Spenc

while certainly not immoral in any sense, voting could be seen as corrupt behaviour, but open to debate. e.g. let's say that you live in Ontario Canada and the government wants to harmonize federal and provincial sales taxes. This will result in services exempt from provincial sales tax being subject to the total harmonized tax. hypothetically, let's say you spend $50 on your annual property maintenance sales taxes, and in 12 months under the proposed plan, you would be subject to taxes of $130 instead. let's also say that there is no referendum, it is one party proposing, and one party opposing the plan, and then a bunch of other parties with little to no recognition and support. you show up to the polls to vote for the major party that will oppose the plan. this would seem like a defensive, non-corrupt behaviour. let's say however that you are a teacher and you want to vote out of power a politician who has been adversarial towards the teachers union, and the other candidate is proposing better funding, more teacher aides, better pensions, etc. to vote for this person for sel-interest would seemingly be corrupt behaviour.

You're missing what many of the Austrians would definitely draw attention to, that the time structure of production would be affected as well. Keynesian methodology will generally present aggregate demand as just a bundle of interchangeable economic demand, whereas Austrians will point to fundamental difference in the nature of goods and services, particularly as they follow different time schedules in the market. e.g. If you read Jim Rogers' "Hot Commodities" he will frequently bring up the fact that commodity production, or the expansion thereof can often take a decade to bring online. To scout out ore, establish facilities, clear through the red tape, etc. to get gold or oil from the ground requires long-term planning. Compare that to Silly Bands or Teeny Babies or something that is intended to be manufactured in great numbers in a standard facility that can be replicated and modified easily and be trendy for a year or two before disappearing from the market. It's not imperative to understand how inflation will impose recessionary pressures down the line, but it helps to understand how resources become misallocated, which is what explains the functional process of the recession.

I read an article last year, kind of a pop science style article about parenting written by a child psychologist. He talks about "4 Rs" of parenting through a divorce. Basically, you can mitigate the damage caused by divorce if you use these 4 Rs as cornerstones in your parent-child relationships. Reassurance Routine Rituals _____ (can't remember the 4th off the top of my head) **Upon googling for the topic, I did find a different article that refers to these 3 Rs and only these 3, so it's possibly I am misremembering that a 4th existed** The Rs are intended to give the child the sense of continued devotion and love from the parents and sense of control over his own life, as divorce can put the child in a state of feeling like a balloon in the wind with no control for himself. I can see how this is less-good than children with good two-parent households who have a more organic experience vs. the 3 Rs which are designed to replicate the organic experience. Similar to a real free market determining prices, vs. what the socialist/keynesians of the 50s theorized about bypassing the economic calculation problem by just copying prices from market economies elsewhere, which Hayek referred to as "play prices" in the vain of it being like kids playing market with monopoly money and thinking they were shopping and holding jobs like mommy and daddy. I would have to give this greater consideration though

Cutting taxes would only result in inflation in the sense that government never cuts spending, thus the deficit is financed by monetary inflation. Therefore, cutting taxes would correlate to inflation. I haven't really heard this argument that I can recall, that cutting taxes has a causal relationship to inflation, however I could imagine why some Keynesians and MMTers would propose such nonsense because they have to point somewhere other than monetary policy, so any plausible scapegoat will do

This is a clear case of trying to close the barn doors after the horses have left. Stef will often talk about how he gets a promise from his daughter in the first place. So let's say I have a kid who wants to play soccer and I sign them up and then notice his grades are slipping and I'm concerned. I probably should have negotiated that soccer is secondary to school work in the first place. Furthermore, I should have instilled a sense in the mind of the child how and why school work is important long before this so that it wouldn't suddenly crop in a negotiation over soccer anyways. So the parent has routinely asked for higher standards of tidiness in this case on facebook. Then they've presumably continued to give the kids the means to possess all this stuff that becomes clutter in their rooms, and they continue on with their pleas for tidiness as they help the kids accumulate more crap to pile up on the floors. It's no wonder they aren't getting the message loud and clear. So instead of just not buying them the 7 pairs of jeans in the first place, until they showed better habits for caring for their stuff and their bedroom, the parents buy them the jeans, then steal them back when they are piled up on the floor and create a conflict over privacy, possessions and sense of fairness. I don't know how you convey this to the mother or father because they aren't going to want to hear that they have been taking the wrong approach for a long long time, they will probably want to dig in their heels so they don't have to circle back and undo all the damage from previous errors and establish better relations with their kids

Interesting thought. I think it's a great thing to encourage. I think another benefit of this is to reinforce your child's social skills. When I was in university, I had started keeping a blog with the intention of writing everyday to it. The primary objective for this was that I am an introvert, but also I have always had the sense of myself not being interesting. I would struggle to make conversation because I just don't think my experiences are interesting to others, or the things I learn about would be interesting to others unless they ask me what I think about it. Writing everyday about my experiences and just things that I was thinking about helped a bit for sure, but obviously wasn't life-altering. Unfortunately, when you're 20-21 years old it's too late to change by just adapting little aids like this. So I had considered that it would be good at the time to encourage my young niece to write a journal and get started young on expressing herself.

He's kind of like a Rob Ford candidate. Many of you will remember Rob Ford as the Toronto mayor who had admitted to doing crack cocaine and went on Jimmy Kimmel's show and then had a drinking problem and lost most of his mayoral powers before his term was up. Anyways, he started out as a long-time ward councillor who then ran for mayor to "end the gravy train" and put a stop to the war on cars in Toronto. And he used the word "boondoggle" as a full sentence to reply to his detractors, which was in and of itself just amazing! He basically pissed off every other mayoral candidate who were all leftist and nuts, and the media all hated him and as a libertarian, you couldn't help but kind of get behind the guy and cheer him on because it was fun to see the leftist status quo get rattled. Donald Trump is that kind of candidate

In Quebec about a decade ago, some Wal Mart employees went through the first phase(s) of unionizing, and the corporation just closed its store down. The employees formed a class action suit against the corporation that went to the SUpreme COurt of Canada and was only settled a couple years ago. The SCC ruled in favour of Wal Mart, that they did in fact have the right to close down their store. I had seen some angry posts on facebook calling Wal Mart evil and so on, so I posted a point that "If Wal Mart can be legally obligated to not close a store because there is a labour union that demands jobs, why can't a labour union just form in other markets and force them to locate stores there to provide them the jobs they are entitled to?"

I'm trying to understand something here, so maybe if we make a timeline we can figure it out, if you find it helpful.... NOW: son is 12 months, plan to get pregnant with your wife for child #2 +3 MOS: son, 15 mos. and presumably your wife is pregnant, son and grandma leaving country for up to 6 mos. +9 MOS: son, 21 months and grandma prepared to return. wife in final trimester +12 MOS: son, 2 yrs, newborn baby born, wife on maternity leave for 6-12 months i assume? grandma around to help out +21 MOS: son is close to 3 yrs, baby is 9 mos., wife's maternity leave is either expired or nearing end, grandma has to leave again??? +24 MOS: grandma is gone, mother is back at work, you are working full time, who is watching the kids, 3 yrs old and 1 year old? aren't you facing the same issue all over again but with two young kids to care for instead of one?

i have trouble thinking you were justly accused of doing evil. perhaps you could be justly accused of corrupt behaviour, but of course without details of the inappropriate and dysfunctional action we cannot render any opinions on that anyways. but back to evil....it's simply an empty term to be thrown around by philosophical people. it's like Keynesians talking about 'animal spirits', it doesn't really have any substance to it. rather it makes clear the failure of the accuser to be articulate. since you aren't comfortable describing the behaviours that caused the issue, can you lend more insight into what judgments you have made about those actions? for example, would you accept a lesser charge of being corrupt as opposed to evil? would you shed a bit more light onto your process of thinking through how seriously inappropriate your behaviour was? like, a fast food employee spitting in someone's burger is corrupt behaviour but it's not really harming anyone vs. a person who spots an emotionally unstable person and manipulates that person to serve his own emotional dysfunctions and sexual desires and so on, which is much more serious.

i got my girlfriend to quit back in the spring. when we started dating, she used to visit her cousins on the weekends and hang out there a lot. they all smoke and she would have a few cigarettes on the weekends with them. she never smoked during the week though. later on when she was stressed out with her job and switching to a new job and other things, she had begun smoking during the week, and she was not accepting that she was becoming hooked when i warned her. i had expressed displeasure with her smoking and she kind of brushed it off like i was overreacting. when we were talking about future relationship potential, i told her i would not be able to consider her a long-term partner until she quit smoking and stayed quit for a couple months to prove she was done with it. she finally was shook up a bit by this and started to accept that she had become a 'smoker' instead of an 'occasional smoker' or 'recreational smoker'. so my girlfriend was in a relationship because she was pursuing a goal of finding a good man to start a family with, and i told her that smoking would be a huge obstacle in accomplishing that. perhaps the equivalent for a 53-year old mother would be to tell her that she won't be considered a viable grandmother to your children if she is actively harming herself in the open. same with your dad not being a suitable grandfather if he is prone to abusive language towards the people he claims to love.

i feel like this might be connected to the Making a Murderer series. I have been participating in the subreddit for the series and was just the other day searching for information about how you would put into perspective a 70 IQ in terms of age equivalence and this is the type of information that i came up with as well. I think a lot of people don't really comprehend the consequences of being 2 standard deviations below the norm

head on over to reddit at /r/makingamurderer for some really interesting people-watching 1. you've got the fan fiction conspiracy theories 2. you've got people expressing anger and hatred towards 'characters'. e.g. most of all Ken Kratz, the prosecutor, Lem Kaschinsky, the public defender and his investigative assistant. all 3 of these people acted in unethical ways. then you've got the people hating on the victim's brother who was the family's spokesman in front of the media and his friend/victim's ex boyfriend. people are writing theories suggesting that these two men are the real murderers and framed Avery! it's fucking crazy! 3. fast-and-loose facts, heavy biases, etc. in one thread, someone was saying they were feeling guilty that they were hating the victim's brother for being a pawn of the prosecution team basically. i wrote a reply talking about how he should not hate the brother and that it is irrational to do so. and that furthermore there is probably something personal to his own life that would evoke such strong emotion as hate toward a fairly neutral character in the saga. i was downvoted for suggesting that people should be provoked toward hatred and that if they do a little introspection and rewatch the series they will probably have much different feelings toward the 'characters' the second time around. so many people are determined to unload a lot of burdensome emotions on these dramas that are playing out on TV instead of solving them personally

also the Avery family is an interesting case study. the way Steven chooses his relationships with women is alarming to say the least

r/k doesn't really define stupidity/intelligence. And also it is a wide spectrum, like '0' is neutral, '-1' is full R, '+1' is full K hypothetically (or you can do a 0-100 scale or whatever....) Picture a bell curve where there is a lot of people hovering more to the center than to the opposite and extreme poles. Pay attention to Stef's podcasts where he talks about the typical southern conservatives who go to church and see virtue in sending their sons into the military and so on. These aren't budding Einsteins! They are fucking retarded from a philosophical point of view. It is just their schedules of economic values which differentiate them from philosophically retarded Rs. Neither Rs nor Ks have any real incentive to follow the NAP at present. The problem isn't that there are too many Rs to enforce or instill as a value the NAP, the problem is that there are too many people of any spot on the r/k spectrum who have access to philosophy. I would highly recommend you all read some Michael Shermer such as, "The Mind of the Market" and "The Believing Brain" because he is a great researcher and collator of science and well-connected in the scientific community with access to great minds. He helps present cutting edge research in understandable language to the average person with intelligence and curiosity. Getting some broader knowledge of the workings of the brain outside of how it is presented in the various podcasts by Stef will greatly enhance your appreciation and understanding of how an r/k differentiation might actually exist. I'm currently trying to get going on his latest, "The Moral Arc" and want to go back to "The Science of Good and Evil" since listening to hundreds and hundreds of FDR podcasts. I would love to see Stef interview Shermer or rather have a lengthy in-depth discussion about his r/k theory.

I find it very interesting and understandable that you relate this tragedy to yourself. Such as, 'What if this were my son missing?' and 'How do I go about dealing with Norman now?'. I always kind of wonder where the line in the sand is when a person is close enough to you that their problems become your own versus their problems cast a new perspective on your own life. ANd I'm curious what members of this forum and Stef himself would say about a self-aware person's empathetic reaction to such a situation. I know that when people have deaths in their families or lose their jobs or stuff like that, I find it very difficult to say and think the right things in the moment to show empathy. I'm curious if you would be able to go more into detail about this. For example, you also mentions feeling horrible that someone close to you was suffering this way. What would you say the ratio was of concern for Norman compared to the uneasiness you felt for yourself that this could happen to your own child or that it would make things awkward for you at work in the future? And I'm curious how you managed to put this out of your mind. Like, were you able to go home and watch a comedy on TV and laugh, or find yourself engaged in the plot of a drama or was your mind preoccupied with the missing child? What did you learn about your own ability to empathize so far through this experience?

This would be a good definition. A paleoconservative would be wary of the state and interested in preserving their values and lifestyles from the government's reach. A neoconservative would be more interested in a strong state that acts to adopt, enforce and spread their 'conservative' values. So a paleo would want to stay out of foreign wars (why America didn't immediately join the Allies in WWI & WWII), a neo would have doctrines about spreading democracy and trade to other nations by force. A neoconservative would similarly have programs like War on Drugs at home to enforce their values on the domestic population

i don't have any answer for you obviously on what you should do. but theres a few things that stand out. a) your implication that you have a desire to see if you can change them or that they are in some grey area between reason and irrationality, and you want to bring them out of the grey and into the light of reason. if this is your highest priority in continuing a relationship with them for sometime longer, i would suggest its not worth it. reminds me of the caller a few weeks ago with the girlfriend who wanted to be polyamorous. yeah, he can go through all the work of trying to change in order to make the relationship work, but why doesn't he just find a girlfriend who doesnt need him to change? why go through the trouble of trying to change people in order to have relationships with them instead of just finding people who are already ripe for a relationship with you? particularly since your connection to your parents is long-distance, phone-and-text-based, you can have dozens of those same types of relationships with people here. b) i would say that standard i would employ in a situation like this is RTR. if you ask for genuine presence from your parents and they agree and then follow through, that's a starting place. maybe you guys don't agree on things and discover that you aren't really suitable to carry on a relationship going forward, but at least that realization comes from an open process of RTR. why this stuck out to me in the first place is when you mentioned not feeling comfortable being yourself around your parents in the past and your mother said she needed to think about that. The implication i got from your post was that she withdrew from the conversation at that point in order to return back to it at a later date after she had time to mull it over. Also the way you describe their apologies. It seems like they aren't being open and present in your conversations, but rather they are retreating and concocting strategies to come back with and being manipulative. This is just the impression I get, so take it with a grain of salt. But this is why I would explain RTR and demand that as the standard for all communication, and then I would be quick to step in anytime they go astray in order to get them back to that process.

a) i'm really bothered that statisticians think 18-35 is a reasonable age bracket for measurement. b) i think it's more cynicism about the people than the idea of the state. look at the US where numbers consistently say americans have a sub-20% approval rating of the Congress but then when it comes down to the districts, they re-elect incumbents the vast majority of the time. in the ridings i've lived around in ontario, that has always held true here as well. its a baseline conservatism that most people have. "Congress sucks, but we better not vote against our incumbent because i'm scared of what change might bring". with the younger generation, i think that baseline conservatism just isnt programmed into us. we aren't worried that the 3-time re-elected guy will lose and our riding will lose an influential seat int he parliament and the cabinet because we haven't been aware of the guy for 4-5 elections and the system is so clearly broken and has been that way as long as we can remember. so we just stay home. not for moral principles, not for sending a message to the powers that be, just a simple cost-benefit analysis of an hour's time that's just my thinking.

does inflation screw creditors? Not really, at leas tnot when it's reasonably predictable. If I loan you $1000 so you can buy books for school and let you pay me back in a few years after you graduate and get a job, I ought to have the presence of mind that if you give me $1000 back, I'm probably going to lose 10% of my purchasing power. Since inflation is ever present and systemic, I would have to reasonably expect the consequences of loaning out money. Likewise, if gold is systemically deflationary, then once the common economic actor has adapted to the new conditions, he would reasonably expect that to borrow that $1000 from me might cost him more in purchasing power in the future. the 5 books he needs this year for his studies are bought with the same gold that in three years can buy 7 books. ihe isn't being screwed, because everybody becomes accustomed.

also, i'm guessing she has a manager/agent who actually negotiates on her behalf. and that her agent is part of a company/team that negotiates for many actors and actresses in hollywood. and that her agency would know how much people with dicks are making in movies and how to leverage their clients negotiating position with that knowledge. she's so fucking annoying with this article. she's basically saying that she's being a good woman, being quiet and not causing any trouble, basically conforming to stereotypical patriarchal demands on women. like she was brainwashwed into conforming to a man's view of a woman in order to go along to get along in the business. meanwhile, we all know she had an agent who was a go-between and wasnt so "aw-shucks" conformist in the bargaining sessions.

I would like to put forward a theory about why youre struggling with your anger, if you'll indulge me. You know that your anger is misplaced. You had parents who molded you into a target for bullies and didnt consequently protect you from those bullies.. it troubles you to consider these bullies being on the wrong end of abuse at the hands of their parents because it is too close to home for you: it makes it difficult for you to avoid empathizing with yourself in the relationships you had with your mother and father. this is why you have unmanageable anger when you attempt to empathize with your attackers, because you are throwing up fog at yourself to keep you from connecting the dots to your own childhood self that is similarly looking for empathy for his own parents. again, this is just a lawn dart hurled through the air. i have no evidence for it and you should not accept it without examining your won circumstances. it was just the immediate feeling that i had and i wanted to share with you in case it could be helpful.

Based on the flashbacks, Derek was not 'exclusionary' as a teenager until the trauma of his father's death. So your comment about him becoming a father figure is very interesting because he lost his connection to humanity through the trauma of losing his father, then regained his connection by becoming the father figure himself. Also, I just watched Rounders the other day, which is my other favourite Edward Norton film. His performance as "Worm" in that film is brilliant. I would encourage you to see it, it is on YouTube.

do you mind me asking how old you are? have you asked what he envisions the marriage to be like? Like, if i was imagining being married, i would be able to paint a picture of a regular day in the life of future me and explain what we would be doing, how we would be engaging one another, etc. how do you envision a day in the life of future you if you get married to him, let's say a few years in the future? you also mentioned not feeling loved, in spite of him telling you he loves you. you also spoke about how or when he feels loved. but you never said if you do love him or express it to him. what is the situation with that? how long have you been feeling love for him (if that is the case) and what specifically evokes these feelings toward him?

peach, i remember reading your story last night. you mentioned your father is a church goer, so he has been ingrained with the concept of paying for fogiveness, would he not? so i would just open you up to the idea that if he sends you a check it might not be assertion of control it may be a cowardly attempt to get forgiveness. If he is willing to make the simplest effort for forgiveness he might respond to your neglect by digging deeper, finding some courage, and making the true effort that you deserve in order to find peace with him. just another way to interpret things if they play out that way, but of course you know your father better so trust your own feelings about it