tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post1684269404321864393..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Marriage and divorce trends: More broken homes, more marriages as status-striving tag teamsagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-6998250842313544972014-12-08T22:40:34.139-05:002014-12-08T22:40:34.139-05:00More on modern house design.
I wrote the followi...More on modern house design.<br /><br /> I wrote the following for a previous post @ http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2014/10/new-urbanism-hijacked-for-leisure-class.html:<br /><br />Another thing that's turned neighborhoods less social is snout house style designs(which appeared around the mid 90's) where the the front of the house has a garage which juts out far beyond the rest of the house. That design almost demands that people drive into the garage, exit the car and enter the house without being seen. On top of that they also are tough to see into since they have just a few small windows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snout_house, these "neighborhoods" look pathetic.<br /><br />Compare these FU modern designs to detached garage mid century homes in which taking a short walk out in the open was mandatory (god forbid lazy fat ass people have to take a few extra steps in the sweaty heat or shivery cold. Even inhabitants who didn't spend much time outside could at least be seen a bit more easily because of the garage design and also because of more high vis windows, so they didn't seem so aloof.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-84803628064649165252014-12-08T22:32:31.944-05:002014-12-08T22:32:31.944-05:00"why in the wold would a Boomer take on a $70..."why in the wold would a Boomer take on a $700,000 30-year mortgage at age 55?"<br /><br />In 1990, 40 was the new 30. In 2000, 50 was the new 35. In 2010, 60 is the new 40.<br />There's this denial of the natural aging process, the cycle of life.<br /><br /> "In 2005/2006, all of the mid-50's Boomers were selling their beautiful old 4bd/2ba, 2,400 square foot single family homes"<br /><br />These sound like later 1980's/1990's houses. I don't even think you need houses that big; look at the smaller houses of the 40's-70's which were deemed suitable for the highly motivated, decent folk of the time.<br /><br />I chalk up growing house sizes to several things. Part of it is the crass vulgarity of "look at how big my house is!" (even if the house was built by Mexicans with shoddy materials and designed with non existent aesthetics). <br /><br />Part of it is people turning their backs on the public realm; bigger house sizes typically come at the expense of yard size. Bigger yards would be in demand if people actually spent time outside.<br /><br />It's not just size per se either. It's also form. A lot of the reason McMansions are so alienating isn't just poor aesthetics; it's also the way that they induce vertigo via terrible proportions which are the result of callous developers, the clueless public served by said developers, and the desire to shove as much house as possible into a smaller lot. <br /><br />Low profile mid century homes tended to feature a series of well connected rooms (if not that many rooms) and hallway(s) with quite a few larger windows/doors with windows that made it easy to keep one's bearings and also provided a view to the outside world. The smaller house size and ease of seeing thru windows gave you a sense of being connected to the community you were in.<br /><br />In my dad's later 60's detached garage house in the Minneapolis suburbs, you could upon entering the kitchen front door or the living room side door immediately get to the upper floor, the basement, the bathroom, or the two bedrooms in addition to whichever room you entered the house through. <br /><br />In contrast, a lot of smushed McMansions feel like some kind of Tim Burton nightmare immediately upon entry. You feel like the house is in danger of collapsing in on itself and on you. It's not unheard of to be greeted by a blank wall with choose your destiny stairs. This "I'm trapped" feeling is not helped if the developer skimped on the windows.<br /><br />Due to the smaller size it was also very easy to just hightail outta the house if you had to. I think being in a smaller house induces people to get out more often.<br /><br />Mabye when people are more modest and well adjusted they don't need a vast amount of house space to themselves. Even when 4 people live in a modern over sized house there will be vast spaces of that house that remain lifeless much of the time.<br /><br />If you're skeptical about mid century neighborhoods, go drive (better yet walk) thru a 40's-60's neighborhood of detached garage single family homes near the street and keep your eyes peeled for a cat in the living room window. They really do feel like connected, welcoming neighborhoods unlike the vast majority of post 1980 (esp. post 1995) neighborhoods.<br /><br />Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-26789737519224149052014-12-08T20:12:57.971-05:002014-12-08T20:12:57.971-05:00Feryl-
LOL that is so true. That is what killed ...Feryl-<br /><br />LOL that is so true. That is what killed me, absolutely killed me, about the housing bubble. In 2005/2006, all of the mid-50's Boomers were selling their beautiful old 4bd/2ba, 2,400 square foot single family homes and "trading up" to 4,000+ square foot McMansions. In the process they took on huge mortgages (at 50!) and tripled housing prices for the rest of us. The waste of this just killed me. It still kills me. <br /><br />Their old houses were already very nice! 4 bedrooms and 2400 square feet is a terrific house! Most of the large, comfortable family houses that weren't "good enough" for the Boomers were absolutely beautiful. <br /><br />The Boomers didn't need more space. The kids were grown. Heck, they really should have downsized from the 2,400 square foot two story to a 1,300 square foot one story because a smaller house is easier to care for and move around in. And why in the wold would a Boomer take on a $700,000 30-year mortgage at age 55? It made no sense. But the Boomers are driven to consume. Plus they saw rising housing prices and were able to delude themselves into thinking that self-indulgent spending was really a form of "investment." Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-72827778650162142822014-12-08T19:37:22.027-05:002014-12-08T19:37:22.027-05:00The Boomer Jews really are a piece of work. Take t...The Boomer Jews really are a piece of work. Take the clannish, neurotic tendencies of Jews and cross pollinate it with the Boomer's bull in a China shop flippant entitlement. Not good.<br /><br />It's fitting to bring up the smutty elements of the 'entertainment' industry. As America weakened and coarsened in all respects by the 90's we lionized brash clowns and charlatans who's egos and mouths far exceeded their talent and integrity.<br /><br />"a far greater sense of social responsibility than their elders who (like all Boomers) did not care if they trashed society's moral, financial, and political institutions if they could make a buck doing it."<br />The most tiring problem with Boomers, which I hinted at with my comment on their navel gazing, is that they are narcissistic and naive enough to actually think they've bettered society. From day one they've shat where everyone eats without acknowledging the fact.<br /><br />Mid century America, the period that the Boomers had the good fortune to be born into, had many pleasures that Silents and Boomers would rob future generations of. <br /><br />Like unpretentious, cozy new houses in neighborhoods with modest, god fearing regular stock Americans. <br /><br />Like not made in Asia clothes crisply laundered by an upbeat mother.<br /><br />Like nutritious food grown, raised, and prepared with care by a society that wasn't deranged enough to think that books were the most important part of child development. <br /><br />Like fathers who, after an honest day's work at the peaceable office, factory, or farm would see to it that his son would develop useful skills lest he turn into a pervert, a criminal, or a bum.<br /><br />Like mothers who would teach their daughters to develop domestic skills and a pleasant manner that would make them suitable marriage material for a good man to whom they would be attached for the rest of their life.<br /><br />Nope, the Boomers would rather go on and on about how they 'changed' America so much beginning in the late 60's and beyond. What needed changing, exactly?<br /><br />You've also gotta love their lingering embarrassment over how they briefly questioned the liberal program in the 80's. Gee, it was just a little phase, no big deal we made up for it in the 90's anyway.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-32014910618759844102014-12-08T19:36:47.784-05:002014-12-08T19:36:47.784-05:00A few hours after I posted the above, Steve Sailer...A few hours after I posted the above, Steve Sailer has a commenter send him that Milbank article and he was off to the races!<br /><br />Steve was the first to mention, however obliquely, Hughes open homosexuality in relation to troubles (end?) at The New Republic, but I still think Agnostic can offer a lot of unvarnished truth.Dahlianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-79672176261056340462014-12-08T18:38:55.948-05:002014-12-08T18:38:55.948-05:00Feryl-
I agree with you that the lack of morals i...Feryl-<br /><br />I agree with you that the lack of morals is the fundamental problem. The Boomers have corrupted both the public sector and the private sector, so it doesn't really matter whether the institutions of our society are primarily private or primarily public. <br /><br />WRT Jews, I work in a heavily Jewish industry and I honestly believe that the younger Jews, who tend to be far more religious than the older ones, will help heal society. The younger Modern Orthodox Jews are very, very different from people like Howard Stern (the shock jock) and Steven Hirsch (CEO of Vivid Video). .<br /><br />The younger Jews are not perfect, they still tend to be highly ethnocentric and nepotistic, but the younger generation has a far greater sense of social responsibility than their elders who (like all Boomers) did not care if they trashed society's moral, financial, and political institutions if they could make a buck doing it. I expect many of the excesses of Jewish Boomers to fade away as they die off and Jewish Gen X-ers and Millennials take the reigns. In this way, I think that the Jews will play a role in getting our society back on track. Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-67934825038321763092014-12-08T18:21:21.709-05:002014-12-08T18:21:21.709-05:00With regard to dysfunction, one can take an autist...With regard to dysfunction, one can take an autistic approach of focusing on objects rather than people and find things to be proud of.<br /><br />But what about people? We are very much dysfunctional in the sense of being far more:<br />Neurotic - diagnosed and self professed mental illness is sky high, so are psych meds.<br /><br />Indulgent - I hear club/bar/casino/fantasy football ads everytime I turn on the radio <br /><br />Out of shape - people have terrible diets and are physically pathetic (either really fat or really weak) <br /><br />Poorly dressed - outside of the office, people dress in trashy jeans, hoodies, sweat pants, shorts, and flip flops. It's embarrassingly common to see people dress with no dignity in most of America besides a handful of elite areas.<br /><br />Aloof/disagreeable/vulgar - people these days relentlessly complain, swear, assume bad faith, and cynically mistrust and ridicule things constantly.<br /><br />Who even needs real Jews when we can do disgusting imitation of them ourselves?<br /><br />All of these negative traits were significantly less common in the 1920's-1980's.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-43451311874929256592014-12-08T18:05:39.731-05:002014-12-08T18:05:39.731-05:00Joe Schmo, this sort of dwelling on private Vs. pu...Joe Schmo, this sort of dwelling on private Vs. public warfare misses the point of how individual sociopaths rampage out of control in a decadent climate lacking strong willed accountability. These dirt bags are the primary force responsible for the lack of creativity, fairness, good faith, and transparency in modern institutions.<br /><br />If Apple fall on it's ass is that the government's fault or is it the fault of the new fag C.E.O.? Gotta get with the modern agenda, don't want another bland straight white guy up there.<br /><br />Naturally, the Boomer dominated post 1980 culture has constantly rewarded the most glib, shameless, greedy, and loquacious types. Why do you think snarky two faced Jews have become so ubiquitous and celebrated over the last 30-40 years? <br /><br />Gen X-ers developed empathetic bonds with others to such a degree in the later 70's-90's that they just don't have the stomach to even attempt to compete with, much less defeat, the Boomers in the modern shark infested courts, corporate board rooms and government back rooms.<br /><br />Which is a big reason Gen X-ers have been left out in the cold, particularly the straight white gentile Gen X males. Which explains why Boomers (and a few overripe Silents) continue to exert such a powerful influence on today's institutions. Their toxic mix of loudmouth arrogance and me 1st selfishness, which become recalcitrant problems due to naive Boomer navel gazing, are the main reasons the culture has been so corroded since the 80's. <br /><br />The 80's were the decade that the Greatest Gen began the process of kindly handing off the baton to the Silent/Boomer gens. By the mid 90's the hand-off was finished. Is it a conincidence that America has been so profoundly dysfunctional since the 90's?<br />Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-20899472473238941782014-12-08T17:11:11.093-05:002014-12-08T17:11:11.093-05:00More fundamentally, I think this is an issue of on...More fundamentally, I think this is an issue of one's attitude toward government. Like Agnostic, I'm no aspie libertarian. Government is necessary and does a lot of good. But philosophically, is less government or more government better? IMO these days the answer is "less government." <br /><br />For example, ObamaCare is, in part, a governmental response to a real problem - not everyone can afford health insurance, and some people with pre-existing conditions really are uninsurable. But I think ObamaCare is a horrific mess. My insurance premiums almost doubled after it was implemented. <br /><br />Still, I wish Apple ran the healthcare system. I cannot think of how the government could possibly do a better job than the private sector. And if Obamacare is reformed, I hope the reform is in the direction of privatization rather than socialization. For example, which of the two systems would you prefer: 1. Full-on socialized medicine like in Canada or the VA system here; or 2. Government gives everyone a catastrophic policy and covers all medical expenses in excess of $30,000 incurred in a single year. Everything else is handled through private insurance. I know which system I'd choose in a heartbeat. I also know which system is likely to produce more technological innovation, reduced waiting times, and better outcomes. Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-32999656423534376642014-12-08T16:45:01.038-05:002014-12-08T16:45:01.038-05:00Agnostic - I don't know about that. Yes, some ...Agnostic - I don't know about that. Yes, some research is funded, at least in part, by the government. But IMO most technological innovation is driven by private-sector demand. IMO in many cases, if the government hadn't funded the basic research, that technology still would have been developed by the private sector.<br /><br />The government has its fingers in so many pies that it is easy for them to take credit for most technical innovation -- at some point government funding touches almost every technological advance. But that doesn't mean government is responsible for the technological advance. <br /><br />Sure, there are some forms of technology that we simply wouldn't have without government funding. For example, stealth technology -- I can't see that happening without the Defense Department funding it, I can't think of too many non-military applications for airplanes that are invisible to radar. <br /><br />But lots of things that the government takes credit for would have happened anyway. For example, it is true computers were miniaturized for use in the space program; they had to be small enough to fit in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules. But smaller computers were inevitable once the transistor was invented. As soon as that technology became available companies like DEC immediately went to work making smaller, cheaper computers so they could sell more of them.<br /><br />Similarly, it is true that early computers were developed for military applications like like decryption and artillery firing solutions. But there was also a huge pent-up private second for computers; every bank, insurance company, and distributor which needed to keep track of inventory adopted them immediately after they became available. <br /><br />And again, just think of how the private sector -- and ONLY the private sector -- put a computer into every home. iPhones, laptops, and tablets are not subsidized by the government. They are not regulated by the government. They do not receive preferential tax treatment. The government was is not the primary purchaser of those products, and was never intended to be. IBM invented the PC, and Apple invented the iPad, because those companies thought there would be a market for their products in the private sector. Period, full stop. Government had NOTHING to do with getting these miraculous technological innovations into the hands of billions of ordinary people around the planet. Liberals assume that "of course" the government must be responsible for the widespread adaptation of such a fundamentally transformative technology. But it is in no way responsible! Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-41558768737355665802014-12-08T15:57:40.444-05:002014-12-08T15:57:40.444-05:00OT
I know I'm not the only one thinking it......OT<br /><br />I know I'm not the only one thinking it...<br />The Chris Hughes/The New Republic cries out for Agnostic's treatment. Dana Milbank actually just called him a man-child and impatient. Brutal article.<br /><br />Someone, can't remember who, noted that reaction among conservatives broke down along generational lines. Gen X finds it sad, while Millenials ask, "who cares".<br />As far as lefties go, they were the best, especially Judith Shulevitz. TNR also spawned Hanna Rosin who wrote *the* article on section-8 and crime as well as a thoughtful essay on human bonds with a focus on the murders of three white working class Boomer men.Dahlianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-90189799334591992832014-12-08T11:38:49.499-05:002014-12-08T11:38:49.499-05:00"Good luck with your "anti-aging therapy..."Good luck with your "anti-aging therapy," Boomer. Death is coming for YOU, just as it comes for the rest of us, and there is no stopping it. Traditionally, people have focused on their children, their faith, and leaving a legacy for their heirs when they have felt death approaching. Oh, wait -- we're talking about Boomers here! Never mind."<br /><br />I think this is really coming, and will transform society. Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-602663025918309702014-12-08T10:30:13.783-05:002014-12-08T10:30:13.783-05:00Ralph Baer, the "father of video games,"...Ralph Baer, the "father of video games," just died. Where did he invent the home video game console? He led a team at Sanders Associates, a defense contractor formed by former Raytheon workers.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-91617580255330774192014-12-08T10:09:25.285-05:002014-12-08T10:09:25.285-05:00Joe Schmoe, personal computers may not have come f...Joe Schmoe, personal computers may not have come from defense contractors, but they were a fairly advanced stage of computer. They did not spring fully formed like Athena from Steve Jobs' head.<br /><br />"ENIAC was initially designed to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory. . . ENIAC's design and construction was financed by the United States Army, Ordnance Corps, Research and Development Command"<br /><br />The digital computer age began around WWII, with heavy government funding and guidance regarding the invention's purpose. The same goes for airliners, BTW -- when you fly Southwest, you're in a civilianized transport carrier.<br /><br />That's what I mean -- in the earliest "What are we doing?" phase, there's going to be heavy insulation from financial failure by gubmint / monopoly subsidies. Only when it's fairly polished will entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates be able to make any real money off of its further tailoring toward mass consumers.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-72360504900658479002014-12-08T09:44:55.787-05:002014-12-08T09:44:55.787-05:00Whoops, I meant to say speeding tickets and red li...Whoops, I meant to say speeding tickets and red light running fines that can be avoided by obeying sensible laws.<br /><br />The whole road rage thing was intensified by the Boomers in the 70's. I suspect that they are the group doing the most bitching about road measures designed to protect the common good at the expense of individual convenience.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-32687869530011941672014-12-08T08:47:59.623-05:002014-12-08T08:47:59.623-05:00The libertarians like to claim that everything wou...The libertarians like to claim that everything would be better as a privately owned enterprise. The delusion with that claim is that a healthy profit margin is not possible with literally everything. It's a lot easier to make money building and selling cars than building and maintaining a nationwide network of roads, tunnels, and bridges.<br /><br />Also, it's fallacious to point out modern government follies as the reason the gov. can't be trusted with literally anything. Both Agnostic and me frequently have pointed out that in the modest, unpretentious, and selfless 20's-60's period the government was a helluva lot more capable. Come to think of it, everything and everyone was more capable back then.<br /><br />On the other hand, in the Silent/Boomer instigated greed is good period of the 80's and beyond, all things have gone to hell and a hand basket.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-35086853942956945842014-12-08T08:39:28.838-05:002014-12-08T08:39:28.838-05:00"Your premise is wrong.
Government is partne..."Your premise is wrong.<br /><br />Government is partnered with and protects large financial institutions."<br /><br />Steve. J., I don't disagree with a single thing you said. <br /><br />What I was getting at was that ultimately it is the poor behavior of individuals at all levels that lead to bad outcomes rather than government alone being responsible for tainting things.<br /><br />Going off of Agnostics's point about the necessity of government support in at least some respects, I'm remind of how notoriously difficult it is to make a huge profit margin on much of transportation.<br /><br />There's a reason airlines, roads, and railroads are heavily subsidized. If the private sector singlehandedly built and ran a highway they would need to charge huge tolls just to break even, let alone make a good profit.<br /><br />While it's true that our taxes pay for roads, keep in mind that without tax subsidies a person would have to either constantly pay often high cost single use tolls. Or they would have to pay weekly/monthly/yearly bills in order to have access.<br /><br />" I don't see a valid sticker on your vehicle sir, that'll be a 25$ toll because you fell behind on your 50$ per year bill."<br /><br />There would also be the annoying inconvenience of setting up and dealing with the infrastructure of monitoring access to a huge network of private use roads. If not lots of toll booths then some kind of electronic monitoring and fining of unauthorized vehicles. Remember the good ole days of Video store late fees? You'd end up getting a "how the hell did do that" bill of late fees. Imagine getting a 2000$ bill for unauthorized use of several roads. Of course it would be fairly easy to illegally dodge tolls and fines ala cable thieves with pirate boxes.<br /><br />Nowadays people even bitch about 'unfair' red light running fines (why don't you go the speed limit then you dumbass). Imagine the wailing about illegal use of private road fines which surely would equal and probably surpass public fines.<br /><br />A private monopoly would be more simple albeit more expensive than a road network of an alphabet soup of companies in which costs would be lower but there also would be a lot confusion about which area is owned by which company. Also, more bills/tolls.<br /><br />Airlines are an even bigger folly. It ain't cheap to put a massive vehicle in the air for long periods of time. An entirely unsubsidized airline would have to charge massive prices to pay for vehicles, maintenance, fuel, and let's not forget the huge insurance costs. <br /><br />Less profitable/safe routes would vanish quickly.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-35406117414313767602014-12-08T06:44:44.692-05:002014-12-08T06:44:44.692-05:00Agnostic-
Please understand, I am not defending t...Agnostic-<br /><br />Please understand, I am not defending the libertarian position here. I don't believe that the world would be a paradise if only government would just "get out of the way." For example, I agree with your assessment of the contemporary relationship between government and the private sector. But in general, I think the private sector is more efficient (and less corrupt) that government, and I think that the progressive argument that all technological innovation comes from big government is simply wrong. We have seen the personal computer industry revolutionize society in our lifetimes and virtually none of that has been due to government. Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2721590676854921062014-12-08T06:40:43.046-05:002014-12-08T06:40:43.046-05:00Agnostic -
Respectfully disagree with you on the...Agnostic - <br /><br />Respectfully disagree with you on the research thing. Silicon Valley and the personal computer revolution are good examples of tremendous innovation and an entire industry getting started with little or no government intervention. Apple, Microsoft and Dell didn't start out as defense contractors or in the research division of AT&T, they started out as small businesses. And government subsidies have never really been part of their business model, it's not like you get a tax credits when you purchase an iPhone 6. <br /><br />Sure, universities and the DARPAnet laid part of the groundwork for the internet, but that would have happened anyway. And the private sector made it a thousand times bigger and more useable. Government money networked the computers of a a few university engineering departments together. The private sector brought the Internet into every business and home. And the PC industry was huge in the 1980's and early 1990's, long before the Internet. Besides, the physical infrastructure of the "Internet" is really "the phone company" and the "cable company," it was already there and the computer companies just started using it to transmit data as well as voice calls. <br /><br />In 50 years I'm sure the liberals will try to rewrite history and claim that the personal computer revolution was the product of some kind of partnership between government and private industry, or was "managed" by some Presidential commission or government bureaucracy, but that just isn't true. It was the private sector all the way. <br /><br />This isn't just true of personal computers - it's also true of things like cell phones - cell carriers are selling phones in places like Africa now because they have figured out a way to make money doing it, not because the UN High Commissioner for Communications is rolling out cell networks pursuant to a central plan cooked up by NGO's in New York and Bern. <br /><br />Also, a lot of past "successes" of government were really the work of the private sector. For example, the New York City Subway was built and operated by private companies - most of the subway lines were laid out just before the real estate developers started putting up buildings in the outer boroughs. A lot of other advances, like sanitary foods, were also brought to us by companies like Heinz, which used clear bottles instead of opaque ones so that people could see the ingredients and know that they were buying a safe product that was still fresh. Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-51801023012157047852014-12-08T06:24:07.941-05:002014-12-08T06:24:07.941-05:00Kurt9-
Good luck with your "anti-aging thera...Kurt9-<br /><br />Good luck with your "anti-aging therapy," Boomer. Death is coming for YOU, just as it comes for the rest of us, and there is no stopping it. Traditionally, people have focused on their children, their faith, and leaving a legacy for their heirs when they have felt death approaching. Oh, wait -- we're talking about Boomers here! Never mind...Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2140885064409534872014-12-07T21:43:14.697-05:002014-12-07T21:43:14.697-05:00"People are already travelling internationall..."People are already travelling internationally to undergo these because they cannot get them here in the U.S. Likewise, I expect to travel to Asia for the first true anti-aging therapies sometime in the next decade."<br /><br />They'll have a funny way of aging right into an early grave -- Asian medicine? You think the FDA gets in the way, just wait until you're in the land of the free-to-pollute! "Hey Doc, how come these anti-aging pills taste like broken glass?" "Hey Doc, how come this anti-aging milk tastes like melamine?"<br /><br />Good luck getting your money back from antagonistic foreigners. "Hey, selling an adulterated product is fraud! That violates libertarian ethical principles!" "Go avay, liber-tar-tar-tar. What that mean? Buyer beware, is not this what you to be saying?"<br /><br />"It seems to be the nature of all large-scale human institutions to devolve into bureaucracy."<br /><br />There's the real problem, not gubmint regulation. Sane people will choose the poison of a gubmint bureaucracy rather than a corporate one, BTW. Gubmint just wants to keep on going, grow a little at most, while mega-corporations want to get as big as possible right now, cut corners (I mean costs) as much as possible, and not answer even in principle to all the people whose lives they're affecting.<br /><br />Biotech -- how did that ever get off the ground, except for gubmint bureaucracies providing all of the funding in the "we don't know what the fuck we're doing" stage? Space colonization -- pioneered by that well known private firm called NASA. Semi-conductors -- pioneered by work in transistors under the famously small-scale Bell Labs, the research arm of the totally not monopolistic AT&T.<br /><br />You have no clue how research works. Funding comes from the gubmint (NSF, DoD, or other alphabet soup agency), or if you're lucky to have another monopolistic Bell Labs around, that'll do too.<br /><br />If the project goes nowhere, it's only public tax dollars that have been wasted, and the public will not know about it, so they won't complain.<br /><br />If it succeeds, the PI and his investors raise private funds because it has already been proven to be worth it. Not "spray and pray" investment strategies.<br /><br />Note: I'm not suggesting that the Next Big Thing be funded through your libertarian fantasy scheme. For the Next Big Thing, success is too uncertain for private funds to provide all the initial trial-and-error work. I mean, cooking up the next addictive app for retards -- you can do that in your garage, but not inventing the transistor.<br /><br />I don't like the way things are done now, but they're at least in the right ballpark of using public funds to allow the research to proceed. It's in the benefits stage that we ought to be disgusted -- someone who has been insulated from failure by a steady stream of taxpayer-funded grants now gets to take his success all the way to the bank. And the public gets to enjoy paying out the ass for their discovery, which the public paid for.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-18668975791126105032014-12-07T21:20:19.506-05:002014-12-07T21:20:19.506-05:00"How in god's name would massive multinat..."How in god's name would massive multinational corporations be as powerful, rich, and omnipresent as they are if the government was as meddlesome in corporate affairs as libertarians make it out to be?"<br /><br />Your premise is wrong.<br /><br />Government is partnered with and protects large financial institutions.<br /><br />Financial institutions funnel money to ends that government likes (million dollar mortgages for strawberry pickers, carbon trading to launder money to connected businesses (if that ever takes off), etc.). In exchange they get protected from any and all losses.<br /><br />All other corporations are dependent on finance to expand or operate so they have to tow the line as well (better have intrusive HR and diversity officers or else). They're zombie corporations in a zombie economy dependent on money from the central planners in one way or another.<br /><br />Parasites like Jamie Dimon and John Corzine and Robert Rubin slide from executive banking positions to elected office to appointed offices because there's no real difference. It's pure corporatism. The regulation is aimed at strangling any real competition. Right now the biggest source of non-prog controlled wealth is oil and so of course the next major regulation expansion is going to be aimed at choking off that part of the economy.<br /><br />Meanwhile more and more productive industries move to China where they make shoddy, shitty, derivative products but it's legal to do that.Steve Johnsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-92114257205599600642014-12-07T20:30:28.510-05:002014-12-07T20:30:28.510-05:00I stand by my point that over-reaching government ...I stand by my point that over-reaching government regulation is the root of ALL problems today. Take medicine, for example. There is a stagnation in medical innovation because of FDA regulation. In particular, the FDA refuses to consider aging itself to be treatable medical condition. Hence, they will not approve therapies to treat aging no matter their efficacy. Given that aging process is the number one medical problem that people face, I consider this a real issue. The same is true for promising stem-cell regeneration therapies. People are already travelling internationally to undergo these because they cannot get them here in the U.S. Likewise, I expect to travel to Asia for the first true anti-aging therapies sometime in the next decade.<br /><br />Take nuclear power, for example. New technologies such as IMSR and other Thorium-based nuclear power can lead to cheaper and more abundant energy in this country, as well as being "low-carbon", Again, the problem here is the huge regulatory hurtle in getting these technologies certified by the NRC for commercial application, especially considering that the NRC is currently staffed by anti-nuclear zealots.<br /><br />The amount of federal regulation is astounding and has increased even more in the past 6 years. It is such that its conceivable that one can no longer go about their day to day without being in violation of one rule or another (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx).<br /><br />Peter Thiel has talked about how technological progress outside of semiconductors and computers has stalled primarily because of excessive regulation. Many things that could be done are simply illegal.<br /><br />Some of the problem is government regulation. Much more of the problem is simply bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional and it seems to be an entrenched part of human nature. It seems to be the nature of all large-scale human institutions to devolve into bureaucracy.<br /><br />The reason why insist that any and all problems a society may have is due to excessive regulation and bureaucracy is because in the absence of such, small self-interested groups are capable of accomplishing whatever goals theyset for themselves on their own. The bottom line is that this is the only thing that matters. Everything else is irrelevant.<br /><br />3-D printing, robotics, and computer design make it possible for smaller organizations to make things that only governments and large corporations could do in the past. For example, the Eclipse VLJ was designed on a lap-top computer. They were manufactured by a factory with a few hundred employees. Same for biotech. DIY biotechnology and bio-medicine will transform medicine (and cure aging allowing for unlimited healthly life spans) if government bureaucracy gets out of the way. Same for space colonization and for about any other productive activity one can think of.<br /><br />One more thing: There is no such thing as greed. There is only theft. Enrichment not based on productive accomplishment is a form of theft. You are confusing greed with theft.kurt9https://www.blogger.com/profile/02101147267959016924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-26060654202353403942014-12-07T13:17:00.549-05:002014-12-07T13:17:00.549-05:00Agnostic, have you ever though about the ongoing t...Agnostic, have you ever though about the ongoing trend for musty Silent/Boomer artists to continue touring well past their sell-by date (68 is the new 38!) while charging outrageous ticket prices?<br /><br />Of course, I shake my head at why anyone would pay in the triple digits to see Bob Dylan or Roger Daltrey creaking and croaking decades after cultural relevance.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-75519542404122483662014-12-07T13:12:28.744-05:002014-12-07T13:12:28.744-05:00"The attempt to blame current problems on ove..."The attempt to blame current problems on over-reaching gubmint regulation is embarrassing."<br /><br />Certainly the one thing that some libertarians get right is the police stateization of America which intensified in the 80's. I can buy into that.<br /><br />What I don't buy into, what distracts from genuine goverment overreach and abuse is the non stop whining about how the 'free market' (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) isn't free enough. <br /><br />How in god's name would massive multinational corporations be as powerful, rich, and omnipresent as they are if the government was as meddlesome in corporate affairs as libertarians make it out to be?<br /><br />Jamie Dimon (B. 1956), the parasite who heads J.P. Morgan Chase simply called the attorney general to ward off criminal charges. Is that good enough for the get the damn gov's hands offa me crowd?<br /><br />"The climate of the past 30-odd years has been one of DE-regulation"<br /><br />Right, as the current inequality cycle intensified in the 80's there was this outbreak of "it's so stifling, unfair, un-American to boss those companies around. Let's just wind 'em up, let 'em go, and may the best company win."<br /><br />I don't think that the Greatest Gen. appreciated just how much greed, treachery, and discord the Me Generation yuppies would sow in the 80's and beyond. Had the elder generations known they would've fought a lot harder to keep mid century checks and balances in place.<br /><br />But nope, it's been ever growing scheming, exploitation, and monopolizing since the Me Generation began dominating our institutions in the 80's. And while the Greatest Gen was modest and gracious enough to give the reins to the Silents/Boomers in the 70's/80's, the Silents/Boomers have failed miserably to return the favor. <br /><br />The greed is good generation has not surprisingly refused to let Gen X-ers anywhere near America's driver seat.Ferylnoreply@blogger.com