thorough, and more-informed course in Russian History than I'm sure any of the hacks posing as liberal arts colleges would. It has provided me a lot of understanding about communism, its origins, as well as the reason it came about in Russia. However, in this particular episode I am amazed to hear, out of Nikita Khrushchev own mouth, his opinions on communism and economics in Russia.
Not because he is basically admitting the economic policies of communism are failing his people.
And not because (unlike pretty much every previous leader of Russia) he dares to admit it.
But because of his complete naivety and cluelessness about economics.
I would have figured an ardent communist, a former leader of the USSR, when writing his memoirs would have a FULLY REHEARSED, SCRIPTED, and POLISHED explanation as to why there was no food, toilet paper or meat available to the Russian people (especially under his reign). But it is amazing the man who was once pounding his shoe, telling the "Imperialist Western Capitalist Pigs" he would bury us, admits his economic policies are failing.
The thing that really gets me though is how apparent it is he just doesn't get it. Here's a man in his 60's, maybe 70's, who went through the communist system his entire life, from the lowest ranked pledge in the youth communist party, to the premier of the Soviet Union, and if you ask him "why isn't there enough bread?" he has no answers.
He has great observations.
He has great explanations.
His logic about how people reaction and behave in an economy is sound.
But when it comes to solutions, all he can say is "I just don't get it."
Perhaps he was too brainwashed to realize how free markets and free people would have solved all the economic problems of the USSR. Perhaps after serving under Stalin coming up with new ideas was just not possible for his psyche. The point is largely (and tragically) moot since hundreds of millions either died, starved, were murdered, tortured, or at minimum suffered MUCH lesser lives than was necessary simply because the leaders of this idiotic economic religion just couldn't admit they were wrong.
Regardless, these precious words of Khrushchev, which make it painfully clear he was not only wrong, but had no clue what he was doing, is absolute mandatory listening for not just rightists, but especially leftists. Because if the god damned leader of the Soviet Union was so flimsy and weak on economics, then how much more weak and flimsy is your average spoiled brat liberal arts college student?
Seriously, it's like the pope admitting Catholicism is all wrong, yet your commoner Catholics, who never read the bible, would argue that it's still "all right."
Not because he is basically admitting the economic policies of communism are failing his people.
And not because (unlike pretty much every previous leader of Russia) he dares to admit it.
But because of his complete naivety and cluelessness about economics.
I would have figured an ardent communist, a former leader of the USSR, when writing his memoirs would have a FULLY REHEARSED, SCRIPTED, and POLISHED explanation as to why there was no food, toilet paper or meat available to the Russian people (especially under his reign). But it is amazing the man who was once pounding his shoe, telling the "Imperialist Western Capitalist Pigs" he would bury us, admits his economic policies are failing.
The thing that really gets me though is how apparent it is he just doesn't get it. Here's a man in his 60's, maybe 70's, who went through the communist system his entire life, from the lowest ranked pledge in the youth communist party, to the premier of the Soviet Union, and if you ask him "why isn't there enough bread?" he has no answers.
He has great observations.
He has great explanations.
His logic about how people reaction and behave in an economy is sound.
But when it comes to solutions, all he can say is "I just don't get it."
Perhaps he was too brainwashed to realize how free markets and free people would have solved all the economic problems of the USSR. Perhaps after serving under Stalin coming up with new ideas was just not possible for his psyche. The point is largely (and tragically) moot since hundreds of millions either died, starved, were murdered, tortured, or at minimum suffered MUCH lesser lives than was necessary simply because the leaders of this idiotic economic religion just couldn't admit they were wrong.
Regardless, these precious words of Khrushchev, which make it painfully clear he was not only wrong, but had no clue what he was doing, is absolute mandatory listening for not just rightists, but especially leftists. Because if the god damned leader of the Soviet Union was so flimsy and weak on economics, then how much more weak and flimsy is your average spoiled brat liberal arts college student?
Seriously, it's like the pope admitting Catholicism is all wrong, yet your commoner Catholics, who never read the bible, would argue that it's still "all right."
Friday, March 25, 2016
SJW's Hate Women in STEM
This was a bunch of poppycock somebody sent me. An info-graphic claiming if women just achieved equality in the world then there'd be another $28 trillion for us to spend...on a bunch of problems that would never be solved anyway.
Regardless, my favorite part of the entire info-graphic is not the outlandish bullshit and numbers these math-impaired idiots pulled fresh out of their asses.
Nor is the "may" "could" "possibly" put behind every claim they could churn up an additional $28 trillion.
But that in all the ways they proposed to close the gap between women and men STEM WAS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE!!!
Which led to me to observe this isn't about actually closing the wage gape as much as it is another opportunity for these worthless SJW's to masturbate their egos while solving NONE of the problems in the world they all ferociously claim they want to solve.
Thankfully, they comment section is open (for now) and you don't have to register or anything.
Regardless, my favorite part of the entire info-graphic is not the outlandish bullshit and numbers these math-impaired idiots pulled fresh out of their asses.
Nor is the "may" "could" "possibly" put behind every claim they could churn up an additional $28 trillion.
But that in all the ways they proposed to close the gap between women and men STEM WAS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE!!!
Which led to me to observe this isn't about actually closing the wage gape as much as it is another opportunity for these worthless SJW's to masturbate their egos while solving NONE of the problems in the world they all ferociously claim they want to solve.
Thankfully, they comment section is open (for now) and you don't have to register or anything.
Why Too Much Social Media is Toxic
Many of you no doubt heard about the AI bot Microsoft let loose on teh social medias and then became a Hitler, racist, conspiracy theorist. But it got me thinking. If this was merely a non-sentient program, then the results were 100% the by-product of the internet environment "she" was let into. Of course I don't know much about AI, but it leads me to an observation;
If this is the default state or "most logical route" of social media, then
1. A lot of people are consciously choosing NOT to become a racist, Hitler, conspiracy theorist and
2. Those that stick in this environment for a long time must, at some level, suffer some kind of psychological toll or pay some kind of psychological price.
In other words, if this is the results on a robot, humans need to UNPLUG every once in a while.
If this is the default state or "most logical route" of social media, then
1. A lot of people are consciously choosing NOT to become a racist, Hitler, conspiracy theorist and
2. Those that stick in this environment for a long time must, at some level, suffer some kind of psychological toll or pay some kind of psychological price.
In other words, if this is the results on a robot, humans need to UNPLUG every once in a while.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
The DJ Bubble Continues to Burst - Part 2
When the guy from Bar Rescue tells you it's over, it's over.
The Little Economy That Coudln't
"Malaise" is how I will forever describe the economy under the Obama administration. Not because he's a socialist, and not because of any ideological difference, but just because that's what it's been. Malaise. RGDP growth has averaged 1.8% under Obama which is less than half of what it used to be during those evil and hated 40's-60's. Even that hated Bush Jr., with the lion's share of The Great Recession's economic contraction in his figures, posted a 2.0% average growth rate. But then I decided to pull up one of those old, boring economic charts I occasionally like to look at:
Inventory to sales.
And you just can't help but toss your hands up into the sky, for it looks like the malaise will continue.
Inventory to sales, though boring, is a ratio I like to look at because it's telling about what you might be able to expect in our economic future. Specifically, it is the ratio of corporate inventories to their sales and this ratio shows how much "stuff" corporations have on hand relatively to how quickly they're selling it (sales).
A decreasing ratio is a good omen for the economy in that if sales are up, that means there's demand for more goods. Additionally, if sales are high relatively to low inventories, that is doubly good in that it implies corporations will have to hire more people to make more goods.
An increasing ratio however, is a bad sign. That means either sales are low, inventories are high, or a combination of both which means low demand AND companies are likely to lay people off to eat through excess inventories.
Historically, you'll notice two things about the inventory to sales ratio. One, you can see it spike right before recessions, and, two, a general downward trend (as inventory management techniques have constantly been lowering the amount of inventory relative to sales). But during pretty much ALL of the Obama administration this ratio has been going up, especially so these past two years.
This isn't to say that I'm going to predict recession starting tomorrow. Nor, is this to say employers are going to start cutting back on employees next week. The truth is since the TARP bail outs, QE-X, and the fact the US has the world's reserve currency, neither our markets nor economy is functioning how they should, and predicting them is even more laughably impossible than it was before. But I will take one huge gamble. There isn't going to be any booming economic growth nor massive hiring sprees we experienced under Reagan in 1983 or Clinton in 1998 in the near future. The malaise will continue until Obama leaves the presidency, and even then no real recovery will happen unless President Trump and an agreeable congress decide they want to aggressively pursue policies that result in a booming economy.
Regardless, for any of you millennials or young Gen X'ers that wanted that white picket fence, a nuclear family, and a stable career that could provide for them all, think again. That American dream will not be available to you.
Inventory to sales.
And you just can't help but toss your hands up into the sky, for it looks like the malaise will continue.
Inventory to sales, though boring, is a ratio I like to look at because it's telling about what you might be able to expect in our economic future. Specifically, it is the ratio of corporate inventories to their sales and this ratio shows how much "stuff" corporations have on hand relatively to how quickly they're selling it (sales).
A decreasing ratio is a good omen for the economy in that if sales are up, that means there's demand for more goods. Additionally, if sales are high relatively to low inventories, that is doubly good in that it implies corporations will have to hire more people to make more goods.
An increasing ratio however, is a bad sign. That means either sales are low, inventories are high, or a combination of both which means low demand AND companies are likely to lay people off to eat through excess inventories.
Historically, you'll notice two things about the inventory to sales ratio. One, you can see it spike right before recessions, and, two, a general downward trend (as inventory management techniques have constantly been lowering the amount of inventory relative to sales). But during pretty much ALL of the Obama administration this ratio has been going up, especially so these past two years.
This isn't to say that I'm going to predict recession starting tomorrow. Nor, is this to say employers are going to start cutting back on employees next week. The truth is since the TARP bail outs, QE-X, and the fact the US has the world's reserve currency, neither our markets nor economy is functioning how they should, and predicting them is even more laughably impossible than it was before. But I will take one huge gamble. There isn't going to be any booming economic growth nor massive hiring sprees we experienced under Reagan in 1983 or Clinton in 1998 in the near future. The malaise will continue until Obama leaves the presidency, and even then no real recovery will happen unless President Trump and an agreeable congress decide they want to aggressively pursue policies that result in a booming economy.
Regardless, for any of you millennials or young Gen X'ers that wanted that white picket fence, a nuclear family, and a stable career that could provide for them all, think again. That American dream will not be available to you.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
The DJ Bubble Bursts!
Oh nosies!!!! Las Vegas is starting to ditch the loud DJ club and (GASP!) put together a quiet lounge where CONVERSATION IS ENCOURAGED?????
I love the change, but precisely where are you going to get conversationalists in today's Gen X and Millennial generations to populate these clubs?
I love the change, but precisely where are you going to get conversationalists in today's Gen X and Millennial generations to populate these clubs?
Why Leftists Don't Love Their Own Children
To put it succinctly, it wasn't fair.
It just wasn't fair.
You always self-judge yourself, wondering if you have the intellectual integrity to validate your own political opinions, but when I ran into this veritable douche-bag it wasn't fair. It just wasn't fair. He was your typical leftist. An ideologue. And like most leftists didn't know jack about
1. the basics of economics
2. the budget
3. debt
4. math
And so the slaughter began.
I'd go into the detail, but it wouldn't matter. We were at the bar. He started spouting shit. I didn't have the patience, plus, I had the experience to know how to defuse AND capitalize on the situation. So when the blabber mouth started to claim the national debt was BETTER under Obama than Bush, I said, "OK, I'll bet you the finest pour of scotch this bar has to offer you're wrong."
Of course he didn't take, because like every leftist, he's not just a pussy, but a hypocrite and a coward.
The moron didn't know whether the debt was worse or better under Obama or Bush. That would've taken effort and research! And why inconvenience the suburbanite poli-sci major-come-realtor with reality and facts? So he blathered on, obviously emotionally vested in the fact I wasn't at the alter of Obama, and came back at me with...
"The economy has never been better!!!!"
To which I responded
"Oh really??? You want to bet the next beer average GDP growth is less now than it has been for the past 10 years???"
Once again, pablum, blathering, and grandstanding, but the coward still wouldn't take my bet.
We did this many times over.
GDP figures lower than Clinton's/Bush's administrations?
5$ bet? Beer tab bet???
No.
Unemployment higher than 5% average under Obama?
Is your opinion worth a $6 beer bet?
No!!!
Government debt to GDP??? Huh? How's that? Is THAT worth a $5 beer bet?
No!!! (it's because GDP means nothing, you understand, to this leftist. It's all the "corporations maaaaan!!!")
In the end the pussy, like all leftists are, wouldn't take any one of the NUMEROUS bets I offered him to prove his numerous opinions were fact or fiction. And so, since the coward wouldn't even put $5 down for a bet, it proves most leftist's opinions aren't even worth $5.
But if it was only $5. For there was something infinitely more valuable this ignorant man was gambling with.
His childrens' futures.
We can go on about whether leftists have the heart or conviction in their beliefs to put down $5 of their own money or not. It is an academic question. But what is grand is that this particular leftist, like many others made a GRAAAAAVVVVEEEE mistake;
He bred.
He has two daughters.
And ohhhhhh, my friends. Does that make the difference.
For while I was trying to engage this fellow into the world of reality (not to mention score a few free drinks off the ignorant fuck) my other buddy who was at the bar watching this debate, was very much like me.
Single
Childless
Successful
and zero fucks left to give
And we knew precisely what authority, wisdom, and position we had.
The irony was that I (along with him) were trying to get this leftist to understand he needed, ABSOLUTELY NEEDED to understand that he was wrong. Not for my ego. Not for my friend's ego. And not even for himself. But for his own god damned children.
His voting and proverbial worship of socialism was not boding well for his children's futures. And even when i tried to explain it clearly to him, he simply dismissed me in a very millennial way of "wow, just wow! OK! I guess we're all nazi's now!" sort of way.
I stood somewhat agape.
You value your own god damned ignorance and intellectual laziness more than you do your own children? Your politics is more important than your children's futures???
It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.
It only convinced me more that leftists are inferior pieces of scum that are so obsessed with their own egos that they'll sell their children's futures out to their own ideology. That they value their own children so lowly that their children are not worth the time to spend 10 minutes looking at the federal budget and evaluating what kind of a future you're voting in for them.
I may have had a vasectomy. I may personally not like children. But apparently I care more about the children who aren't mine more than leftists do their own flesh and blood.
Enjoy that freaking decline baby. Enjoy that freaking decline.
It just wasn't fair.
You always self-judge yourself, wondering if you have the intellectual integrity to validate your own political opinions, but when I ran into this veritable douche-bag it wasn't fair. It just wasn't fair. He was your typical leftist. An ideologue. And like most leftists didn't know jack about
1. the basics of economics
2. the budget
3. debt
4. math
And so the slaughter began.
I'd go into the detail, but it wouldn't matter. We were at the bar. He started spouting shit. I didn't have the patience, plus, I had the experience to know how to defuse AND capitalize on the situation. So when the blabber mouth started to claim the national debt was BETTER under Obama than Bush, I said, "OK, I'll bet you the finest pour of scotch this bar has to offer you're wrong."
Of course he didn't take, because like every leftist, he's not just a pussy, but a hypocrite and a coward.
The moron didn't know whether the debt was worse or better under Obama or Bush. That would've taken effort and research! And why inconvenience the suburbanite poli-sci major-come-realtor with reality and facts? So he blathered on, obviously emotionally vested in the fact I wasn't at the alter of Obama, and came back at me with...
"The economy has never been better!!!!"
To which I responded
"Oh really??? You want to bet the next beer average GDP growth is less now than it has been for the past 10 years???"
Once again, pablum, blathering, and grandstanding, but the coward still wouldn't take my bet.
We did this many times over.
GDP figures lower than Clinton's/Bush's administrations?
5$ bet? Beer tab bet???
No.
Unemployment higher than 5% average under Obama?
Is your opinion worth a $6 beer bet?
No!!!
Government debt to GDP??? Huh? How's that? Is THAT worth a $5 beer bet?
No!!! (it's because GDP means nothing, you understand, to this leftist. It's all the "corporations maaaaan!!!")
In the end the pussy, like all leftists are, wouldn't take any one of the NUMEROUS bets I offered him to prove his numerous opinions were fact or fiction. And so, since the coward wouldn't even put $5 down for a bet, it proves most leftist's opinions aren't even worth $5.
But if it was only $5. For there was something infinitely more valuable this ignorant man was gambling with.
His childrens' futures.
We can go on about whether leftists have the heart or conviction in their beliefs to put down $5 of their own money or not. It is an academic question. But what is grand is that this particular leftist, like many others made a GRAAAAAVVVVEEEE mistake;
He bred.
He has two daughters.
And ohhhhhh, my friends. Does that make the difference.
For while I was trying to engage this fellow into the world of reality (not to mention score a few free drinks off the ignorant fuck) my other buddy who was at the bar watching this debate, was very much like me.
Single
Childless
Successful
and zero fucks left to give
And we knew precisely what authority, wisdom, and position we had.
The irony was that I (along with him) were trying to get this leftist to understand he needed, ABSOLUTELY NEEDED to understand that he was wrong. Not for my ego. Not for my friend's ego. And not even for himself. But for his own god damned children.
His voting and proverbial worship of socialism was not boding well for his children's futures. And even when i tried to explain it clearly to him, he simply dismissed me in a very millennial way of "wow, just wow! OK! I guess we're all nazi's now!" sort of way.
I stood somewhat agape.
You value your own god damned ignorance and intellectual laziness more than you do your own children? Your politics is more important than your children's futures???
It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.
It only convinced me more that leftists are inferior pieces of scum that are so obsessed with their own egos that they'll sell their children's futures out to their own ideology. That they value their own children so lowly that their children are not worth the time to spend 10 minutes looking at the federal budget and evaluating what kind of a future you're voting in for them.
I may have had a vasectomy. I may personally not like children. But apparently I care more about the children who aren't mine more than leftists do their own flesh and blood.
Enjoy that freaking decline baby. Enjoy that freaking decline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)