ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

A masterpiece in progress

Professor Steve Keen, aka The Greatest Living Economist, has graciously permitted me to quote some of the very first words from his Principles of Political Economy, which Castalia House will be publishing sometime in the next five years:
The True Father of Economics

Labor without Energy is a Corpse;
Capital without Energy is a Statue

Economics went astray from the very first sentence of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations in 1776:

“The annual labour of every nation”, Smith asserted, “is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always, either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.”

This paragraph mimicked the structure, and even the cadence (though not the brevity), of the opening sentence of Richard Cantillon’s 1730 treatise Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (which Smith read). However, Smith made one crucial substitution: he asserted that “Labor … is the fund” from which our wealth springs, whereas Cantillon asserted that it was Land:

“Land”, Cantillon began, “is the source or matter from which all wealth is drawn; man’s labor provides the form for its production, and wealth in itself is nothing but the food, conveniences, and pleasures of life.”

Both these assertions are strictly false. The true source of the wealth that humanity has generated from production is neither Labor nor Land, but the Energy that humanity’s production systems harness and turn into useful work (now known as “Exergy”). However, Smith’s assertion is irredeemably false, whereas Cantillon’s merely needs generalization to make it consistent with the fundamental laws of the universe known as the Laws of Thermodynamics.

These Laws are still poorly known by economists, which in part explains why economic theory has managed to be in conflict with them for so long. Illustrating why this is so, and why it is crucial, will take time and effort on your part to understand them (if you do not already). But the fact that no theory that contradicts them can be taken seriously was stated eloquently by the physicist Arthur Eddington in his 1928 book for lay readers The Nature of the Physical World:

The law that entropy always increases—the second law of thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observations—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

On this undeniable basis, the only pre-2016 economic theory of production which does not have to “collapse in deepest humiliation” is that of Richard Cantillon and the School to which he belonged, the Physiocrats.
That's right. Steve Keen is taking economics all the way back to Cantillon and building upon that as a much stronger foundation! Now do you understand why I am so enthusiastic about a book that isn't even written yet? This is exactly the sort of book that Castalia House was founded to publish.

Labels: ,

116 Comments:

OpenID franklinfreek December 07, 2017 1:09 PM  

I don't read much by economists, and have always just assumed that creation and utilization of energy was at the root of everything humans do.

Err, you mean, this is not normal thinking?

Sometimes being an engineer gives you a weird worldview.

Anonymous VFM #6306 December 07, 2017 1:14 PM  

Great Scott! (figuratively, only, of course. The Scot Smith missed greatness by an order of magnitude.)

This issue has been eating at me for 30 years or so.

Thank God for Steve Keen. This is absolutely remarkable, and it is just the preamble.

And thanks be to Castalia House for snagging it.

Anonymous GM December 07, 2017 1:21 PM  

I. Can't. Wait.

Blogger Rashadjin December 07, 2017 1:21 PM  

Color me intrigued.

And I may barely know my left from my right when it comes to economics, but that only means that I get to be bewildered that no modern economic model is energy based.

Seriously? I can understand why Smith and Cantillon were drunk on that point, but FFS modern civ, anyone with a passing grasp on physics understands that energy makes the world go round (shhh with your orbital mechanics and conservation of energy).

I guess this explains why so many don't instantly realize why 'green energy' is asking for economic stagnation and doom.

Anonymous Austrian Economist December 07, 2017 1:21 PM  

When will you condemn Trump pushing an economic plan right out of 1930s Germany? Or is attacking “Jewish bankers” and pushing trillion dollar infrastructure now considered free market? Don’t forget Trump’s defense of Medicare and social security during the campaign, socialist programs!!

Blogger James Dixon December 07, 2017 1:21 PM  

> Sometimes being an engineer gives you a weird worldview.

You think? :)

But back to the subject of the book: If he succeeds in reaching his goals, while I can't say I expect the commercial success for this book that some of your other books have had, I do think it may be the most important of all of them. Hopefully it'll be adapted as a college textbook eventually.

Blogger Dave December 07, 2017 1:22 PM  

I'd like to see another Brainstorm in the next quarter to get Mr. Keen's take on the state of the US economy. Will we attain 4-6% GDP?

How optimistic is publishing within 5 years?

Blogger Salt December 07, 2017 1:25 PM  

Not sure where he's going with this, but I am intrigued.

Blogger S1AL December 07, 2017 1:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Resident Moron™ December 07, 2017 1:27 PM  

!The true source of the wealth that humanity has generated from production is neither Labor nor Land, but the Energy that humanity’s production systems harness and turn into useful work (now known as “Exergy”)."

I'd offer a slightly different formulation. The capacity for physical labour, ownership of land, possession of financial reserves, the energy bound up in and suffusing all these things; none of these things are resources in and of themselves.

Nothing is a resource until a human mind constructs a use for it. Absent nuclear technology, for example, uranium is just a rock. Only when human minds construct nuclear power or weapons does it become an economic and strategic resource.

In the 1800's land-owners couldn't sell their land, couldn't even give their land away because it had oil in it. Until human minds began constructing an oil-based economy on the foundations of oil-burning technology.

So my position is that the only actual resource of which humans know, outside of the mind of God, is the human mind.

That's why education is so vital to the success and longevity of any culture, that's why education is the most critically effective solution to any problem.

That's why abortion is directly parallel to ancient pagan child sacrifice; it's a suicidally stupid practice, a cannibal's equivalent to eating your seed-corn.

Blogger S1AL December 07, 2017 1:27 PM  

It appears to me that this is less a dispute of definition than it is of focus. Cantillon is addressing the natural source, Smith the method, and Keen the question of effectiveness. While Keen's cuts closest to the issue of utility, this doesn't make the other two incorrect by necessity.

Smith's definition is also odd. He calls it labor, but defines it as product.

(corrected for readability typos)

Anonymous No names, thank you. December 07, 2017 1:29 PM  

Economics, you say? There is supply and demand. There is Gresham's Law: bad coin drives good out of the market for the simple reason that it is human nature to spend the scraped coins and hoard the unaltered ones.

All else is blind men in a dark room talking about a black cat that isn't there. No exceptions.

Anonymous Xpot December 07, 2017 1:32 PM  

>>That's why abortion is directly parallel to ancient pagan child sacrifice; it's a suicidally stupid practice, a cannibal's equivalent to eating your seed-corn.

Imagine how many “Black Einsteins” get aborted in Apefrica.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera December 07, 2017 1:47 PM  

This is going to be like crack to Koanic. All it needs is a WW2 tie-in, or maybe a discussion of CRISPR-bred neanderthal supersoldiers.

The sperg must flow.

Anonymous Steve Canyon December 07, 2017 1:48 PM  

I'm not a reader of Sci-Fi/Fantasy, though I do recommend those Castalia House titles to my friends that do. I am eagerly awaiting the publishing of this book and will purchase when it comes out and hope there are further offerings in both economics as well as military strategy/history in the future.

Blogger Cloom Glue December 07, 2017 1:49 PM  

Keep in mind, Wealth of Nations was published 1776 and the exergy of steam engines was 1712 for not more than just water pumping, and waterways were harnessed for milling.

Later there is "half as much coal" and "rotary motion", mentioned here. Those are exergy too, but barely before Adam Smith:

The next major step occurred when James Watt developed (1763–1775) an improved version of Newcomen's engine, with a separate condenser. Boulton and Watt's early engines used half as much coal as John Smeaton's improved version of Newcomen's. ...

Watt proceeded to develop his engine further, modifying it to provide a rotary motion suitable for driving factory machinery. This enabled factories to be sited away from rivers, and further accelerated the pace of the Industrial Revolution.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Steam_engine
https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Wealth_of_Nations

Blogger Rashadjin December 07, 2017 1:49 PM  

@S1AL

...Keen the question of effectiveness. While Keen's cuts closest to the issue of utility, this doesn't make the other two incorrect by necessity.


Ehhh, I think you're missing the point a bit. All human ecenomic activity can be modeled under the expenditure of energy. Humans are no different than machines in this system, with past economic advances being about efficiency of human labor while slowly adding in other sources of energy (animal labor, ICE, electricity).

We've reached the tech tipping point where human labor(energy utilization) is becoming obsolete, so economic output or capability should turn to the Exergy concept to better reflect the underlying reality of economics. The side benefit is that shell games with currency and capital valuations become harder to pull off when measuring a country's output and health.

Blogger Thucydides December 07, 2017 1:58 PM  

I can understand why natural philosophers in the 1700's would believe that labour or land were the foundations of economies, in a very real sense they were, and the idea of "energy" had not been rigorously formulated yet (the Laws of Thermodynamics, Carnot's Law, etc.)

Now that I think of it, the late Jerry Pournelle had a similar insight in his "Survival with Style" series of essays collected in "A Step Farther Out" (side note; if you are reissuing "There will be War", can you also see if you can get the rights and reissue "A Step Farther Out" as well?).

Perhaps the problem with seeing this is while agricultural economies are very demonstrably tied to the supplies of land and labour, industrial economies (especially modern ones) are less clearly tied to energy. By this, I mean most people, even ones working in factories, don't see the source of their energy, nor are line workers or consumers really capable of calculating the "energy price" embedded in goods and services. Modern supply chains make this even less intuitive, subassemblies appear on the loading dock, but few people will be aware of the costs associated in making and transporting them.

Heck, I read "A Step Farther Out" years ago and the insight in the OP still smacked me in the head. Sometimes the truths are hidden right out in plain sight in front of everyone....

Anonymous DissidentRight December 07, 2017 1:59 PM  

We've reached the tech tipping point where human labor(energy utilization) is becoming obsolete

Now it makes sense. Holy cow.

Blogger VD December 07, 2017 2:09 PM  

All else is blind men in a dark room talking about a black cat that isn't there. No exceptions.

You're WAY too short for this ride.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 07, 2017 2:13 PM  

It's a good starting place for Prof. Keen, but he's still got at least another level to go deeper. Which means he's going to make mistakes along the way.

That's not a joke. I actually sent Vox an email (Nov 17, 2017) with where this goes deeper, so at least no one can say I was cribbing off Prof. Keen. (And if a few of the regulars here would give me some responses to emails I sent, I'd also have even further revisions.) He's going to run into problems because he's going to be too vague on the Nature of Energy and all of its outcroppings that result.

Blogger James Dixon December 07, 2017 2:13 PM  

> That's why education is so vital to the success and longevity of any culture, that's why education is the most critically effective solution to any problem.

And that's why government control of education is an extremely bad idea.

Anonymous Isidore the Farmer December 07, 2017 2:17 PM  

Hmm. I would read this bokk.

Anonymous vfm #0202 December 07, 2017 2:18 PM  

We find available energy (donated in the first place by hot photons delivered to a cool Earth) as we can, and use it to do work, to drive entropy back, here and there, for a little while, producing unlikely outcomes.

This unlikeliness (such as an un-oxidized piece of iron, a living body, a charged battery, a full granary, ...) is basically information.

The expenditure of available energy is necessary to do this, and therefore valuable at second hand.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 07, 2017 2:20 PM  

Prof. Keen will likely produce a great take-down of all current Economics that isn't tool set optimization approaches. He's also going to come to the realization that "macro-economics" actually doesn't exist, though I'm not sure if he's there yet.

He's going to run into problems on "Energy" because I'd get the impression from this that he doesn't quite understand how different of a concept it will be. He also might not realize, yet, that this goes much, much deeper. Properly understood, it's much closer to Grand Unification Theory than it is classical Economics.

Blogger S1AL December 07, 2017 2:23 PM  

@Looking Glass -

You're referring to the fact that all wealth is situational, and that a proper understanding of delta-T economics, accounting for entropy, is a truly Herculean task?

Blogger Matt Robison December 07, 2017 2:25 PM  

Interesting. The book The Windup Girl understood this connection, I think. In a world without fossil fuels, it was more reliant on human labor to crank mechanical springs and such. Everything was measured by caloric input and output. The major food companies were called Calorie Companies.

Blogger Resident Moron™ December 07, 2017 2:27 PM  

"And that's why government control of education is an extremely bad idea."

Indeed it is.

Blogger RobertT December 07, 2017 2:27 PM  

This may be an economics book I would actually read. The only econ book I ever read is VD's. Generally like eating cardboard.

Blogger Rashadjin December 07, 2017 2:34 PM  

@Looking Glass

The issue I see with energy-based models is that energy doesn't actually matter, pragmatically speaking, if there's no raw materials, or easily used raw materials, to work with.

That doesn't invalidate energy-based models, just creates a wrinkle given our ability to e=mc2 is limited.

The standard definition of Exergy doesn't quite account for that wrinkle either. Hmmmm.... Still, a long needed step forward in economics if the gist of the state of modern economics is correct.

Also, I'm not sure what more there's to cover on the Nature of Energy that Exergy doesn't package in.

Blogger ODG December 07, 2017 2:36 PM  

Amazing. I'm actually looking forward to reading a book about economics!

Anonymous Looking Glass December 07, 2017 2:36 PM  

@26 S1AL

"Wealth" would be a relativistic measure set within a culture and based on mutual assumptions about "Value". The analysis perspective of all Macro-Economic theory is simply off by large degrees, since they can't account properly for most actions.

More bluntly, Macro doesn't exist. At all. It's 20+ disciplines we put together to claim we know what's going to happen in the future, or claim why something happened in the past. It uses so many vague proxies that we produce numbers with no relevance to reality.

Micro-Economics does, however, exist. It is a collection of Optimizations of currently established Assumptions & Actions. It's a bit more advanced than just "abusing the rules" of a Game better, but the actual approach is pretty much the same. It's part of the *reason* games are so appealing. Humans have deep instincts for optimization, because it helps keep you alive.

And, yes, I'm sitting here talking about fundamentally reinventing economics because I've been working on it randomly the past few months. I'm also of the conclusion that economists are mostly idiots, don't know what they're doing or "the brightest minds" have always been rather closed minded in general.

Definitions and categorization matters. No one is actually careful, and that's what messes them up.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 07, 2017 2:39 PM  

"wealth in itself is nothing but the food, conveniences, and pleasures of life"


ah.

i knew i couldn't be the first to the idea that 'Useful, Excess Production' is what truly constitutes Wealth.

Blogger Resident Moron™ December 07, 2017 2:42 PM  

Not useful, saleable.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 07, 2017 2:46 PM  

@30 Rashadjin

The real problem is the Static vs Dynamic models. Everyone assumes Static. Nothing is Static. Nothing. That's the reason I said Prof. Keen has at least a few levels to go. It's also why getting to the core of "economics", however defined, requires building half a model for Grand Unification Theory.

This isn't a joke. I figured out the key aspects a few months ago, it's just taken time to harmonize the work. I may be +6 SD and have multiple advanced degrees. And this stuff has been hard to wrap my head around after I figured it out, but, man, does it explain a lot.

Anonymous glosoli December 07, 2017 2:51 PM  

Business cycle = solar cycle.

Jehovah's jubilee, every 49 years, 1933, 1982, 2031. You can go back to 1730, and no doubt beyond that, til biblical times.

Steve Keen may be the greatest economist ever. If he doesn't get the above, he's still as bad as the rest.

Blogger S1AL December 07, 2017 2:52 PM  

@Looking Glass -

Sounds like we're looking at it similarly. I think, though, that you're talking about a point where the model is too complex to be useful in the vast majority of cases.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 07, 2017 3:00 PM  

1. franklinfreek December 07, 2017 1:09 PM
Err, you mean, this is not normal thinking?


as i've pointed out before, Economists don't believe in Friction or 2nd Thermo either.

that's how they get away with pretending that Debt has no deleterious effects on an Economy.

ah, i see Steve covers this. i need only read to the bottom of the quote.


10. Resident Moron™ December 07, 2017 1:27 PM
Nothing is a resource until a human mind constructs a use for it.


agreed.

and nothing is ( truly ) a useful Product until a Man consumes it.

take me back to 0 AD with a modern fishing trawler. i real in 5 tons of fish.

of what use is the vast majority of the haul? no one else on the planet has refrigeration technology. no one else on the planet has transportation systems necessary to deliver the catch to market.

my village might eat for a week. perhaps a month or two if they start curing the fish.

but after the first week they're going to curse me because we have 4 tons of fish rotting in the village.

i have made Production which would appear to be rational ... but it was hardly useful. the village will spend more time disposing of the rotting fish carcasses than they would have if they had just all gone out and fished for themselves on a daily or weekly basis.


10. Resident Moron™ December 07, 2017 1:27 PM
That's why education is so vital to the success and longevity of any culture


also Intelligence and Wisdom.

you can educate someone with a 70 iq all you want, they're never going to comprehend Euclidean Geometry.

Blogger VD December 07, 2017 3:01 PM  

I may be +6 SD and have multiple advanced degrees.

A post about a forthcoming groundbreaking work inspires a random guy to multiple comments about what a fabulous, special snowflake he is.

I scent a familiar aroma....

I suggest you stop the grand posturing until you've written your book, Looking Glass. If it's as groundbreaking as you claim, we'll be happy to publish it. Until then, shut the fuck up and respect your betters.

Anonymous Looking Glass December 07, 2017 3:06 PM  

@37 S1AL

First-phase fundamentals always are. That's fine. It took decades and 100s of billions of dollars to get a computer from a theoretical concept to something to hold in your hand. But, once properly defined, you can start being explanatory, even before you become able to operate mathematical approaches.

What I can tell you, at this point, just explains a lot of historical truisms at a much deeper level. Weaponry, Energy Extraction, Energy Transport, Mining, Processing, Manufacturing and Food are always key places to be. And they always will be key places to be. That will never change. (That isn't investment advice, at that's multiple-levels above what I'm talking about at the moment.)

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 07, 2017 3:10 PM  

34. Resident Moron™ December 07, 2017 2:42 PM
Not useful, saleable.



i'm talking about Wealth, not the Economic system in which it exists.

Wealth doesn't require an Economy at all.

let's say that i was an orphan who became one of Job's herdsmen. Job is wise, intelligent, industrious and well respected at the gates of the city.

but he doesn't pay me in coin, he pays me in kind. he feeds, clothes and houses me. and, for my station, i am finely clothed, i am warm at night and well fed. perhaps i even have some animals of my own.

am i 'Poor'? even though i have no silver or gold at all? Job's family and my fellow servants generate practically all of my material needs and i produce for them.

Venezualans have plenty of money. but they're breaking into the zoos and slaughtering the exhibit animals because the people starve.

and, whatever else you might think, Oil is quite saleable.

Blogger Lazarus December 07, 2017 3:11 PM  

Looking Glass wrote:I'm also of the conclusion that economists are mostly idiots, don't know what they're doing or "the brightest minds" have always been rather closed minded in general.



Is debt relevant or irrelevant to economic theory?

Anonymous SAK December 07, 2017 3:12 PM  

That is such an interesting start to a book. It looks like it could be a an exhilarating intellectual ride that teaches something of depth and worth that is new. I hope he pulls it off.

I certainly have to get a copy of Debunking Economics now.

Blogger Koanic December 07, 2017 3:21 PM  

> This is going to be like crack to Koanic.

He's correct so there's nothing to say.

> because he's going to be too vague on the Nature of Energy

It's not energy, it's syntropy. By which I mean the exact opposite of entropy in the physics sense. Sunlight has syntropy because it's orderly.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 07, 2017 3:24 PM  

This book will be panned or ignored by economists world-wide.

Anyone whose life work is debunked in an intro thermodynamics course is not going to accept that everything they've learned, written and taught to date is meaningless drivel.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 07, 2017 3:24 PM  

44. Koanic December 07, 2017 3:21 PM
Sunlight has syntropy because it's orderly.



and the Sun is more orderly than the light which it emits.

that's basic Physics Information Theory.

Anonymous RJ December 07, 2017 3:29 PM  

"I'm also of the conclusion that economists are mostly idiots, don't know what they're doing or "the brightest minds" have always been rather closed minded in general."

Most modern economists are idiots, because grad schools force out any bright students who don't toe the Neo-Keynesian line. And god forbid you find a flaw or three in the mainstream economic models/theories...

Anonymous Looking Glass December 07, 2017 3:30 PM  

@42 Lazarus

Depends how you define "economic theory". The starting problem is we've expanded "economics" to mean so many things that it is both Yes & No at the same time. That's the problem with the "Mighty Men and their Models" we have now.

So, in the strict-sense, yes it definitely matters in any semi-closed system where you can't run away from the Debt. So in anything but a "Nature State", Hobbesian sense, Debt definitely matters.

In a more "grand" theory, it wouldn't. What does the debts of Ancient Babylon have effect on today? What about the debt of the Confederate States of America? The Union went, "nope, not our problem!" and that was, mostly, the end of it. "Debt" requires power of enforcement, so it wholly will depend on assumptions of the system.

That was amazingly lawyer-like of me! But it does matter the assumptions of the state of the system. Your macro-economic model is great right up until an island turns into a crater because it had a now-active volcano on it. The Minoans found that out the hard way. (Maybe.)


@39 VD

I'll respect the rules of your place, Vox.

Anonymous Tipsy December 07, 2017 3:32 PM  

Looking Glass wrote:The real problem is the Static vs Dynamic models. Everyone assumes Static. Nothing is Static. Nothing.

This is so true. Most people don't understand dynamic systems, that is systems whose state changes over time, and particularly dynamic systems (or games) with feedback loops and stochastic processes. When I say nearly everyone is ignorant of these things, that includes people that should know: engineers, physicists, etc.

I would guess that economists are far worse than these. As for those in the softer sciences, (e.g., Political Science) forget about it. And this is a problem because their explanations of and metaphors for the workings of the world and predictions about how things are expected to unfold are typically completely off because these, as you point out, have a static basis or approach. And even if there is some appeal to dynamics, the analysis is completely incognizant of the difference between open- and closed-loop dynamic systems.

Let me supply an example of feedback in physics and then some metaphorical political principles that perhaps can be derived from them (building upon some game-theoretical concepts I've written about before).

If you tap a wine glass, it will start to vibrate in its first vibrational mode, which consists of the north and the south quadrants bending outward as the east and west bend inwards and vice versa (presuming you tap in a cardinal direction). The points of the glass that intersect with vertical diagonal planes will be motionless - these are referred to nodal lines.

Way back in 1890, the brilliant England mathematical physicist George Bryan noticed that if you strike the glass to set up a normal mode vibration and then spin it about its vertical axis, the nodal lines will precess at a rate exactly proportational to the spin rate (in his case, he calculated the precession rate at 3/5 of the spin rate). If you want to see a demonstration of a related phenomenon, take a look at a video made by the slo-mo guys where they spin a CD at high rate. At some point a similar vibrational mode is excited and it precesses at the rate less than the spin rate of the CD.

This principle was exploited in the Hemispherical Resonator Gyro (HRG) as a means of precisely measuring inertial rotational rates, typically for aerospace applications. The HRG consists of a highly resonant quartz hemispherical "wine glass" that is excited to set up the first vibrational mode. On the lip of the wine glass there are many small finger-like protrusions and electrostatic actuators that do two things: measure the vibration at multiple points on the lip and apply a small time-dependent forces to various points on the lip. The applied forces not only keep the HRG vibrating in its first vibrational mode, but they can also rotate the nodal lines at a desired rate by coordinating the forces around the lip.

At first glance, you would expect the HRG to measure the inertial spin rate by observing how quickly the nodal lines precess. This, in fact, is not how it works. Instead, the nodal lines are held in place by a feedback loop. When the gyro is spinning a given rate, the feedback loop counteracts the precession of the nodal lines by commanding them to spin the in exact opposite direction; in such a way that the nodal lines remain fixed in the frame of reference of the HRG. The spin rate is then deduced by the magnitude of the feedback signal.

The principle here is roughly this: In an open-loop system, you can measure a perturbation to a system by how much the system is displaced from its equilibrium point. In a closed-loop system, you can measure a perturbation to a system by how much control effort is expended to keep the system near its equilibrium point.

Anonymous Tipsy December 07, 2017 3:34 PM  

Now, onto the second part:

I think about this when I observe the dynamics of party politics, which in many ways is a feedback control system that establishes a narrative meant to maintain a political equilibrium (status quo) that is favorable the parties. The narrative is controlled by political messaging channeled by the media (broadly construed). What I've noticed is that if the status quo is starting to shift, political messaging is brought to bear to enforce a narrative crafted to restore the equilibrium. The more political outcomes are moved off of the desired equilibrium, the stronger the messaging. This was completely evident in California under Gov. Schwartzenegger. When he was first elected and championed a number of reform propositions targeting the all-powerful teachers's unions, the Left's rhetoric was ramped up to Defcon 1. After he was defeated at the polls and signaled that he was just going to be a figurehead, the rhetoric was dialed back to Defcon 5. A similar phenomenon occurs with the odious John McCain. When he's playing Punch to the Republican's Judy, the narrative control levels are low and he's the media's (and Schumer's) best friend. When he challenges the Democrats, the narrative machine against him is cranked up and he suddenly becomes another Rethuglican demon.

As a general principle, narrative control levels as described above identify three things, two of which are: 1) who threatens the status quo and 2) by how much it is threatened.

One last thing. One way of understanding at a feedback system with multiple inputs is from a game theoretic perspective. For example, party politics in the US can be viewed as a two player dynamic game. In such dynamic system, players that play the game cooperatively have the feedback gains are fairly low while for players that play non-cooperatively, the feedback gains are high. That's why fringe groups, who have no interest in cooperating have the most extreme rhetoric; this is a Nash strategy. Parties that are trying to cooperate to find a mutually acceptable political equilibrium tend to moderate their rhetoric; this is a Pareto strategy.

This brings me to the third point alluded to above: The magnitude of the narrative control level relative to the equilibrum shift identifies the type of political strategy the players employ, Pareto or Nash.

Some examples: the fact that the Democrats have abandoned measured political responses in favor of screaming at the sky indicates they are clearly no longer interested in cooperation, only in complete domination. That's a Nash strategy. Bush, with his get along - go along approach, was clearly was playing a Pareto strategy as nothing could induce him to push back rhetorically. Trump, by his rhetorical approach, is playing a Nash strategy with signalling that he is open to cooperation as long as its not one sided. In other words, tit for tat with forgiveness. This, by the way, is the optimal strategy for the Prisoner's Dilemma, a canonical game within the game theory field.

Parenthetically, I see all of this hyperbolic noise from the Left about Trump and his policies as a good thing, because it means that Trump is significantly shifting the equilibrium desired or established by the globalist Left. As they say, you're only taking flak when you're over the target.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 07, 2017 3:40 PM  

I've never seen so many comments lead off with "Actually" in my life. It's like such a super dense white dwarf neutron star of actually, it's approaching a singularity.

Anonymous Raised_r_Breaking_K December 07, 2017 3:55 PM  

Wherever Keen's book will go, the counter-theorizations we're seeing here notwithstanding, I've been aware of and in agreement with the primacy of energy as economic driver since Karl Denninger started using the phrase 'behind every unit of economic output is a unit of energy' several years ago. It was a natural understanding, really, given how lazy I can be, despite my many grand ideas ;)

Blogger Harris December 07, 2017 3:58 PM  

Can this book be pre-ordered? As an engineer, whose first chosen college major was Physics, and second was Economics, before finally settling on Engineering, I would really like to read this.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 07, 2017 3:59 PM  

another aspect of Wealth and the lack of importance of the Economic system in which it is embedded is
...
China.

you do realize that they're still capital-C Communist, right?

and while, yes, it is true that they have leeched must of their Economic activity out of the West, the Fact Remains:
look at the Wealth they have created.

they. build. entire. empty. cities. of. skyscrapers.

look at all the Olympic venues they threw up at a whim.

ignore the Debt aspect for the moment.

those raw materials still had to come from somewhere. all that Labor and Construction and Design still had to be done and taken out of a PRE-existing pool of Wealth, Debt or no.

Debt can induce the expenditure of existing Wealth, it cannot create Wealth ex nihilo.

and the idea that Economists think that it can ( "OMG, a modern society cannot function without Debt", said the Usurer ) is perhaps the single largest fallacy in their theories.

Anonymous JohnK December 07, 2017 4:02 PM  

Close
Preview

Edit
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All the way back" should mean, back at least to 1250 - back to Aquinas/Augustine/Aristotle - not Cantillon. Steve Keen needs to take into account the critique of (2014) "Redeeming Economics" author John D. Mueller. Mueller said the following in a 2010 speech at a conference at Georgetown:

"Scholastic 'AAA' economics (c.1250-1776) began when Aquinas first integrated these four elements (production, exchange, distribution, and consumption) into an outline of personal, domestic, and political economy, both positive and normative, organizing Aristotle's contributions according to Augustine's framework. The scholastic economic theory was taught at the highest university level for more than five centuries by every major Catholic and (after the Reformation) Protestant economic thinker before Adam Smith - notably Lutheran Samuel Pufendorf, whose work was used by Adam Smith's own teacher to teach Smith economics, and also highly recommended by Alexander Hamilton.

"Classical economics (1776-1871) began when Adam Smith cut these four elements to two, trying to explain what he called "division of labor" (specialized production) by production and exchange alone. Smith was addressing the main drawback of scholastic economics, which lay not in the theory itself, but the routine assumption that the economy did not grow in the long run - which had been true on average for about two millennia. To explain growth, Smith and classical followers like David Ricardo undoubtedly advanced the two elements Smith retained. But it was on oversimplification.

"Neoclassical economics (1871-c.2000) began when three economists dissatisfied with the practical failure of Smith's classical outline independently but almost simultaneously reinvented Augustine's theory of utility, starting its reintegration with the theories of production and exchange.

"Thus Adam Smith's chief significance is not what he added to, but rather subtracted from economics."

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 07, 2017 4:05 PM  

Rashadjin wrote:this explains why so many don't instantly realize why 'green energy' is asking for economic stagnation and doom.
Well, the "renewables" wind and solar do.  Hydro doesn't, as Norway and Sweden have proven nicely.  Sweden is about 50% nuclear, so with half the population the Swedes could get along with just hydro for electricity.  The rest... that would take some doing.

I see the Greenies talking about cost of energy all the time and how "free" will trump everything else.  They don't realize that intermittency is literally a killer.  Things go to hell very quickly if the power goes out, from the hospitals unable to treat emergency cases in the dark to basements flooding with sewage when the lift stations stop working.  Nor do they have any idea what it would cost to run lines to the "somewhere" that the wind is supposedly always blowing, or the cost of having to "curtail" (spill, waste) energy that can't be used right away.  You have to use a physics model to base the economic model on, and the ones done so far show exactly the kind of nightmare you describe.  (Labor models sure don't work.  One combine does what once took 100 men with scythes.)

Who's paying for all this Green nonsense?  In the US it's the oilcos (which are now the gas co's).

Nuclear works like a champ, though.  That's why the oilco's are using their Green front groups to try to kill it.

Resident Moron™ wrote:That's why education is so vital to the success and longevity of any culture, that's why education is the most critically effective solution to any problem.

That's why abortion is directly parallel to ancient pagan child sacrifice; it's a suicidally stupid practice, a cannibal's equivalent to eating your seed-corn.

So what's giving birth to an ineducably-retarded child?  It's got to be equivalent to eating the entire block's seed corn, because raising it and caring for it takes the resources that could have made several healthy children.

I see @38 makes the same point.

Xpot wrote:Imagine how many “Black Einsteins” get aborted in Apefrica.
http://takimag.com/article/lost_edisons_steve_sailer/print

@40  It didn't take nearly that much to get something useful, though.  The productivity enabled by the early machines drove the successive improvements.

Blogger Tino December 07, 2017 4:07 PM  

Economics grounded in physics and re-built from fundamentals and first principles. I look forward to this and any previews. Do you need pre-orders? I would put good money down for this kind of tome today.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 07, 2017 4:09 PM  

but the Energy that humanity’s production systems harness and turn into useful work

Useful. What defines useful? Who defines "useful?"

I submit that this is the fulcrum on which all other questions rest.

A product that cannot be profitably sold is NOT USEFUL. Labor "invested" in digging a ditch and then filling it in is NOT USEFUL. Make-work is NOT USEFUL.

And the problem we always face is that costs of production can be displaced, by legal fiat, by force or by fraud, so as to create the illusion that some product is useful. And no "fraud" is better than one for whom the victims clamor.

This is the key problem of the borrow-to-spend fantasy of the last 50 years. To almost every observer, it is "profitable" to enter a host of occupation for which most of the demand is an artifact of Uncle Sam's ability to borrow-to-spend, which itself is enabled by an Extraordinary Popular Delusion of unprecedented magnitude.

No economic theory that ignores the Madness of Crowds (which is another way of saying Mass Psychology) will prove all that useful.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 07, 2017 4:12 PM  

I must add: Entropy may be a fact of thermodynamic law, but Biology, i.e., LIFE, is the eddy where energy is re-concentrated.

No, on a system-wide basis life does not counter entropy, but on a small, isolated level it absolutely does.

Life is the ultimate value. No society that degrades the value of life itself is healthy. Roe v Wade is an illustration of insanity.

Blogger pyrrhus December 07, 2017 4:19 PM  

The laws of thermodynamics rule the physical universe, and eliminate the possibility of many magical solutions, but I have found that even many engineers don't understand that fact. Glad to see an economist finally does.

Blogger Rashadjin December 07, 2017 4:21 PM  

@Mr. Rational

Quite so on the renewables and various clarifications of green energy. But if we're talking eco-nuts, then hydro dams are bad because of ecology disruption so not green on their arbitrary terms. I'm not sure if tidal turbines are feasible, especially currently.

Anywho, nuclear is as good as it gets in a lot of ways, true. If I were running things, we'd be on a thorium until fusion path with fossil exports for a bonus. But then, I actually like the idea of preserving chunks of ecosystems throughout the world. Might not save Africa (fuel to r-select fire), but would go a long ways everywhere else.

Blogger pyrrhus December 07, 2017 4:22 PM  

@59 Biological entities are islands of high organization/low entropy in the world, and Nature keeps recreating them utilizing energy from the Sun. Rather amazing when you think about it..

Blogger LP9 December 07, 2017 4:43 PM  

Beautiful, just think; Castalia House has Keen, unimportant and abandoned Tor has...Kwawanzaa!

Blogger dc.sunsets December 07, 2017 4:46 PM  

@62 Nothing is as miraculous as a baby.

And as Hardscrabble Farmer (our modern day Laura Ingalls Wilder) notes, for something to live, something else has to die. Death has a purpose. Unless evil is afoot; the demonic love death for its own sake.

Rule #1: The world is full of pain; try not to add to it.

Blogger tz December 07, 2017 4:48 PM  

This sounds revolutionary.
The first change was farming and ranching that allowed for excess food (energy). The second was harnessing external energy like water wheels, windmills, or fossil fuels to power machines replacing human or animal muscle - more energy. The third wave is the information revolution with computers, which magnifies the power of the mind is a way machines do with muscle. But these are only possible because of the machines to build the computers and the transport and interconnect.

Blogger Robert Coble December 07, 2017 4:58 PM  

For some of the things that economists (and a lot of other professionals) don't "get," see Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, also the author of The Black Swan: Second Edition: The Impact of the Highly Improbable: With a new section: "On Robustness and Fragility".

Blogger Allen L. December 07, 2017 5:10 PM  

I am certainly intrigued by the premise of the book. I'll be purchasing it when it comes out. I really do need to look through the publications list of Castalia House, I suspect I've been rather remiss

Blogger Harris December 07, 2017 5:10 PM  

Two of the main scientific arguments (among many) against Darwin's theory of evolution come from Thermodynamics.

The basic law of entropy - all things tend to disorder - undermines Progressive Evolution.

Also, the rules of heat transfer are such that heat always flows from objects with higher heat content to objects with lower heat content. If the universe were as old as some argue, the universe would have undergone a thermodynamic death when heat would be equally dispersed throughout the universe. It is actually the difference in heat levels that allows life to exist. Life would be impossible if the universe were to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium.

I never considered applying thermodynamic laws to economics, but it makes some logical sense that a universally intelligent God would apply universal laws across different disciplines. I look forward to reading this book.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 07, 2017 5:17 PM  

@68 Progressive Evolution.
Most people interpret "progressive" as goal-oriented or teleological.

Nothing about Natural Selection (or the much more controversial origin of species) is teleological.

Life isn't like consumerism where everything is always getting "better." There is no direction.

Anonymous Avalanche December 07, 2017 5:21 PM  

@10 "That's why abortion is directly parallel to ancient pagan child sacrifice; it's a suicidally stupid practice, a cannibal's equivalent to eating your seed-corn."

NOT when it's killing off low-IQ and dreadfully-low-IQ, bad time pref, uncivilized/uncivilizable semi-human brutes! Preferable to 'sacrifice' a NIT of the vermin version of our species, than to sacrifice a productive cow or goat!!

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd December 07, 2017 5:29 PM  

Avalanche wrote:@10 "That's why abortion is directly parallel to ancient pagan child sacrifice; it's a suicidally stupid practice, a cannibal's equivalent to eating your seed-corn."

NOT when it's killing off low-IQ and dreadfully-low-IQ, bad time pref, uncivilized/uncivilizable semi-human brutes! Preferable to 'sacrifice' a NIT of the vermin version of our species, than to sacrifice a productive cow or goat!!


Avalanche, you and Mr. Rational are generally right, except on the really important things. Where it really matters, you both go off the rails.

Blogger LP9 December 07, 2017 6:28 PM  

28 The next move by POTUS is to go after the NEA. Homeschool or die another school shooting, another day here locally schools on lock down over a gun b/c the education ssystem is a prison within a prison that no longer serves the industrialization, of course America kills its children via abortion, mind rape, child molestation; LA in flames, something about the capital of Israel, the GE playing AWCA and ultimately publishing becoming great again.

DysEducation is a disaster, our kids cannot understand Thomas Woods let alone Keen or read a real clock or count change or write cursive or understand the economic disaster they are heir to, they are sold or fed nothing but lies, the blank world just got a reprieve upon 11/2016, the current real administration cleansing the toxic epic miasma, trust me, this isn't going unnoticed. The left wants to silence economics b/c econ, real life skills, etc., is power, knowledge is power, these insane old people in the senate and congress cannot play the moral card ever again; (some gay moron playing straight resigned from his seat in the senate) what has 50 million abortions taken from us? It brought islam and feminism (divorce rape court, crazy women, single motherhood, hypergamy, a crazy Pope telling women to marry all this dysfunction) the economic harm is immense and inexplicable to even accept.

Blogger LP9 December 07, 2017 6:30 PM  

71 R/k selection is real so is soft eugenics, culling is not cool when its the generation of love and compassion the people that need Keen's work are antifa, they are under 25 but damn it they CAN understand if only the right books are handed to them.

Blogger LIONMAN184 December 07, 2017 6:31 PM  

Isn't evolution in conflict with both the second law of thermodynamics AND information theory.

Blogger Joshua_D December 07, 2017 6:42 PM  

I like Steve Keen. I'd like to shake his hand one day.

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis December 07, 2017 7:16 PM  

There is a very simple thought experiment that is used to obliterate the Marxist economic theory of the value of labor. But it also makes some points about the value of both energy, raw materials, and capital plant. Here it is.

There are two women, Mary and Betty. Both want to make pies. So they both outfit pie shops with similar equipment, and pay the same for their raw materials. They both put in the same labor to make and sell their pies. And both of their pies are of the same "quality". However Mary sells many pies and is successful, while Betty sells few pies and her business fails. Why?

Because Mary makes fruit pies and sells them to people who want to eat them. Many people are repeat customers. Betty makes clay pies and sells them to people who want works of art. Most people only buy one.

And thus we see that approximately equivalent amounts and costs of labor, energy, raw materials, capital equipment, and capital plant can be applied to produce similar appearing quality products, yet one product has high return on investment and one does not.

Without the proper quantity and quality of inputs to the system, product production will suffer. But the most important factor is what people want. It is the PULL, the demand, that is key.

Most economic theories go on at length about the inputs, the PUSH. But it is the PULL that drives economies.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 07, 2017 7:36 PM  

Harris wrote:Also, the rules of heat transfer are such that heat always flows from objects with higher heat content to objects with lower heat content. If the universe were as old as some argue, the universe would have undergone a thermodynamic death when heat would be equally dispersed throughout the universe. It is actually the difference in heat levels that allows life to exist. Life would be impossible if the universe were to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium.
Good thing the universe is expanding which keeps it far from thermodynamic equilibrium, no?  The formation of atomic hydrogen with emission of Lyman-alpha radiation at t=~300kyr is now red-shifted to 2.7K microwaves at t=13.7e9 yr.  GROSS disequilibrium.

Two of the main scientific arguments (among many) against Darwin's theory of evolution come from Thermodynamics.

The basic law of entropy - all things tend to disorder - undermines Progressive Evolution.

You have a creatonut-propaganda understanding of the 2LOT.

All it takes to disprove this propaganda is a terrarium.  Put down some soil.  Plant a seed in it.  Give it sunlight and water and time.

If the seed survives, it will produce shoots, leaves and roots of many times the original mass.  The mass comes almost entirely from water and CO2.  This is a huge reduction in entropy from the original materials, so by the propaganda it should be impossible.

It is obviously not just possible, it's commonplace.  Everything obeys the 2LOT, including the plant.  What the plant does is convert some of the energy from low-entropy solar photons into low-entropy chemical bonds, and the rest to waste heat.  The entropy increase from sunlight to heat is far greater than the entropy reduction from CO2+H2O to (CH2O) + O2.

And yes, the plant can make errors reproducing itself.  Most of these will be deleterous, and selected out in future generations.  However, any advantageous ones will tend to be preserved.  This drives net improvement.

@73  GenZ is trained to reject anything that challenges their indoctrination as crimethink.  Only those who are red-pilled will be able to read such a book.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 07, 2017 7:40 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Avalanche, you and Mr. Rational are generally right, except on the really important things. Where it really matters, you both go off the rails.
So when we say we can't preserve Western culture without, not merely Western children, but Western children selected by the kinds of pressures which formed our race in the first place, we're off the rails?

You're arguing that we can be replaced by orcs.  You're wrong.

FWIW, what Avalanche and I are arguing for is a return to what was the norm in Christian society until very recently.  We couldn't save the seriously deformed.  The retarded had high death rates and rarely reproduced.  Our "compassion" created huge dysgenic pressures, and we'll either correct it or pay dearly.

Blogger S1AL December 07, 2017 7:59 PM  

Are we already back to childless atheists advocating for the slaughter of the unborn in a society where they couldn't even be bothered to reproduce?

Really?

How about you table your murderous sociopathy until after we have the native birth rate back to at least stable?

OpenID franklinfreek December 07, 2017 8:06 PM  

Given that energy is a key driver of human achievement, isn't it interesting how the global warming fanatics keep driving up the cost of energy...

Makes you think they are anti-human.

Anonymous Reagan’s Ball Licker December 07, 2017 8:11 PM  

I think it’s awesome these conservatives support unlimited breeding of Apefrican pavement monkeys. Who needs cold fusion and Dyson Spheres when we can have sub 80 IQs and mass starvation across the entire planet? Why stop our civilizations enemies from murdering themselves? Instead we can enjoy the feelz and virtue signaling as they rape and murder us. But at least we were “pro-life” lol.

PS: I have four white children.

PPS: Did the Hebrews try to stop the Canaanites from aborting themselves?

Blogger dc.sunsets December 07, 2017 8:12 PM  

Our humanity generally precludes top-down eugenics (shudder.) This means that in practice, until & unless science actually allows people to eliminate their own disabilities, there will always be a limit to how high we will soar, for always will we be weighed down by the unable.

I'm not a fan of the alternative, though.

Blogger Joshua_D December 07, 2017 8:35 PM  

Castalia House + Steve Keen = WINNING

Blogger wreckage December 07, 2017 8:58 PM  

I hope nobody minds me doing a victory dance. I've been hammering on the energy, physical system, entropy thing for about 3 years now.

@76 Supply is the driver, ultimately, because prosperity consists of the availability of goods. However, goods nobody wants are useless, and therefore are waste, not production. Ultimately supply and demand are actually two different systems that intersect; but the physical creation of goods is supply, and therefore is fundamental to any material measure of prosperity, whereas demand is concerned with the efficient allocation of those goods and services to best effect, ie., is a measure of efficiency and the creator of the information that allows supply to be directed and distributed.

The defeater of Marxism is simply that a better production system will produce more goods, of higher value, with less labour. Indeed, satisfaction in one's labour comes from producing more goods, for less work. Marxism is directly opposed to empirical analysis of systems and observation of human happiness.

Anonymous Avalanche December 07, 2017 9:10 PM  

@79 "How about you table your murderous sociopathy until after we have the native birth rate back to at least stable?"

"Native" birthrate? You mean the "native" birthrate of "low-IQ and dreadfully-low-IQ, bad time pref, uncivilized/uncivilizable semi-human brutes"? Or do you REALLY think that a K-selected population -- that reproduces slowly, carefully and with VERY much attention to raising each of its valuable offspring (that would be US -- the White Euro-derived creators of the civilization we wish to continue) -- can somehow OVERWHELM the "birthrate" of a subspecies that does not value its mass production of offspring (and has proven itself 100% INcapable of not merely producing our type civilization, but also of maintaining it once we build it and turn it over); and yet this mass-reproducing subspecies DOES support the mass murder of OUR offspring?

Do you truly NOT understand the whole r/K system? Is it murderous sociopathy to kill off a swarming bacterial or viral invader that is damaging and killing OUR offspring? Do you, then refuse antibiotics for your child because it's "murderous" of a lifeform inimical to ours?!

Right-to-life Michigan posts: "More than 19 million Black babies have been aborted since the 1973 Roe v. Wade..." Do you REALLY think OUR (White Euro-derived) offspring and civilization -- our CONTINUATION -- would be in any way enhanced (or even possible) if all those 'nits' had been born? How many rapes, tortures, and murders of OUR children are you willing to accept because you cringe at the thought of killing the offspring of OUR ENEMIES!?

If Whites are refusing to produce more children (your impossible "stable birthrate") because of the destruction, the insane financial and criminal BURDEN placed on us BY THESE NITS -- how will you create this "stable birth rate when we are already staggering under that burden withOUT those 19 million enemies having been born!?

How about you provide ANY possible concept how we can both keep OUR people alive and NOT kill off our enemies?! Any ideas? It's NOT sociopathy to keep OUR people alive! (Or do you not get that this is war?!)

Blogger wreckage December 07, 2017 9:18 PM  

Labour was at one point the only form of energy humans could harness. Progress was infinitesimal. Then we harnessed fire. Progress was still slow.

Then they harnessed animals and plants; "land" is just a very large solar panel that turns sunshine into carbohydrates, thus permitting more human and animal energy to be utilized, and of course it was also the first source of an oil economy (ancient Greece and olive trees). Animals are foraging machines that turn captured solar energy into goods: fleece, hide, bones, horn, meat, fat; all from plants, all from the sun, all from carbohydrates which are nothing more or less than chemical stored energy from plant's solar collection system, chlorophyll.

Then hydro and wind power were captured. Much more energy-dense than the vast green solar panels, they allowed some degree of automation, their energy output was sufficient to drive machines. I should point out here that the age of sail was an economic boom driven by wind power, particularly the very consistent, high energy Trade Winds, which in turn allowed Europe to plug into energy-intensive goods from the tropics (stored chemical energy in the form of spices and oils in particular, amounting to more sophisticated, ie., higher embedded energy, goods.)

Coal however was the real turning point: with coal-fired steam, energy could be transported and localized, and turned into physical processes on a scale never before imagined.

The energy density was fantastic, miraculous; humanity was suddenly and for the first time scrambling for ways to utilize all the energy available to it. This frenzy of improved, novel, and refined utilization was the industrial revolution, in fact, all of modernity and technological progress to date.

Blogger MsArchangel December 07, 2017 9:20 PM  

@82 "Our humanity generally precludes top-down eugenics (shudder.) This means that in practice, until & unless science actually allows people to eliminate their own disabilities, there will always be a limit to how high we will soar, for always will we be weighed down by the unable.
I'm not a fan of the alternative, though."

No "K-selected, White Euro-derived, civilization-building, civilized person IS a fan of the alternative! I'm not a huge fan of cutting of a gangrenous leg to save the life of one of my people. I'm not a fan of killing 19 million 'nits' of a subspecies that means to destroy my people -- but that's way Way WAY better than the death of MY people by rape, torture, and burning by those enemies!

I'm NOT a fan of the oncoming race war -- I have NO question it's coming -- and I have no question I will have to do horrible things I would really rather not! NOT my choice, not BY choice! But MY PEOPLE must win this war! Cowherd wants HIS offspring to survive, and his grand-babies and great-grand-babies (God willing, he has them?!) to SURVIVE?! Then the ENEMY and their offspring MUST DIE!

What's your solution Cowherd? How will YOU Keep your people, your civilization alive against the ravening hordes??

Anonymous Avalanche December 07, 2017 9:21 PM  

@82 "Our humanity generally precludes top-down eugenics (shudder.) This means that in practice, until & unless science actually allows people to eliminate their own disabilities, there will always be a limit to how high we will soar, for always will we be weighed down by the unable.
I'm not a fan of the alternative, though."

No "K-selected, White Euro-derived, civilization-building, civilized person IS a fan of the alternative! I'm not a huge fan of cutting of a gangrenous leg to save the life of one of my people. I'm not a fan of killing 19 million 'nits' of a subspecies that means to destroy my people -- but that's way Way WAY better than the death of MY people by rape, torture, and burning by those enemies!

I'm NOT a fan of the oncoming race war -- I have NO question it's coming -- and I have no question I will have to do horrible things I would really rather not! NOT my choice, not BY choice! But MY PEOPLE must win this war! Cowherd wants HIS offspring to survive, and his grand-babies and great-grand-babies (God willing, he has them?!) to SURVIVE?! Then the ENEMY and their offspring MUST DIE!

What's your solution Cowherd? How will YOU Keep your people, your civilization alive against the ravening hordes??

Blogger S1AL December 07, 2017 9:23 PM  

Avalanche, your science is shit, your understanding of human nature is shit, and your understanding of the issue in question is shit. Black birth rates are barely break-even. This isn't a race issue. It's a culture issue. And you can't have a culture that both supports abortion and adequately values children.

You had your chance. You didn't take it. Now you presume to lecture us in how society works. You. Are. The. Problem.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

Anonymous Avalanche December 07, 2017 9:25 PM  

@89 " your science is shit, your understanding of human nature is shit, and your understanding of the issue in question is shit."

Not an argument.

Anonymous Avalanche December 07, 2017 9:34 PM  

@89 "This isn't a race issue. It's a culture issue."

p.s., Uh, you DO know that race and culture ARE (large-partly, if not majorly) genetic?! IF blacks had the genetics or the culture -- or the ability -- to create and/or maintain "White Euro-derived civilization," then surely some time in the past 100,000 YEARS -- they might have done it, just once?! (Come close? Even TRIED?)

Or, how about in the past 100 years -- when we BUILT AND GAVE THEM "White Euro-derived civilization" -- might they have actually managed to keep it functioning for more than a decade? Or, let them swarm a "White Euro-derived city" IN a "White Euro-derived" COUNTRY, might they have managed to NOT destroy it into Chicongo or Detroilet or pick your black city or neighborhood?

It's not nice to contemplate that the black race is not capable of civilization. It's hard to contemplate that the top 1%, maybe the top 10%, of the black race is burdened with a millstone around their racial necks that CANNOT EVER be removed. (Regression to the mean! And oh hey look: SCIENCE!) Even Thomas Sowell's grandkids will likely be unable to live in or maintain "White Euro-derived civilization."

Shall we 'make nice' and let OUR grandkids be destroyed on behalf of them?!

Anonymous DissidentRight December 07, 2017 9:41 PM  

 Is it murderous sociopathy

In your case, yes. Deport the xenos, build the wall, sink the boats. The rest is in God’s hands.

Anonymous Reagan’s Ball Licker December 07, 2017 9:59 PM  

>>And you can't have a culture that both supports abortion and adequately values children.

Apefrican culture supports abortion. You seem to fail to understand why this is a positive.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 07, 2017 10:34 PM  

S1AL wrote:How about you table your murderous sociopathy until after we have the native birth rate back to at least stable?
Instead of blaming the victims, how about you assist with "affordable family formation" by giving our own kind orc-free neighborhoods and schools without having to pay through the nose just for housing?

In the mean time, if today's 37 million orcs was instead 56 million, we'd be exponentially worse off.

Blogger LP9 December 08, 2017 12:02 AM  

The wonderful news is Keen!

Anonymous AB.Prosper December 08, 2017 2:15 AM  

S1AL wrote:Are we already back to childless atheists advocating for the slaughter of the unborn in a society where they couldn't even be bothered to reproduce?

Really?

How about you table your murderous sociopathy until after we have the native birth rate back to at least stable?


So much wasted effort on the abortion issue, the religious Rights bugaboo

Abortion is at its lowest level since 1973 , around 900k a year and according to Guttmacher White non Hispanic women make up only 36% of all abortions.

Even if abortion vanished tomorrow and every single baby was still conceived , that is no one got smarter with birth control and every baby survived it would be around 300,000 births max

By comparison non white births mostly to broken homes would be twice that.

This helps society exactly how?

And DissidentRight the biggest cause of violent crime in the US is native Blacks not Mexicans . Unless you are willing to ethnically cleanse the US of them, crime won't decline as much as you might think

Rough homicide ratios back from when stats were kept (50's)extrapolated a bit are 6 Black to , 3 Hispanic/Amerind/Pacific Islander to 1 White. Asians rates are probably .8 or so.

Given the social situation most aborted babies are in , basically an abortion ban would increase the homicide rate substantially and have very little effect in terms of White population growth

You could ban birth control I suppose but that presumes you have the ability to do this which is not a given. Birth control is more or less universally acceptable among the population

Mr. Rational wrote:S1AL wrote:How about you table your murderous sociopathy until after we have the native birth rate back to at least stable?

Instead of blaming the victims, how about you assist with "affordable family formation" by giving our own kind orc-free neighborhoods and schools without having to pay through the nose just for housing?

In the mean time, if today's 37 million orcs was instead 56 million, we'd be exponentially worse off.


This is quite correct.

In the end though baring a religious revival, urbanization and technology will keep fertility fairly low. 80% of people live in cities and cities are no place to raise a family

Urbanization has been steadily increasing and fertility decreasing in the West with the single anomalous baby boom for near a century and spending most of the time fro the 30's till near or below replacement

The baby boom with the creation of the burbs and its faux rural living along with vast growth allowed the baby boom but it was over in 1972 or so

Basically population growth was a combination of immigration and momentum and its abnormal

Now mass deportations if you can pull it off can decrease the cost of housing which can make larger families possible but the TFR won't grow much until steady well remunerated work is available for people with a wide range of temperaments and skills and the culture shifts. This is a low probability event

Fundamentally the technology that makes this conversation possible is going to sterilize a lot of people.

In enough time the complexity will unravel and after a die-back the TFR will go up a bit but so will infant mortality and overall there will be less people.

Anonymous AB.Prosper December 08, 2017 2:48 AM  

A math addition as I forgot some things.

Note that White rates have already declined 75% from peak with other groups down by half so the actual "decline" pool is shrinking. Abortion certainly isn't gone but its getting rarer which tells me other methods of birth control are used

Now a lot of the anti abortion fervor comes from the assumption that a ban on abortion would cause the White fertility rate to rise dramatically .

This is not accurate though its partially true.

Assuming the current birth rates , around 2 million non Hispanic White and a TFR of 1.8 for whites, a complete ban on abortion assuming no changes to behavior would put the White TFR at 2.0 and something, call it roughly replacement

That isn't bad at all but it will end up making to the other groups grow much faster,

Using Bound4Life's which despite the kinky sounding name is a pro life site stats

http://bound4life.com/statistics/

37% of abortions are White, 37% Black, 19% Hispanic and 7% other

This means you stabilize the White population, drastically grow the lower class black population , slightly grow the Hispanic and other populations too

Hope you have a crime plan

You can ban abortion Poland did to no effect whatever on fertility its still doomsday level 1.3 or so.

we can control access easier than they can but no matter what you do you can't win this race and you can't increase fertility either, more urban, more tech less babies

The only caveat is a religious revival which creates social pressure to have kids but I have no evidence for that happening anywhere . The Zyklons might go all in but they may be a lot more secular than you think too.

The best thing you can do is to kick a lot of people out 50 million or so over time. If a return can be prevented and the money-cucks reigned in, wages should go up. With luck and good policy you might get a little growth

We are far from that now though, very far. Getting used to "jobs" being scarce and income scare even though good are not especially requires a new way of looking at the economy without looking for the Reds under the Beds every time regulation comes into play

The TL:DR version, don't under estimate the economic impact as the more urban the culture grows the more expensive each baby becomes and the less desired . This is a normal progression and with less work, a disaster . Its actually a bit surprising the TFR is as high as it is but people mostly like having a couple of kids

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 08, 2017 4:26 AM  

59. dc.sunsets December 07, 2017 4:12 PM
No, on a system-wide basis life does not counter entropy, but on a small, isolated level it absolutely does.


as i've pointed out before, stipulating that the Universe is as the atheist Darwinists claim,
Life is nothing more, can NOT be anything more, than an Ornate ( and needlessly complex ) Entropic Process.

Life on Earth ends well before the Sun swells up as a Red Giant and swallows the orbit of the Earth.

if we don't get at least to the outer solar system by that time, every single thing that ever was and ever will be will have been consumed in the nuclear furnace of the Sun.

that's right, according the Atheists, we're ALL going in the oven.


59. dc.sunsets December 07, 2017 4:12 PM
Life is the ultimate value.


agreed.


61. Rashadjin December 07, 2017 4:21 PM
then hydro dams are bad because of ecology disruption so not green on their arbitrary terms.


not simply 'disruption' ( by which i assume you mean things like salmon migration ).

Green Meanies have also decided that the retention lakes behind a dam are massive sources of atmospheric methane.

methane is an order of magnitude more Green House Effect than carbon dioxide is.

that's right, the Whacko Enviros have decided that the only efficient Green energy source is actually more Global Warming than coal plants.

funny how that works.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 08, 2017 4:26 AM  

70. Avalanche December 07, 2017 5:21 PM
Preferable to 'sacrifice' a NIT of the vermin version of our species, than to sacrifice a productive cow or goat!!



i have no great love the parasitical drag that they have become on our society myself.

and, as Vox says, it may well come to a war. certainly, if the Hispanics take over from the Whites, war will probably come faster. the Hispanics have no patience for Black criminality nor do they have any guilt over suppressing it. ( even though far more slaves went to Spanish, French and Portuguese America than ever came to North America. funny, that. )

but there are alternative solutions.

Liberia was established for the explicit purpose of allowing the American Negro slaves a place to emigrate back to Africa.

offer them their 40 acres and a mule ... on the condition that they renounce US citizenship and move to Liberia.

offer incarcerated felons commutation of their sentence, on the same conditions.

we would save money over what we're doing now.

according to Forbes, as of 2015 we had already given the banks 4.5 trillion since 2008 and we've committed almost 17 trillion to them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#5fdbc5c62d83

there are ~40 million Blacks in the US.

4.5 trillion / 40 million == $112,500 to each Negro in the country.

would you rather have paid that money to the Banksters who crashed the Economy ( and are going to do it again )?

or would you rather have spared LaQuisha and Trayvon the agony of living in a hopelessly racist, White Supremacist society?

do you think Liberia could be convinced to accept $4.5 Trillion of what amounts to foreign aid?



74. LIONMAN184 December 07, 2017 6:31 PM
Isn't evolution in conflict with both the second law of thermodynamics



no.

the sum Entropy of the Total System *always* goes up over Time.

this does NOT, however, rule out temporary eddies of increasing Order created by ejecting higher Entropy into some other portion of the environment.

conceptually, it's akin to a Vortex Tube.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Vortex_tube


76. Bellator Mortalis December 07, 2017 7:16 PM
Most economic theories go on at length about the inputs, the PUSH. But it is the PULL that drives economies.



ie - Useful and Excess Production

neither of the pie shops will be successful if they only produce a single pie per day.

neither of the pie shops can be successful if their excess production of 500 pies / day is of a type which no customer wishes to purchase.

*that* is the purpose of an Economy.

to signal to Producers what Production the Population desires to Consume and to provide a Cost signal from the Suppliers of raw materials so that the Producers can Arbitrage between Output Profits and Input Expenses.


81. Reagan’s Ball Licker December 07, 2017 8:11 PM
these conservatives


the Reeeepublican Party of 1850 was the Radical, Progressive and Lawless party of the era. they were Occupy Wall Street before Occupy Wall Street was cool.

look up their history. look up the adjectives ( Radical - John C Fremont, Progressive - Teddy Roosevelt ) they chose for themselves.

look up the Fugitive Slave Clause, which exists in every version of the Constitution ever ratified.

Blogger Koanic December 08, 2017 6:46 AM  

If we don't care how Boomers die, we certainly don't care how niggers die.

Or nigger lovers.

Whatever happens to them is better than what they'd get in Africa anyhow.

Blogger Resident Moron™ December 08, 2017 9:54 AM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) wrote:i'm talking about Wealth, not the Economic system in which it exists.

You sell Job your time? Your time is saleable.

Job isn't buying, you starve.

We were talking about wealth, and you leap straight to money, and then try to correct me for missing the point?

You're usually smarter than that, bob.

Blogger Resident Moron™ December 08, 2017 11:08 AM  

"you can educate someone with a 70 iq all you want, they're never going to comprehend Euclidean Geometry.2

You can teach them to take out the garbage and not screw with other people. Civilisation might be constructed by the higher IQs but it still has to account for the reality that half the population are under 100.

Anonymous AB.Prosper December 08, 2017 1:05 PM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:"you can educate someone with a 70 iq all you want, they're never going to comprehend Euclidean Geometry.2

You can teach them to take out the garbage and not screw with other people. Civilisation might be constructed by the higher IQs but it still has to account for the reality that half the population are under 100.



True but a lot of decently remunerative work the 115 and under crowd would normally do is now better and more easily done by machines.

Making the vast majority of your workforce poor makes your nation poor, or socialist or both

We are finding find that automating away so many manufacturing jobs and the staggering economies of scale that the Internet makes possible with business ranging from Craigslist to Amazon to Expedia is lowering the value of labor far faster than the costs of living decreases.

This will impoverish the nation

Now those deportations if you get them will help but its a stopgap.

As it is IQ or no IQ future USA will be much much poorer.

Koanic wrote:If we don't care how Boomers die, we certainly don't care how niggers die.

Or nigger lovers.

Whatever happens to them is better than what they'd get in Africa anyhow.


Stuff it Koanic, there are quite a few decent Black people who while they are not my people are my countrymen . I have a problem with people thinking that its OK to deport or harm them. It may happen anyway but its worth not doing.

That said if you want to start "transporting" repeat convicted troublemakers Australia style, that's something else.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Real Men correct Nate ... 's ... speeling ◕‿◕ ... ◔ ⌣ ◔ ... ◕‿↼ Passive Aggressively ) December 08, 2017 1:19 PM  

101. Resident Moron™ December 08, 2017 9:54 AM
You sell Job your time?


no.

in ( not so ) ancient times, there was little legal difference between servant and slave. indeed, i could have as easily said that i was Job's slave ( although the adoption of orphans is one of the aspects that Job cites among his accomplishments, and i would not expect him to treat an adoptee as a slave ).

"sell" implies a situation in which i have a choice in the transaction. which i would not have, unless you consider lying down in the dust and refusing to move a "choice".


101. Resident Moron™ December 08, 2017 9:54 AM
We were talking about wealth, and you leap straight to money,


i'm drawing a distinction between Barter ( economy ) and the Monetary systems around which all modern Economic theories pivot, yes. in the same way that GDP is a rather absurd metric once you consider ( amongst many other issues ) that it's denominated in a currency ... but makes no effort to control for inflation / deflation of that currency.

50% inflation could "create" 50% growth in GDP ( although major price variability like this disrupts the economy in other ways ). indeed, the Import part of the equation ( which is the only reducing variable ) is likely to collapse as the domestic currency loses it's external purchasing power. so the nominal GDP number might go up by more than the growth in Money Supply ... even as actual Wealth of the society collapses to starvation levels.



i'm also drawing a distinction between 'Wealth' and the Economic, Political and Social milieu in which that Wealth is embedded.

it was a common refrain from the 1950s-2000s that muh Dumb-ocracy ( Keynesian ) Capitalism was this unmatchable engine of Economic Growth.

only, now, it appears that Communist China has more Wealth to waste than we do. and they have achieved this redonkulous level of Wealth since Nixon, a mere 45 years.

therefore, that raises serious questions about the importance to Wealth creation of both muh Dumb-ocracy and 'Capitalism' ( as practiced in the West ).

was Imperial China 'poor' ( the Antonym of Wealth )? Pharaonic Egypt? it is a strange sort of Poverty which can produce the tomb of Qin Shi or the Great Pyramids. and they didn't have muh Dumb-ocracy or 'Capitalism' either.

Blogger S1AL December 08, 2017 3:35 PM  

"Shall we 'make nice' and let OUR grandkids be destroyed on behalf of them?!"

What do you mean 'OUR', kemosabe? We've already established that this is only a material concern for one of us.

The Black population of the United States has remained at a steady ratio to the White population, regardless of your literal-Nazi thrashing about. The concern isn't Black Americans. It's immigrants who aren't even slightly integrated. And many of them think abortion is evil.

"Instead of blaming the victims, how about you assist with "affordable family formation" by giving our own kind"

Seriously, what is it with those of you who were​ too selfish to reproduce and talking about "our kind"? My kind (American Christians) manage to have and support families just fine. Granted, most of us also avoid the urban shitholes and got married in our early twenties.

That said, I'm all for killing the government subsidies and systems that simultaneously drained the country's wealth and destroyed the Black family. This isn't exactly a secret.

"So much wasted effort on the abortion issue, the religious Rights bugaboo"

The issue isn't just abortion qua abortion. It's the attitude (that children aren't of value) that's reinforced that way. The Chinese are learning this right now.

Blogger Resident Moron™ December 08, 2017 5:19 PM  

"The issue isn't just abortion qua abortion. It's the attitude (that children aren't of value) that's reinforced that way. The Chinese are learning this right now."

There's another less coming due, one the west has been experiencing but hasn't yet learned from: the earlier you institutionalize your children, the earlier they institutionalize you.

It's not only the idea that children are not of value, i.e. it's not only that pro-abortionists think children are of negative value, but even amongst those who willingly have children our culture has devalued them to the point where other things rank more highly in our priorities.

So it's more important to have the second income than to home-school them, for example.

But the laws of life cannot be evaded, and every action has its moral aspect and its moral consequences. Such children will not be kind to their aging parents.

I found this quote in the novel "No Country For Old Men":

"Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talkin about the right wing this and the right wing that. I aint even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly common people. Common as dirt, as the sayin goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was sayin something bad about em, but of course that's a high compliment in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I don't like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well maam I don't think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don't have much doubt but what she'll be able to have an abortion. I'm goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she'll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation."

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 08, 2017 6:53 PM  

S1AL wrote:Seriously, what is it with those of you who were​ too selfish to reproduce and talking about "our kind"? My kind (American Christians) manage to have and support families just fine. Granted, most of us also avoid the urban shitholes and got married in our early twenties.
Some of us had partners who turned out to be unsuitable, finally had to run around the country doing higher-paid contract work so we could save for the home we'd need to be stable enough to raise a family (looking the whole time), found a spot that looked good and bought the house... and then got caught by the general collapse triggered by the Minority Mortgage Meltdown.  That's the smallest thumbnail sketch I can make of the whole story.

At least I avoided the fate of the brother-in-law of one chick I dated.  Actually, I probably would have wound up worse off given what she's done to her second husband.  I have been dodging toxic feminism for years.  Getting married in my twenties was not an option.  Today I have enough options and knowledge of how to use them that I can practice dread game to short-circuit hypergamy and some of the social pressures coming from (((our masters))), but I still have to get over that first hump.

S1AL wrote:The issue isn't just abortion qua abortion. It's the attitude (that children aren't of value) that's reinforced that way.
It's the claim that a ball of cells in a freezer (or anywhere) is a baby which is insane.  It's clearly of minor value.

I doubt that you actually believe it.  Whenever I've posed the dilemma of the fertility clinic with the dewar of 1000 frozen blastocysts in liquid nitrogen on the one side, and a baby in a child seat on the other, and a radical naturalist firebombs the room and you can get out with one or the other... NO "pro-lifer" has ever declared that the dewar was more valuable because it had 1000 "babies" in it.  They all either said to grab the child seat cum kid or would not answer at all.

You expect other people to place higher value on something than you clearly do, and let you have veto power over their very personal judgements?  THIS is why you've spun your wheels since 1973.  And when you could have made a difference for Whites by cutting off the welfare for new out-of-wedlock kids, but refused because it would lead to more abortions... you were sabotaging those of us who could not get far enough from the Black Undertow and still make a living.  You were virtue-signalling and stealing our future.

Blogger S1AL December 08, 2017 7:49 PM  

I'm a Millennial. All of your bitching about the economy and hypergamy is meaningless to me. Anything you can claim to be dealing with applies doubly to my generation.

And the "save more lives" morality test has been addressed hundreds of times by competent moralists. It doesn't apply to the abortion question and never has.

Anonymous Luke December 08, 2017 11:30 PM  

Avalanche and Mr. Rational see reality and the consequent implications for essential action very clearly. (An American football team needs both offense and defense, available from the very first quarter.)

They are among the most perceptive of the Ilk. I often find myself smarter after reading their more thorough posts.

Anonymous Gurpgork December 09, 2017 12:48 AM  

"when economy meets science" (finally?)
Sounds interesting.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 09, 2017 10:27 AM  

S1AL wrote:I'm a Millennial. All of your bitching about the economy and hypergamy is meaningless to me.
Haven't been disemployed by H-1B-hungry corps or had your wife cheat on you.  Yet.

Anything you can claim to be dealing with applies doubly to my generation.
I've been fighting it since before you were born, so at least give me that.

And the "save more lives" morality test has been addressed hundreds of times by competent moralists. It doesn't apply to the abortion question and never has.
It goes to the core of what you actually believe by revealing your preferences, rather than what you say you believe.  Your "competent moralists" are just obfuscating that.

Blogger S1AL December 09, 2017 11:31 AM  

"Haven't been disemployed by H-1B-hungry corps or had your wife cheat on you. Yet."

So your solution is to give up and not even try?

You know, maybe I'll lose out in the future. That might happen. But I might get killed by a drink driver, too. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop using roads.

"I've been fighting it since before you were born, so at least give me that."

Fighting what, exactly? You didn't marry, didn't have children, didn't go into politics, didn't do anything materially substantial to bring about the future you claim to desire.

Objection is not fighting. You've capitulated.

"It goes to the core of what you actually believe by revealing your preferences, rather than what you say you believe. Your "competent moralists" are just obfuscating that."

It goes to the question of practicality. If human life will cease either way, then it's not a choice of taking life or not taking it. It's a question of which to save. Abortion is not a choice of whom to save - it's just murder, straight up.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 09, 2017 2:14 PM  

S1AL wrote:So your solution is to give up and not even try?
Haven't given up.  I am a man of independent means, zero debt and trying to start something that could be very big, and of course women fall all over successful men.  I just arranged a first date.  I am doing other things I cannot discuss.

Fighting what, exactly? You didn't marry, didn't have children, didn't go into politics, didn't do anything materially substantial to bring about the future you claim to desire.
Never stopped looking, never stopped trying, can't do politics because I literally can't speak to the average voter, supported candidates who could and my own immediate family.  Got dealt a heaping load of shit for it, too.  I was recently un-friended IRL for supporting Americans over H-1B job thieves.

Objection is not fighting. You've capitulated.
What do you suggest I do, find the nearest Infosys office and do a Dylann Roof on it?  It wouldn't accomplish squat.  Instead I'm doing what I do best, trying to build something.

it's not a choice of taking life or not taking it. It's a question of which to save. Abortion is not a choice of whom to save - it's just murder, straight up.
It's a nasty world and life gives us ugly tradeoffs and decisions.  Killing the first wave of African boat people would have saved many, many more.  Sometimes killing isn't not just necessary for your own survival, it is literally the kindest thing you can do.

Blogger S1AL December 09, 2017 2:30 PM  

"Haven't given up. I am a man of independent means, zero debt and trying to start something that could be very big, and of course women fall all over successful men. I just arranged a first date. I am doing other things I cannot discuss."

And that's a good start, and completely different from what you originally said. I don't have a problem with people who've run into shitty situations - I've become unemployed twice due to factors outside my control. Bad things happen, on occasion.

But you first blamed housing costs and the existence of black people, ffs. Neither of those is remotely an issue anywhere but in tiny sections of Urbana. GTFO of the metropolises.

"Never stopped looking, never stopped trying, can't do politics because I literally can't speak to the average voter, supported candidates who could and my own immediate family. Got dealt a heaping load of shit for it, too. I was recently un-friended IRL for supporting Americans over H-1B job thieves."

Yeah, liberal tolerance at its finest.

"What do you suggest I do, find the nearest Infosys office and do a Dylann Roof on it? It wouldn't accomplish squat. Instead I'm doing what I do best, trying to build something."

I don't expect anything from anyone beyond the basic elements of civilization: that's why I harp so hard on marriage and children. We have to have the basics. And I'm flabbergasted by little who claim to care so damn much about the 'white race' but haven't contributed to its existence (by having and raising children, specifically). That's what I don't understand: if it's really *that* important to you, why isn't more of a priority?

"It's a nasty world and life gives us ugly tradeoffs and decisions. Killing the first wave of African boat people would have saved many, many more. Sometimes killing isn't not just necessary for your own survival, it is literally the kindest thing you can do."

Man, this is America. We brought Africans here as slaves. That's on us. Comparing unborn human beings to criminals is *not* rational. When you have to bring up absurd scenarios or literal invasions as a comparison to total innocents, it's time to rethink.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 10, 2017 6:20 AM  

S1AL wrote:that's a good start, and completely different from what you originally said.
You asked about the past.  The past is past.  I'm still working to make a future.

I don't have a problem with people who've run into shitty situations - I've become unemployed twice due to factors outside my control.
If it's only happened to you twice, try talking to the tech guys who can't get anyone to look at their resumés because they are over 40.

But you first blamed housing costs and the existence of black people, ffs. Neither of those is remotely an issue anywhere but in tiny sections of Urbana. GTFO of the metropolises.
If your talents lie in tech and you aren't a star who can get paid for telecommuting, you are required to live in or at least commute to Urbana (and you won't be able to pay for Champaign).  You have to pay enough for a house to keep away from anything that accepts Section Ape and the likes of Angel Adams, and due to desegregation, all urban and most suburban districts have wholly or substantially fuxxated public schools.  Once you are done paying for housing that's safe enough to raise kids in, you can't afford kids unless you are in the 1%.

I don't expect anything from anyone beyond the basic elements of civilization: that's why I harp so hard on marriage and children. We have to have the basics.
The basics were cheap when we had segregation and redlining.  Now we're forced to pay for our own destruction to be moved next door to us.  I have not seen this personally, but I understand that my own small local school district has a big ESL population.  I pay more than $500/mo in property taxes for the privilege of trying to "educate" these invaders.  There is NOTHING I can do about this personally unless I want to go all Harris & Klebold, and that would just be temporary.

I'm flabbergasted by little who claim to care so damn much about the 'white race' but haven't contributed to its existence (by having and raising children, specifically).
Find me someone with the same ethos and a uterus.  I've been looking for years.

Man, this is America. We brought Africans here as slaves. That's on us.
It's on the corporate head of Virginia colony, you mean.  And also on Africans themselves; chattel slavery did not exist in America until an African (Anthony Johnson) sued to be declared the owner of another (John Casor).

Comparing unborn human beings to criminals is *not* rational. When you have to bring up absurd scenarios or literal invasions as a comparison to total innocents, it's time to rethink.
What part of "being where they were not invited and are not wanted" do you not understand?

Blogger S1AL December 10, 2017 10:59 AM  

"If your talents lie in tech and you aren't a star who can get paid for telecommuting, you are required to live in or at least commute to Urbana (and you won't be able to pay for Champaign)."

If you're willing to take a hit on total income in exchange for lower tax rates and cost of living, anywhere in the "dead zone" (Utah, Wyoming, Montana, etc) has companies in need of people in tech. Colorado used to be that way, too, but Denver's expansion is screwing it up.

"Find me someone with the same ethos and a uterus. I've been looking for years."

Most of my suggestions involve churches, so not really applicable to you. That said, women who want kids are way more common, again, outside of Urbana. Forget barbarian invasions, I blame Rome's collapse on its urbanization.

"It's on the corporate head of Virginia colony, you mean. And also on Africans themselves; chattel slavery did not exist in America until an African (Anthony Johnson) sued to be declared the owner of another (John Casor)."

We can argue about details, but the end result is that we have a black American population that didn't come here by choice.

"What part of "being where they were not invited and are not wanted" do you not understand?"

The part where you think that's a valid comparison.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts