Monthly Archives: September 2012

Quantitative Easing 3

This story is interesting.  The Federal Reserve announced “Quantitative Easing 3″. They plan to buy $40B mortgage-backed bonds, per month, indefinitely.

Here is an amusing comedy video on Quantitative Easing. Promote freedom via comedy is a good idea! Here are the xtranormal bears, talking about quantiative easing.  By the same author, he asks “Why doesn’t the mainstream media ever criticize the Federal Reserve?

The same people who control the Federal Reserve control the mainstream media.  For that reason, the Federal Reserve is never criticized.  When you have the power to print money, you arrange for a leveraged buyout of any mainstream media corporation that reports honestly.  Sumner Redstone (CBS/Viacom), Brian Roberts (Comcast/NBC/Universal), and Rupert Murdoch (Fox) were not elected.  They wield more influence than the President.  They get to decide which issues are publicly debated, and which ideas are censored.  All of them received bankster financing to grow their empire.

A common propaganda trick is to give complicated fancy names to evil ideas.  One example is “TARP” (Troubled Asset Relief Program).  Most people think “A tarp protects a baseball field when it rains.  There’s nothing wrong with that.”  If they said “We’re borrowing/creating money and giving it to our bankster friends!”, that would obviously evil.  A more accurate name would have been “Financial Underwriting Contingency Kitty”.

“Quantitative easing” sounds noble and important and helpful.  The name “quantitative easing” obscures what is really happening.  The Federal Reserve prints new money and gives it to banks.  If they called it “money printing 3″ instead of “quantitative easing 3″, it would be obviously corrupt.

The details of “print new money and give it to banks” are slightly changed each time.  That also helps obscure what’s happening.  Here are all the different things that have been called “quantitative easing”.

  1. Under “normal” circumstances, the Federal Reserve purchases short-term Treasury debt, or performs short-term repurchase agreements, buying bonds for newly-printed money and then selling them back a few days later.
  2. The Federal Reserve lowered the Fed Funds Rate to 0%-0.25%, and maintained the Zero Interest Rate Policy for a long time.
  3. In addition to keeping the Fed Funds Rate at 0%, the Federal Reserve allowed banks to deposit surplus reserves at the Federal Reserve and earn interest.  This led to the perverse arrangement where banks were borrowing from the Federal Reserve at 0% and lending that money right back to the Federal Reserve at 0.25%.
  4. During the “term auction facility”, the Federal Reserve made term loans to banks, instead of making overnight loans like they normally do.
  5. The Federal Reserve performs repurchase agreements of mortgage bonds, buying them from banks and selling them back later.  This cleans up the bank’s balance sheet, enabling them to pretend they’re solvent.
  6. During “operation twist”, the Federal Reserve sold short-term Treasuries and bought long-term Treasuries.  This flattens the yield curve.  Banks make money on their bond holdings, as long-term interest rates fall.  Insiders knew ahead of time which bonds the Federal Reserve is buying, enabling them to front-run the Federal Reserve.
  7. The Federal Reserve directly buys mortgage bonds from banks.  This is the latest round of QE3.

The Federal Reserve can lend money to whoever they want, without any public disclosure.  When the Federal Reserve lends banks money at 0%, that’s an indirect State subsidy.  The banks borrow at 0% and lend at higher rates.  The banks borrow at 0% and buy tangible assets.  It’s pure illicit interest arbitrage, borrowing at 0% and buying higher-yielding tangible assets.

The Federal Reserve can also buy whatever they want.  If Ben Bernanke wanted to, he could buy GM cars and stockpile them in a warehouse.  The Federal Reserve could buy and stockpile real estate.  The Federal Reserve could directly buy index futures to prop up the stock market.  That would be too obviously corrupt.  Instead, the Federal Reserve buys bonds.  The Federal Reserve lends to banks at 0%, and those banks buy stocks.

If there’s enough inflation, all asset prices rise.  Banks are highly leveraged, borrowing at 0% and buying assets.  Inflation benefits banks.  They are highly leveraged and real interest rates are negative.

In QE3, the Federal Reserve announced they plan to buy $40B of mortgage bonds per month.  How does this benefit banks?  They get to replace junky illiquid bonds with liquid Treasuries or cash.  The enables them to releverage and load up on more debt and more assets.

These mortgage bonds are illiquid and hard to price.  Every mortgage bond is different.  Suppose that the Federal Reserve pays $40B for mortgage bonds worth only $10B.  That’s a $30B indirect bailout for banks.  It is impossible to prove that the Federal Reserve overpaid for the bonds.  By definition, government purchases and “investments” are at a higher price than any private investment; otherwise the asset would be sold in the private sector.  Anytime the government or Federal Reserve makes an “investment, they overpay; that’s an indirect bailout/subsidy to the seller.

Technically, TARP was unnecessary.  The Federal Reserve could have bought all the junky assets from banks, overpaying for them.  That would bail out the banks.  That would have been to flagrantly corrupt, but Ben Bernanke could have done that if they wanted it.  That could have been done completely in secret.  In addition to TARP, the Federal Reserve did give massive indirect bailouts to banks, in the form of 0% interest loans and all the other quantitative easing.

The Federal Reserve has no obligation to disclose which bonds were bought from which banks.  The Federal Reserve has no obligation to disclose how much they overpaid for those junky mortgage bonds.  The Federal Reserve has an unlimited budget.  They are only limited by the possibility of hyperinflation and a complete default on the paper dollar.

Suppose that the Federal Reserve loses $100B buying junky mortgage bonds.  Normally, the Federal Reserve turns over any surplus “profit” to the Federal Government.  Via the “negative liabilities” trick, the Federal Reserve deducts any bailout losses from the Federal Reserve’s payments to the Federal government.

The Federal Reserve has an unlimited budget.  The Federal Reserve has the power to print money.  The Federal Reserve is sovereign.  It doesn’t matter if the Federal Reserve loses money bailing out banks.  Ben Bernanke isn’t spending his own personal money.  He’s spending the people’s money, via inflation.  “Quantitative easing” isn’t free.  Everyone pays the price via inflation.  Via the Cantillon Effect, insiders steal via inflation, even if the new money offsets deflation that occurs elsewhere.

If the Federal Reserve loses money buying junky mortgage bonds, that loss goes back to the Federal government.  When the Federal Reserve loans and inflates, that costs the Federal government and the people money.  There is inflation.  The new money goes to banksters and not the government or the people.

Inflation is theft.  Quantitative easing is theft.  “Quantitative easing” is a complex name for a simple idea.  By giving fancy names to evil ideas, State propaganda obscures what is really happening.  “Quantitative easing” really means “We’re printing new money and giving it to our bankster friends.”  For each round of quantitative easing, the details are slightly changed.  This helps obfuscate what is really going on, theft via inflation.

Reader Mail – 09/09/2012 To 09/15/2012

Rick O'Shea commented on node.js Is VB6 - Does node.js Suck?.
How do we take a person seriously who equates being guided to an trough Harvard as some sort of personal defect. I take it you did not get the job that you interviewed for, and perhaps we should be thankful for the child-like rant versus some of the alternatives. It's a common affliction that some of the ignorant and uneducated engage in sour grapes to boost their own egos. So, don't think your unusual.

Harvard MBAs are ruining the economy. An MBA is good at getting appointed CEO of a large corporate bureaucracy. Most MBAs could not build a successful business. An MBA learns how to exploit defects in the State financial system and State economy. An MBA does not have skills that are useful in a really free market.

A Harvard MBA has negative knowledge.

The startup from that interview has already failed. The website still exists, but hasn't been updated in awhile.


oegalex commented on Rise Of Legends - No Patch Server! - v2.5 patch.
so, that's the last patch? I had it and erased it because i tought that it must say 2.5xx. ... then the 0.0704. ... is the last one? redownloading xD

sth_txs commented on Gold In Italy.
Did you ever see the movie In Time?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/

I thought it was a nice analogy to our current monetary system.

I don't watch many movies.

"Branded" is a current film that seems interesting. It's a somewhat updated version of "They Live!".

xyz commented on Gold In Italy.

I think that the only relatively safe investment is a political power because no matter what happens it is always possible to turn things one's way. Look at American political families that are entrenched in the top positions for generations - there is almost no chance that they will ever lose as long as US is in existence. Of course political power is not bulletproof - there is always a chance of fall from power due to conspiracies, coups and revolts.But in any case - political power is probably the safest investment that one may be capable of obtaining.

Some businessmen made a study. They concluded that lobbying is the best investment, with an ROI of 1000%-10000% or more. However, that is only accessible once you're already a multimillionaire.

It also is valuable to have the political connections to get appointed CEO. A CEO lines his pockets at the expense of shareholders.

I don't own any politicians. They're out of my price range. The next best investment is gold and silver, taking physical delivery and hiding it someplace safe.

With the modern State, insiders pass power on to their children more reliably than at any point in history. However, when the State collapses, that will be worthless.

Insiders are getting too greedy. As they increase the rate of theft, they help accelerate the collapse. On the other hand, if the scam is ending soon, why not steal as much as you can in the meantime?

n77000 commented on Gold In Italy.

Thank you, FSK. I agree with you that system may not be able to sustain too many greedy insiders, however look at what happened in the former USSR - the system collapsed but the majority of the people who were in power during communist times remained in power in post-communist Russia. I am not saying that collapse cannot occur - there may different scenarios.

Although gold may be a good investment - it worthless in itself - I think that if the US magically switched to gold standard the power to create money will be moved from Federal Reserve to gold miners. Effectively money supply will simply be controlled by different people. Yes, it is slightly more difficult to create gold than to print the money, however it is not as difficult as one might think. If there was a real necessity to mine a lot of gold then I am sure a technology that enable to do that cost effectively will be there.

Now you're pro-State trolling. Gold has real intrinsic value. It has industrial uses, in computer chips. However, the primary demand for gold is monetary/investment.

Gold/silver is a better medium of exchange than paper, due to the *MUCH* increased difficulty of counterfeiting.

In a really free market, gold and silver and copper would be used as money. If there was a real shortage of gold, people would switch to other metals.

If I had a free choice between metal money and paper, I'd pick metal every time. With paper, you're robbed by inflation. Metal preserves its purchasing power.

There is massive State propaganda for "Gold and silver do not make good money. The free market discredited the gold standard." Real money was not ruined by the free market. It was ruined by the State, by printing more metal-redeemable paper than the metal they had.

If the US government did return to a gold standard, they would do it wrong. They would fix the exchange rate between paper and gold, leading to the same problems as occurred in 1933 and 1971, due to inflation of paper. The only way to have a paper and gold monetary system in parallel is with a floating exchange rate.

Depending on the collapse and the new system, the same insiders may not keep their power. If it's a change to a really free market, insiders' power would be limited to resources they already stole. They wouldn't be able to use a really free market to steal more. If it's a change to another corrupt system, like in the USSR, insiders may keep their power.


n77000 commented on The Best Argument In The World.
I am not entirely convinced that "market anarchism and agorism" will work.

It's a completely different perspective from what you were brainwashed to believe. I've thought about it a lot, and I'm convinced it's the "right" answer.

The biggest threat is the State. They will use violence to maintain their power and steal.

Anonymous Coward commented on The Best Argument In The World.

1) You have the incumbent thieves in government

or

2) You have anarchy, free markets and no government

or

3) You have the anarchists as a new government

How about a rule that to be elected to a government post you need to have worked for 10 years in a non-management job producing real goods and services (not banking or law)?

People get confused between (2) and (3). Historically, when a government falls, (3) is what happens. The people who overthrew the old government become the new government. If government falls via a market anarchist revolt, the new system would be a market anarchist one.

You can't make new rules to patch a corrupt system. Insiders would just find a patsy with 10 years of experience in the "right" industries.


gilliganscorner commented on National Debt - Kicking The Can Down The Road.
Actually, kicking the can down the road does make sense in a different context:

Selling off the unborn as collateral for debts incurred by the State today aka hollowing out the future to fill in the gaps of today.

Voters will not vote for a politican that raises taxes. They want the goodies for free. Government has so many dependant classes that any politician running to cut funding to X group to pay Y or create program Z will immediately have massive incentive to not vote for said politican that threatens their State gravy train. So when governments cry out "austerity" as they try to cut the dependent classes, this means X, Y, and Z vote against each other.

So what is a politican to do? Simple. Sell off the unborn. Offer the unborn US tax cattle as collateral to the Chinese for loans. The money sold abroad is....you.

When the eoonomy is in a boom, the problem is not so obvious as the can *CAN* be kicked down the road. However, when there is a contraction, that can *CANNOT* be kicked that far, if at all.

Inflation doesn't immediately hit all classes of society at once. If it did, it would make the problem of inflation obvious to all. There are ripple effects as the money printed up today takes a while to make its way out to all classes. The people who get their hands on the freshly printed money benefit the most. Those who get that money last suffer the most.

With progressive tax rates and inflation, tax rates increase every year if politicians do nothing. The "Bush tax cuts" were given an expiration date, so politicians can "cut taxes" again after they expire.

Even if you sell the unborn into slavery in exchange for new money, that causes inflation. You're getting real goods and services now, but only make a vague promise of payment later.

This is a common misconception "Via a birth certificate and SSN, politicians and banksters own you." However, you can't get freedom just by refusing a birth certificate or SSN. Even if your parents got you a SSN, that doesn't mean you have to act like a slave.

Politicians treat "citizens" as their property. That's a separate issue from "In a paper monetary system, you can have arbitrary high deficits, financed via inflation."

Inflation is spread unequally. It hurts people with savings (unless it's in physical gold and silver). Inflation benefits people with a mortgage, because the rise in home prices is more than the interest rate on the loan. Inflation slightly benefits people with credit card debt, although the interest rate on credit card debt is close to true inflation.

Inflation benefits insiders, because they get to print and spend new money. Inflation hurts people with savings. Inflation also hurts workers, because salary increases usually don't keep pace with inflation.


Anonymous Coward commented on Software Architects Suck - Never Trust A Software Architect.
What you say is very true.

Years ago I joined a company with Software Architects. Years had gone by and all they had was a pile of silly documentation that didn't make any sense. Their group was only architects writing documentation and no software developers.

When a real software developer joined their group he was horrified. All their documentation produced over several years was meaningless rubbish.

In the end the manager (an ex-software author from IBM) bad-mouthed the Software Architect and he left the company feeling rather pissed off.

Justin commented on Software Architects Suck - Never Trust A Software Architect.

Using the word architect/architecture is one of my many pet peeves about software. Programming and code are not analogous to Architecture and buildings. Believing that is the case leads to all sorts of distortions of reality. The only time "start from scratch" is guaranteed to be an anti-pattern is if it is performed by the same team. I hate the term software "Engineer," as well, its not like traditional engineering. If it is analogous to anything its handmade craftsmanship. Like handmade sculptures, plans are highly useless in this context.

It's even worse for that interview. The "architect" will block the employer from hiring me. I could do the rewrite project by myself in 3-6 months.

If software was like constructing buildings, half the projects would fall or never be completed. You would have missing doors and extra windows and missing stairs.

It's like a shibboleth. On an interview, if someone uses the word "architecture", then I know I'm dealing with someone clueless.


Robert commented on Is It Morally Acceptable To Walk Away From A Mortgage?.
The FED announced annother round of "quantitative easing" this week. Disgustingly, I saw a new term used by the MSM this week, ridiculously referring to the Federal Reserve's pumping more money into the economy as "giving donuts".I have been encouraged by more people who are realizing that a Central Bank credit monopoly is bad for the country. Yet, that anyone can say with a straight face that printing more money, when debt is the biggest cause of our economic woes, is a plausible solution to "fix the economy", shows just how far away the slaves are at understanding basic economics at the very least, and the existance of the biggest evil in their lives at the most.

I'm already planning a draft for "QE3".

"Quantitative easing" is a fnord phrase. If Ben Bernanke said "I'm printing more money and giving it to my bankster friends!", that would be too obviously corrupt. "Quantitative easing" sounds noble and important and helpful.

Robert commented on Is It Morally Acceptable To Walk Away From A Mortgage?.

Yes of course. There was an attack on the US government's ambassador to Libya and his entourage this week. The media said it was a "shocking tragedy". Murder is deplorable, but is the attack all that shocking or surprsing? Mr. "Hope and Change" and "peace loving liberal" Obama mercilessly attacked Libya for many weeks, ruthlessly bombing and shelling that country killng thousands of people. I never consented to those attacks, nor did any other citizen. I can honestly say that I have never actually even met a Libyan citizen. Who are they to me? Who am I to them? I never had a problem with them. Funny how there is almost never an outcry for war and invasion unless the government spends millions of dollars and air time telling us why we should hate another people and how an attack on them is justified. Ghaddafi was a client dictator for decades, I guess until he outlived his usefulness like Hussein. Funny how the most brutal dictators in the world are "friends" of the US government for so long, until there are resources or strategic interests which render them then "terrorists".

The people murdered were spies posing as diplomats. That detail was omitted from most mainstream media coverage.


Anonymous Coward commented on SEO Progress - Ranking For My Own Name.
>However, Google biases its search results, based on your search history. Do other

>people get the same result?

Yes I get the same results.

You can clear your cookies and make sure you are not signed into Google. That will help clear your search history.

You may also want to install a few different web browsers on your computer and try searching with Internet Explorer rather than Firefox. That may help confuse the Google Clowns a bit.

Anonymous Coward commented on SEO Progress - Ranking For My Own Name.

You may also want to search via an anonymizer website. But be careful you don't get one that tries to install nasty stuff.

I do my web surfing on a Virtual PC (Microsoft makes this software free) with Undo disks turned on. So if something nasty infects my computer the changes disappear.

Also any web history is deleted, but browsers allow you to delete that more specifically.

I think you can also changes your MAC address when using a Virtual PC.

I was going to recommend scroogle, but they were blocked by Google!

Even if I don't log in to Google, they can still track me by IP address.

Nathan commented on SEO Progress - Ranking For My Own Name.

Also so you don't get biased search results based on your location or previous search history you can choose private browsing mode. For example in Google chrome its called incognito mode.

Flash Game Design Defect – Action Points

I play a lot of free browser games.  I’ve noticed a serious design flaw in many games, “action points”.

In order to attempt a level, you need to spend action points.  The action points slowly recharge over time.

What’s the problem?  Suppose I have enough action points to play 10 levels.  Then, I’m forced to stop playing until they recharge.  Instead of getting immersed in the game, I’m forced to wait until the action points recharge.

That’s a common flaw in many games, “action points”.  Action points force the player to wait until they recharge.  That’s opposite of the goal, which is for the player to get addicted and keep playing.

SEO Progress – Ranking For My Own Name

According to Google on my PC, I’m now #1 for “realfreemarket” or “real free market” (with or without quotes).  That’s good.  If people search for my blog by its name, they should easily find it.

However, Google biases its search results, based on your search history.  Do other people get the same result?

That’s a good tip, for anyone starting a new website.  Do a Google search for your proposed site name.  Look up the PageRank of the first few results.  If all of them are low (4 or less), then you should be able to get the #1 search result for your own site name.

Also, never do a domain availability check before you’re ready to buy.  I did that for “realfreemarket.com”, and now someone’s squatting it.  It doesn’t matter, because I still outrank them in Google search.  Most people find your domain via a Google search, rather than typing the domain name in the browser.

On some startup interviews, they have a common one word English domain.  Whenever I see that, I know the interviewer is clueless.  They falsely believe that a good domain name is better than a good website.  Any money spent on a domain name is money you didn’t spend building your website.  Never pay more than the minimum registration fee for a new domain.

I’m glad that I’m finally #1 for a Google search of “realfreemarket” or “real free market”.  That makes it easier for people to find my blog, even if I just tell them “realfreemarket.org”.  According to Piwik, some people do search for “realfreemarket”, which presumably means they were looking for my blog.

Is It Morally Acceptable To Walk Away From A Mortgage?

I’ve heard this argument frequently cited “If you own an underwater mortgage, it’s irresponsible to default and walk away from your house.”

A mortgage should be treated like any other business arrangement.  If the contract isn’t working out for you, you should walk away.

The rules vary by state.  In a “recourse” state, your personal assets are also collateral for the mortgage.  If you have $20k in savings, and default on your mortgage, then the mortgage owner can also come after your $20k savings.  In a non-recourse state, your personal assets are not collateral for the mortgage.  That’s mostly a moot point.  Most people won’t default on their mortgage until they’ve exhausted their other savings.

When you default on your mortgage, you don’t get evicted right away.  You may live in your home for free, for months or years until the foreclosure process ends.

A mortgage contract says “You can stop paying, but we get to take your house.”  If your house is worth less than the mortgage, it’s acceptable to default and forfeit the house.

When you bought your home, there was an implicit agreement “The amount I paid is the fair market price.”  Banksters created a housing bubble.  They tricked you into overpaying for your home, by inflating housing prices.  Shame on you for being tricked.  Shame on the bank for lending you money on an overpriced house.

That’s how free markets are supposed to work.  If you lend money to someone who can’t pay, then you are stuck.

It’s also logically inconsistent.  Banksters caused the housing bubble.  They got trillions of dollars of direct and indirect bailouts.  When insiders gamble and lose, they get a bailout.  When non-insiders gamble and lose, they lose their home and your savings.

Why did banksters get bailouts, while individuals lose their homes?

Banksters committed massive mortgage fraud, in the “fraudclosure” scandal.  People were signing mortgage foreclosure paperwork, without even checking it was valid.  Not a single person was prosecuted for perjury, in that massive mortgage paperwork fraud.  However, you’re being irresponsible, if you decide to stop paying a mortgage on an underwater home.

There are two rules, one for insiders and one for everyone else.  When non-insiders are owed money, too bad.  When insiders are owed money, it’s a serious crisis to default.  It’s OK to walk away from an underwater mortgage.  The bank would not hesitate to cheat you.

Software Architects Suck – Never Trust A Software Architect

If someone’s job title is “Software Architect”, that’s a huge red flag. If they add extra adjectives, like “Chief Software Architect”, you are almost guaranteed to be dealing with a highly skilled liar.  In a 10 person business, you have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, if you call yourself “Chief Software Architect”.

Whenever someone calls themself “software architect”, that means “I’m a full-time manager. I write specifications and design documents. It’s beneath me to get my hands dirty and write code.”  This is an excellent arrangement for evil people.  They never have to implement anything, so other people can always be blamed for failure.

A small startup or small business does not need a full-time manager.  The head programmer should also do a lot of implementation.

An unqualified loser likes to spend a lot of time gathering requirements and writing specifications and documentation. That creates the illusion that he’s doing useful work. If you’re writing documentation and not code, you’re never responsible for failure.  Bureaucracy enables unqualified people to pretend they’re accomplishing something.  The software architect adds a lot of paperwork to the software development process, so it seems like he’s doing something useful.

The software architect says “I’m a brilliant leader! I’m managing a 10 person team!” According to sane logic, the value of a manager is the amount and quality of finished product he ships. According to parasite logic, the value of a manager is the number of subordinates. According to parasite logic, it’s better to manage a 10 person team than to manage 2 people and get more done.  It’s better to have 2-3 people delivering working code than having a 10 person team that ships garbage. In software, if you hire the right 2-3 people, they will outperform a team of 10-100+ people.

I went on an an interesting interview. It was a complex but routine bit of financial software. It was complex due to the laws and regulations the software needed to follow. It was routine “convert data from one format to another and do basic arithmetic”, with some customizations added for each customer.

Based on the description of the product, I thought “I could implement this by myself in 3-6 months.” The software architect said “I’ve been working with a team of 5+ people for 2 years. Beta version 1.0, with only 10% functionality, will be done in 6 more months.”

I’ve heard that one before!  The software architect is making excuses and delays, to cover up the fact that he mismanaged the project.  Even if he does eventually finish, it will be at greater cost and lower quality, compared to doing it right.

For my successful rewrite projects, the instructions were “Here’s the source code.  Write a cleaner version with the exact same functionality.  Then, we’ll add improvements.”  I didn’t need to spend a year gathering requirements first.  I read the code, listened to an explanation of the requirements, and then started working.

The software architect said “For the first year, I did nothing but gather requirements.”  Immediately, that’s a huge red flag.  He should have been simultaneously understanding the requirements, and implementing.  It doesn’t take a year to understand the requirements!  If you write self-documenting code, you don’t need a lot of design documents.  The software architect said “I spent a year gathering requirements!”, when he really meant “I spent a year drawing a huge salary, while I created a bunch of paperwork to provide my clueless bosses with the illusion that I was making progress.”

I’ve successfully completed “convert to new language and update” projects many times. I’m confident in my estimate, “I could do this by myself in 3-6 months.” Some people say “Never rewrite!” In this case, the old system was a mess of MS Access, and a rewrite is necessary.  They want to switch from a desktop application to a hosted version, which also requires a rewrite.

The software architect had taken 2+ years for a 6 month project. He still wasn’t done!  The delivery date for beta 1.0 was still 6 months away!  He was planning to finally deliver, albeit a limited partial feature version.  He was proposing that version 1.0 only met 10% of the requirements!

It was a 4 person interview. There was the software architect, another programmer, and the 2 owners. I could see the dynamics. The software architect was thinking “Uh oh! FSK is too smart and experienced! I need to think of excuses for rejecting him!” The owners were thinking “FSK is smart! I should hire him!”

After the interview, the architect will edit the owners’ memories so they will think I was a bad candidate. He’ll emphasize things like “FSK doesn’t have enough ASP.NET experience.” or “FSK doesn’t have enough front-end experience.” When there’s a laundry list of 10+ requirements, there’s always something to nitpick when you want to reject someone.  I have a lot of MS SQL experience, so that was hardly mentioned at all during the interview.  There’s also the classic “bad cultural fit”, when you make excuses for rejecting someone.

It was a classic productive/parasite dynamic. The “software architect” snows the owners with excuses, while he wastes their time and money. He produced a lot of specifications and documentation, but little working code. He managed the owners’ expectations, so that version 1.0 only needs 10% of the features, after 2.5 years!

That happens in nearly every single software business I’ve seen. A highly skilled liar is a manager. He will block any attempt to hire more competent subordinates. He makes excuses to his bosses while wasting money and earning a high salary. That probably happens in every industry, and not just software.

That’s the reason the economy is falling apart. Skilled liars get promoted to management. They won’t hire any competent subordinates, because they’re insecure about their own jobs. Competent rank-and-file workers are needed to get the job done. In a large corporation, the high-ranking management is criminally insane, so evil middle managers are “optimal”.  An honest middle manager would be “a bad cultural fit”.

On that interview, it was a small business. The owners didn’t have the emotional strength to resist a highly skilled liar.  I felt sorry for them, that the software architect wasted their time and money.  Given that the owners were easily manipulated, if they didn’t have that guy robbing them, it would have been someone else.

However, the owners did seem to be reaching their tolerance limit, for the “software architect”. Did they notice he had taken 2+ years, and was only delivering a tiny fraction of the rewrite?

Even if they do fire the software architect, they’ll probably hire another skilled liar, instead of someone competent. Even if the software architect gets fired, he’ll say “I have 5+ years of experience as a software architect!”, and he’ll find another host to leech.

A “software architect” is never expected to code himself, which makes it hard for management to find out he’s a clueless twit.  He can keep a job for years while making excuses to his bosses.  There’s always a subordinate to blame for failure.  When they get ready to fire him for his incompetence, the parasite moves on to another host.

I can see a huge conflict, if they do hire me. The software architect will see me as a threat and competitor, rather than someone who’s there to help. The software architect will say “FSK is not a team player!”, when I point out the mistakes he is making.

The rewrite project is probably a disaster-in-progress. It’s probably better to scrap it and start fresh, rather than try to fix the architect’s mess.  I’m pretty confident in that prediction, even though I haven’t seen their code.

Maybe if the owners reject me, I should propose an alternative? “Hire me to do an independent version of the rewrite. That is a hedge, in case the other team fails. Your only cost is my salary, but you get a 2nd chance to succeed.” Working with the incompetent architect can only lead to conflict.  During the interview, I could see him trying to come up with excuses for rejecting me.

“Software architect” is job role specifically designed for evil people.  All the people I’ve met who called themselves “software architect” were unqualified to write working code themselves.  They can’t get a job implementing, so the only way they can survive is as a full-time manager.  They promote the myth that software projects need an architect, so they can have plenty of victims to fool.

All the “software architects” I’ve met were parasites or psychopaths.  A successful “software architect” hires skilled subordinates, lets them do the work, and takes credit for their efforts.  However, most evil people are not smart enough to do this, seeing the competent subordinate as a threat to their own job.  In a large corporation, middle management must be evil, because the senior management is criminally insane.  In a small business, a highly skilled liar gets a job as a software architect.  He emotionally manipulates the owners, making excuses for delays and failure, while squandering their time and money.

National Debt – Kicking The Can Down The Road

I’ve heard this phrase repeatedly cited, regarding the “national debt”.  It’s called “kicking the can down the road”.  I’ve heard it in the USA, Europe, and other contexts.

“Kicking the can down the road” is a lie.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.

When the government prints money for X, that isn’t free.  The cost is inflation.  The cost is not deferred to the future.  The cost is immediately paid via inflation.

In the USA, the Federal government has a budget deficit.  Politicians raise the national debt limit a little.  A few months later, they have the exact same debate again.  The politicians play a game of chicken with other people’s money.  “Give me what I want, or I’ll ruin this massive extortion racket we both profit from immensely!”

In Europe, many governments are insolvent.  Those governments are given new money and loans, but only enough to last a few more months.  A few months later, the same thing happens again.

In Europe, the bailout money isn’t going to the people.  It’s going to banksters and insiders.  In a corrupt financial system, one of the rules is “A ‘too big to fail’ always gets a bailout.”  By “too big to fail”, politicians really mean “too politically connected to fail”.  If money is directly given to banks, that is too obviously corrupt.  Instead, money is given to the banks’ creditors, and the net effect is the same.

The “crisis” with European government debt is not “OMFG!  These governments are bankrupt!”  The real crisis is “OMFG!  Our bankster friends will be bankrupt, if the government defaults!”

Why is government debt sacred?  Why can’t governments default?  Insiders make a ton of money off government debt.  The only time a government is allowed to default, is when insiders sell and short-sell the debt before the default.

In a paper monetary system, insolvency can always be postponed.  Insiders can always print new paper, and bail out their friends.

The only cost is inflation.  Until hyperinflation occurs, insiders can always print new money and give it to themselves.

Unfortunately, the global financial system is coming dangerously close to hyperinflation.  Insiders think “We just stole $X.  Why not steal $2X?  Why not steal more and more?”

“Kick the can down the road” is a fnord phrase.  It means “We’re printing new money to bail out our friends.  Maybe we won’t do that the next time.  We’ll be responsible eventually.”  They say that each time, and keep doing it.

In a paper monetary system, you can’t “kick the can down the road”.  If new money is printed to finance a bailout, there is an immediate cost of inflation.  There is no free lunch.  The cost is not deferred to the future.  The cost is immediately paid via inflation.  The phrase “kick the can down the road” helps obfuscate what’s happening.

The Best Argument In The World

This post was frequently cited.  It’s called “The Worst Argument In The World”.  The fallacy is “X is sort of like Y.  Therefore, X is Y.”  They cite “Taxation is theft” as an example of that fallacy.  This post was frequently cited by other people, saying “HAHAHA!!  All those people who say ‘Taxation is theft!’ are a bunch of losers!”

On the Internet, I’m noticing more and more hostility towards “Taxation is theft!”  A lot of people are wondering “What is wrong with all these libertarian and anarchist fruitcakes, who are saying that taxation is theft?”  They are getting more frustrated, as the truth is spreading.

The Internet is an important tool.  It enables people to share information outside the State censorship process.  If I were relying on the mainstream media to publish my writing, I would never get any audience.  The Internet enabled me to learn about market anarchism.

In that post, they give a couple of examples of “The Worst Argument In The World”.

  1. Taxation is theft.
  2. Abortion is murder.
  3. Euthanasia is murder.
  4. Genetic engineering of human children is evil.
  5. Evolutionary psychology is sexist!
  6. Affirmative action is racist!

Notice the juxtaposition.  There are five false/misleading things and one correct one.

“Abortion is murder” is the wrong argument.  The correct argument is “Why should I care, if a woman wants to kill her unborn children?”  When the State outlaws abortion, that assumes that the State has a greater claim on children than the mother.  Regarding abortion, the “maximum freedom” answer is “Anyone who wants an abortion should be able to get one.”

“Euthanasia is murder!” is also the wrong argument.  In the “health care” industry, doctors and hospitals make a ton of money off the last few months of a person’s life.  By postponing death a few months, doctors and hospitals make a fortune.  In our society, there’s a lot of media and State hostility towards euthanasia, because that threatens the profits of the State medical cartel.

Via Medicare, most elderly people aren’t paying their own medical bills.  There’s no incentive to cut down on costs.  Health “insurance” is a great way to maximize medical expenses, because nobody is directly paying themselves.

Regarding euthanasia, the “maximum freedom” answer is “It’s OK to help a terminally ill person commit suicide.”

Genetic engineering of children is probably a bad idea.  However, it should not be illegal.

Regarding evolutionary psychology, anything that contradicts the State propaganda regarding gender is considered evil.  If one person says “On average, men are better than women at Math and Computers!”, the retort is “You’re sexist!”

Affirmative action really is racist.  Affirmative action is an attempt to patch a corrupt system, without addressing the underlying problem.  If a college degree is merely a piece of paper that guarantees the holder a good career, then affirmative action is a good idea.  If a college degree is based on merit, then affirmative action is harmful.  It also is harmful to the beneficiary.  If there’s a minority MIT graduate, people may always wonder “Did you only get into MIT because of your skin color?”  It might be better to be an average or above-average student at the #10 ranked school, than to get into the #1 school due to affirmative action, and be one of the weakest students there.

It is misleading to argue about affirmative action.  Affirmative action attempts to fix corruption by adding even more corruption.

Notice the propaganda trick.  Five misleading arguments are lumped together with “Taxation is theft!”  That’s a subtle propaganda trick.  The writer denigrates “Taxation is theft!”, by lumping it together with other arguments.

I know that “Taxation is theft!” is true.  That isn’t the worst argument in the world.  It’s the best argument in the world, and maybe the most important one.

There are lots of arguments for “Taxation is theft!”  I won’t repeat all of them here, but I’ll give a brief review.

  1. Taxation is backed by threat of violence.  If you don’t pay, people with guns will come to kidnap you or steal your property.  If you resist, they will kill you.
  2. When taxes are collected, there is an illusion of due process.  The illusion of due process doesn’t justify the theft.  Politicians make up laws to suit their personal goals.  Bureaucrats and judges enforce the law.  You may even get a “fair” trial, before your property is seized or you are caged.  The bureaucracy and process helps hide the crime.  Each person only plays a tiny role in State evil.  Everyone says “I’m just doing my job.  I’m not responsible for the results.”
  3. As an individual, I do not have the right to rob you.  Therefore, I cannot delegate to the government by voting, the right to steal from you, via taxes.  I cannot authorize the State to rob you on my behalf, because I don’t have that right.
  4. Voting does not justify taxation.  Voting is a fake choice.  As I just mentioned, you can’t authorize people to steal via voting.  An election is a fake choice between two insider-screened candidates.
  5. It’s obviously evil when small groups of people steal.  At what point does it make the transition from “obviously criminal theft” to “government”?
  6. The government we actually have is a massive extortion racket and criminal conspiracy, rather than the protector of individual freedom.

“Taxation is theft!” is a very big idea.  Once you realize that taxation is theft, that leads to a whole bunch of other disturbing questions.

  1. Why doesn’t the mainstream media ever say that “Taxation is theft!”?
  2. Why don’t university professors ever complain that taxation is theft?  Shouldn’t the economics, political science, and philosophy professors mention this as a serious problem?
  3. When I was in school, why didn’t anyone ever teach me that taxation is theft?  (Actually, the opposite is taught, “social contract” as a justification for taxes and the State violence/regulatory/taxation monopoly.)
  4. Why do other people get upset and angry, when I tell them that “Taxation is theft!”?
  5. Without taxes, how do we handle the useful bits of government, such as police and courts and roads?

The answers are very disturbing.

  1. The mainstream media is propaganda for the State and insiders.  They pretend to be advocates for the average guy, while spewing propaganda.
  2. The academic profession has also been captured by the State.  Peer review is censorship.  If a university professor started writing papers on “Taxation is theft!”, he’s calling out his peers as frauds.  He would not get his papers published.  He would not get grant money.  His career would be ruined.  In fact, many PhD students learn “Taxation is theft!”, only so they can ridicule it for being such a stupid wrong idea.  When your profession is a fraud, you must also learn the truth and false arguments for refuting it, lest anyone have deviant ideas.
  3. School’s job is to train people to be obedient slaves, rather than to be truly independent.  People need to be smart enough to work on the next iPhone, but dumb enough to follow the propaganda of politics, taxes, and a corrupt monetary system.
  4. Everyone is at least little crazy.  When you explain “Taxation is theft!”, you’re indirectly saying “Hey!  Didn’t you notice that everyone is crazy, including you?!”  The crime is so big.  It’s a huge mental block to overcome, to realize the truth.  The police don’t need to spy on everyone all the time.  Your friends and relatives will harshly censor you, when you have “non-approved” ideas.  That creates the illusion of State omniscience and omnipotence.
  5. Without a government taxation and violence monopoly, the useful bits would be handled by a really free market.  The correct answer to “How does X happen without government?” is market anarchism and agorism.

That post, “The Worst Argument In The World!” is an interesting bit of propaganda.  It has been widely cited as evidence that “Taxation is not theft!”  The argument “Taxation is theft!” was lumped together with a bunch of false or misleading arguments, as a way to denigrate “Taxation is theft!”  The author is probably a philosophy student or professor.  He can’t admit that his profession is one big fraud, so he attacks the truth.

“Taxation is theft!” is not the worst argument in the world.  It’s actually the best argument in the world.  It’s the most important argument in the world.  Once you understand that taxation is theft, that leads to a lot of other important questions.

Reader Mail – 09/02/2012 To 09/08/2012

Crawford commented on About FSK.
Gold under performs real inflation. How do you beat inflation?

By definition, the return of physical gold exactly equals real inflation. For me, this is a definition, because gold is money. If you look at silver, silver tracks gold pretty closely.

If you invest in a gold ETF, you have loss due to management fees and the risk of being Corzined. If you hide gold in your home, you have the risk of being robbed.

The stock market underperforms gold.

With real estate, property taxes are a drag on returns.

If you start a business, taxes and regulations are a drag on your returns.

Unfortunately, gold is the best investment, with a 0% inflation-adjusted return. The economy is so corrupt that all other opportunities are worse.

In a real free market, there would be investments with a real return of 1-3%. There are no such investments in the present, due to a corrupt economy and corrupt financial system.


JonJon commented on node.js Is VB6 - Does node.js Suck?.
How can anyone write about a new framework or programming paradigm without having tested it, or used it for its preferred use cases? I guess someone arrogant and lazy enough to think he knows it all without putting in the necessary time and effort.

In the end it all comes down to curiosity and open mindedness, as well as an understanding of where the web is going: Mobile location aware always connected with live feed and messaging.

Obviously the guy who wrote this article is old school and has no need for things like nodejs. If he's an aging programmer, I hope his bad attitude (lazy, lack of desire to experiment, adverse to new tech, judgmental ) won't affect employers perception of older programmers.


Anonymous Coward commented on Craigslist Submittable Scam.
> Normally, I don’t call out an scummy ad or interview by name.

I usually don't mention specifics either, but I think the worse interview experience I had was at Microsoft UK in Reading.

Two weeks after the interview, I had a phone call from their Human Resources woman. She asked me if I wanted the interview feedback. Foolishly I agreed.

The interview process was somewhat lengthy. Before the interview I had to submit 3 programming solutions by email. After that I had to write another short program on an internet whiteboard.

As the interview was in Reading at 9am, I think I had to wake up around 5am in the morning to make sure I got there in time.

Each interview typically asked me 2 programming questions per interview.

By 5:30pm I was getting tired. I didn't see answering yet another programming question would add anything.

Anyway the manager asked me a question. I was getting tired. The manager then started typing loudly on his laptop keyboard. It just broke my concentration and I stopped then and there. I thought the question was too large to be answering on a whiteboard anyway.

So the interview ended.

**** The Human Resources woman told me the manager said I WAS TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THAT I HAD GOT THE LAST QUESTION OF THE DAY WRONG ****

That is just plain nasty and offensive feedback. You don't attend an interview to be abused like that.

Anonymous Coward commented on Craigslist Submittable Scam.

Another disappointing interview I had was at Microsoft Dynamics in Denmark.

It was disappointing because I was rejected for getting one question wrong, when in fact I got it exactly correct.

I said my correct answer. Then the manager said he was in a hurry as he had someone else to interview. He then rephrased the answer I had just said out loud. That was it.

I guess he wasn't paying attention or he was looking for an exact word match to his prepared answer.

As the interview was in a foreign country and there was pre-interview telephone conversations and problems and I had to make preparations first, the whole interview process probably occupied 4 days of my time.

I wasn't rejected straight away. After my interview with the manager - in which I GOT EVERY SINGLE ANSWER CORRECT, I had two more interviews. The last one of these was particularly difficult. I slaved away and got the correct answer on the whiteboard.

Then I was told I was rejected because I had got one question wrong in my third from last interview (in fact I got it right). So why did I have to go through answering more monstrous questions?

Just a whole waste of time. I suspect I was rejected because I am a bit older and wiser and experienced and the manager didn't want any competition or anyone that would be a threat in any possible way.

If they had rejected me for an HONEST reason I wouldn't have had a problem.

But how nasty? I got the question absolutely correct, but the manager couldn't be bothered to listen to my correct answer. A waste of 4 days of my life!


mark stolzoff commented on The Onion Leaks The Truth.
that's what you got from that? might want to take a second look at who the idiot is

This is a very important point. If you join the military, you are risking your life for nothing. The mainstream media repeats the lie "Soldiers are heroes!" over and over again.

mark stolzoff commented on The Onion Leaks The Truth.

So a Paycheck, College Money & Healthcare for life are now nothing?

If you commit crimes for a paycheck, you are a criminal.

Crawford commented on The Onion Leaks The Truth.

I am seeing a friend again today, who served for 3 years in the military. He was discharged for medical reasons four years ago. His story is sad and long. So I will just say one thing about his story. He knew 26 soldiers who committed suicide. Some of them during the war, some after they were discharged, and some in the VA hospital. I don't know what to think or say about it. Maybe Marlon Brando said it best..."The horror...The horror."

For that reason, joining the military is a bad idea. You're risking your life for nothing. If you do survive, you might have your life ruined by the incompetent "mental health" industry.


Arthur commented on Rise Of Legends - No Patch Server! - v2.5 patch.
I downloaded the file, but I don't know what to do with it. I tried to open the file RoL_Patches.7z from the link on this page that goes to realfreemarket.org and my Windows 7 asks me what program I want to use to open the file. Is this file zipped or compressed? What's going on with it? How do I install the twelve-or-so patches to my Rise of Legends game? Can someone help me?

7zip, open source.

Many people are switching from "classic zip" to 7zip format, because 7zip gives better compression rates.

Once you unzip it, follow the instructions.

It turned out that the DVD I bought already included the v2.5 patch! After all that, I didn't need it!

From the readme:

>The way you know if you succeeded is if your version number on the game's main menu says 0.0704.1001.0000 instead of 0.0604.1602.0000


Everyman commented on Better Than "Atlas Shrugged" - "Alongside Night" And "A Lodging Of Wayfaring Men".
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 will be in theaters October 12th, 2012.

Anonymous Coward commented on Better Than "Atlas Shrugged" - "Alongside Night" And "A Lodging Of Wayfaring Men".

> In a sense, productive workers are giving up. In many jobs, it makes no difference

> if you are highly skilled.

I have found that working long hours and writing high quality software simply did not get me a better salary, nor did it provide any substantial job security.

Time and time again I worked hard and made the right decisions, only to get screwed over.

gilliganscorner commented on Better Than "Atlas Shrugged" - "Alongside Night" And "A Lodging Of Wayfaring Men".

"When you base your philosophy on a dead person, that’s a serious problem. Your ideas are frozen, based on what the idol said. Ayn Rand is dead. I can’t ask her what she thinks of agorism. Even if she were alive and ridiculed it, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

Just because a philosopher might be dead, doesn't mean adopting said philosophy or parts of it is a serious problem. Ayn Rand couldn't see the world without a State. She hadn't arrived at the NAP (non-agression principle) and respect for property rights applicable to all, everywhere, at all times. If she did, then it would logically follow the State is immoral as it cannot exist without violating these two principles while those who the state rules are expected to adhere to them. Government tolerates no competition in fleecing the people.

Just because Ayn Rand is not alive and did not ridicule agorism, doesn't mean agorism is a good idea. Rationally consistent ideas that are testable and repeatable are valid regardless of who said them, alive or dead. Hitler can utter an idea and it might be valid, despite the fact the man was a monster.

What I find amusing is most pro-State trolls denigrate Rand's work without addressing the arguments she put forward at all. Just empty derision, sneering, and ad-hominem attacks.

In order to teach people, they have to have the capcity for learning. This capacity is usually thwarted via the biases and bigorty of parents, government schools, and media. When expressing an idea to people is true, they evaluate that idea in the context of their current relationships with others and the costs of adopting that idea into their own lives. For example:

1) If a religious person becomes an atheist, all of their relationships with their current religious friends or family would suffer, experience hosttility or aggression, and possibly even death.

2) If a miltary person became anti-military where they come from a family that has strong miltary history within it, how would this person fare? Would they be Pat Tillmaned?

Rand was brilliant. However, I do not dote on her work and her work alone. It was simply a lookout on the road to the journey of freedom.

You misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm referring people who exclusively follow Ayn Rand exactly. Did you ever go to an "Objectivist" meeting? I did once, in grad school, and it was like a crazy religious cult.

It's OK to use part of Ayn Rand's philosophy and parts of other things.


Robert commented on A Common Myth - The Federal Reserve Earns A Profit For Taxpayers And The Government.
Hey Fsk, this is completely off topic from this post but I wanted to get your insight on this. I watched some of this movie tonight with Jennifer Lopez called "The Back-up Plan", in which Lopez is a woman who, for some inexplicable reason as an attractive woman at a young age, opts for artificial insemination. She becomes pregnant by the procedure, and then meets a guy and begins a romance with him. They have the usual romantic comedy style courting scenes, filled with laughter and anecdotes, and then post-coitus she tells him she is pregnant by another man. After maybe ten seconds of his shock and initial resistance to the reality of the situation, they play some sappy music and that very night he shows up at her door and they are in bed spooning with his hand on her belly. Everything is right in the universe, because the sappy music and fade up camera shot lets us know that. For the next hour the guy goes on dates with Lopez, she throws up constantly, he positions her side sleeping pillow on the bed, and dotes after her in every way. I could write an essay on this I really could. But long story short, The guy ends up marrying her and surprise! It's twins! lol. Jesus Christ dude. I don't have a problem with in-vitro if there is no cold storage of embryos and it's with a couple amongst themselves where the guy is the "donor". What I do have a problem with is the double standard in every second of this film. Why is it politically correct for the guy to just bend over and take care of Lopez and not one but TWO babies by another man? And why did she need to get that procedure anyway, as an attractive woman at a young age? Maybe she is a pain in the ass or crazy, who knows? But that part is conveniently left out. The movie cuts in after the fact, and the only real drama in the story is whether or not the guy will make nice and "be a good guy" and stay with her. Which of course he does and it's a nice happy ending. I am not defending guys out there who are ass holes by any means, but why do women who are ass holes get a mulligan, and support from the media and State?? Why isn't the same standard applied across the board? I've worked my ass off since I was working fast food at 16, finished school, have worked in my field for 12 years and have a good career that I have earned, am a reasonably good looking guy, I think I am a good and peaceful man, and I have feelings and want a good woman to be loyal and loving to me. Why am I less deserving? Why are my feelings less important? I'm not losing sleep over it or anything, it just seems odd.

You need to learn some Game.

Chateau Heartiste

Roosh

Red Pill Room

Rational Male

Dalrock

There are plenty of others. Follow their blogrolls.

I'm no Game expert. However, they do have some useful points. I don't agree with every aspect of the Game blogs. As usual, it's a mixture of good advice and bad advice.

Some points:

* Divorce law is biased against men. You can get married, but CHOOSE CAREFULLY. Unless your wife really respects you as the leader, you may be frivolously divorced.

* If your wife gets pregnant via another man, you're legally responsible for the child as if he was your own. Even after a failed paternity test, you're still liable for the kid.

* Women don't need to get married. The State can support them via welfare or child support. The "advantage" of being a hardworking honest guy is taken away via the State. Why should a woman choose her partner carefully, when she can get supported via welfare?

* Until you get married, pursue multiple women. That limits disappointment and frustration, when one of them flakes out on you.

* Because women are promiscuous, they have an inflated sense of their own attractiveness. A '5' woman can get a one night stand with an '8'. This makes her think she's really worth an '8'. She'll ignore the '5' guys at her own level, because she thinks she can get an '8'.

* The Game blogs mention "negs", which is randomized negative feedback. That is better than the wishy-washy feedback most "abused productive" men give. The correct answer is to give negative feedback when she does something negative. For example, if you try talking to a woman and she ignores you to talk to her friends, walk away.

* Many State jobs, such as HR, social worker, and bureaucrat, enable women to have high-status jobs even though they produce nothing useful. This comes at the expense of hardworking men, who pay higher taxes to support these fake careers.

Everyone is at least a little crazy. If there were some sane women, they would realize that the honest and hardworking men are a good deal. However, they are too crazy to realize this.

Back to that movie, I didn't watch it. Notice "artificial insemination" as a fnord. That gives the woman the moral high ground. If she had gotten knocked up by another guy before dating the chump, he would obviously be a loser.

Any sane man would dump his girlfriend, once he discovered she was pregnant with another man's child. However, that doesn't serve the State propaganda goal.

You're an idiot if you get engaged to a woman who already has children. You're spending a lot of your own money and energy on someone else's child.

That's a common fnord in the mainstream media. It's desirable to take care of other men's children.

We live in a society of inverted values. An honest hardworking guy is not respected in our society. Women have correctly determined that honest men are losers, and avoid them.

Also, via the Welfare State, you already are supporting other people's children! Women don't need to marry you to get your wealth. They can get it via the State! Some other guy is being irresponsible and getting women pregnant, and you're paying the bill while you're by yourself!

Anonymous Coward commented on A Common Myth - The Federal Reserve Earns A Profit For Taxpayers And The Government.

Your blog post and reply are interesting. I have learned from you.

What you say agrees with Ann Barnhardt.

Search for "Permanently Disqualified From Everything Part 2" on http://barnhardt.biz/

Unfortunately her blog posts can't be individually linked.

The post starts with

As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, ...

I get annoyed when people use a blog engine that doesn't allow direct links to a specific post. If you aren't smart enough to set up your blog properly, I'm not wasting my time reading.

Gold In Italy

This story is interesting.  In Italy, economic conditions are very bad.  People are selling gold jewelry.

Gold is a store of value.  No matter what the economic conditions, gold preserves its purchasing power.

Most of these people are selling gold jewelry and family heirlooms.  They don’t have large hoards of gold.

If you do have a large hoard of physical gold, you are at risk of being robbed.  If you use the State financial system, you also risk being robbed.  There is no safe investment.

At every opportunity, State comedians spread propaganda against gold.  When times get tough, gold reserves help people survive.