Randoms of the weekend

I know I should say something about Bin Laden, because it’s big news. Frankly though, I’m still confused by some of the details. So, other than being happy that he’s dead, I’m not going to say much else.

Steve Sailer:

The point of thinking about the past is not to decide whether or not we’d rather live there. Since we don’t actually have time machines, we aren’t confronted with an all or nothing choice between living in the past and living in the present. Uninventing advances in coffee-making machines or lawnmowers isn’t on the table. The point is to understand the past to help us make decisions in the present to make the future better. . . .

Please note that the relevant issue for policymaking isn’t whether or not the future will be better or worse in some overall sense than the present or the past, the issue is to choose the policy now that would make the future better than alternative futures in which worse policies were chosen now. Fortunately, we have analytical tools for considering tradeoffs resulting from policies. Unfortunately, these are tools that are almost never used whenever the topic comes within a country mile of immigration.

The immigration policies that most of these pundits advocate have had tremendous effects of various kinds on the affordability of family formation, but most pundits would rather discuss side issues like coffee and lawnmowers.

Deogolwulf: "In terms of the fostering of culture and the forming of good taste and character, liberal-democratism has been so great a failure that it is believed by most to have been a great success."

Roissy: "Economists and liberatarians work to make economic theory fit human nature as they see it. What they fear most is that human nature will not bend to fit economic theory. And so they ignore human nature. Or whitewash it. Or demonize it. And they look sillier and sillier by the year…" He has more on stupid people here.

The Economist has a briefing on the employment situation for low-skilled men in the US. I’m glad they’re discussing this big problem, but they don’t even mention immigration. They spend a lot of time on the demand side – noting that demand for unskilled work is falling (more re-training!). But its intellectually dishonest (especially for economists!) to completely ignore the supply side.

Mencken was a Southern sympathizer.

Isegoria on the three kinds of people.

Ilkka is having some scotch-induced flashbacks. Those are the best.

Φ: "We’ve reached the point where the legal standard of “consent” is now lower for killing someone that for having sex with her. If a woman is non-communicative, then the law assumes that she does not consent to sex if she claims later to have not done so. But if an old person is non-communicative, then he is assumed to consent to being starved to death, and conveniently will never contest that assumption."

Richard Spencer on the royal wedding: "Though I hesitate suggesting this, as I don’t want to have trouble with the British border authorities the next time I travel there, would it not be in keeping with the monarchy’s tradition for a sovereign to dismiss parliament, establish a dictatorship, expel all foreigners, and negate all legislation of the past 60 years? (Perhaps some parliamentary-liberal elements could be re-instituted at a later date)."

In defense of McCarthyism.

Another victory for diversity.

Carl from Chicago has some thoughts on the declining value of the dollar. He thinks we’ll soon default to getting fifty-dollar-bills out of ATMs instead of twenties. Progress!


10 Responses to Randoms of the weekend

  1. dearieme says:

    “would it not be in keeping with the monarchy’s tradition for a sovereign to dismiss parliament, establish a dictatorship, expel all foreigners, and negate all legislation of the past 60 years?”

    What precedent can he have in mind? Our present monarchical arrangements date from the Glorious Revolution of 1688-9 when both parliaments decided that the monarch reigns by parliamentary appointment, not by divine right.

  2. Diver says:

    Past time for a fresh precedent.

  3. PRCalDude says:

    Another pwning in the comments following that Econmmunist article:

    Better incentives might encourage low-skilled men to return to the labour market. But without better education or training they are likely to be stuck on its bottom rungs. That raises the question of whether America should spend more on helping them to climb.”

    There is a deep irony in these three sentences: Obviously, every economy has its lowest rung, and SOMEONE has to fullfill those jobs. For years now, immigration proponents have claimed that immigrants are willing to do jobs that Americans won’t. For years I have resisted this notion, believing that Americans could not possibly be this clueless — if you are so low skilled that these “low rung” jobs are the only thing you are qualified for, you couldn’t possibly be refusing such jobs. Yet here we are, reading an article about how low-skilled Americans can’t find jobs, yet in every other issue of the Economist there is an article on immigration reform, and how America needs to build up its depeleted supply of low skilled manual labor.

    How can so many low skilled Americans still not be able to get jobs on the lowest rung, while simultaneously our country feels the economic need to import more and more cheap immigrant labor? Are Americans, even at the lowest economic rung, simply that lazy or elitist, thinking that such work is beneath them?? There is a farm not far from me that has struggled to find fruit pickers during harvesting, yet there are apparently millions of low-skilled or no-skilled Americans bemoaning their inability to find jobs????

    THIS is the inexplicable disconnect that the Economist should investigate, not preach about wage subsidies and job programs.

    LOL. You have to go to Sailer to find analysis like that nowadays.

  4. Hey, I am a race realist

    And an opponent of democracy

    You might like my blog.

    And also, unlike most of the supposed race realists, a gender realist like the game bloggers.

  5. dearieme says:

    “Frankly though, I’m still confused by some of the details.” Don’t worry: so are the guys who invent them.

  6. james wilson says:

    Never let the results get in the way of a good theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: