Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Myths of Income

It's often said by liberals, "progressives", and Democrats that "the middle class is shrinking." Of course, that's not true, but it makes for exciting news, doesn't it? If a journalist can "sniff out the truth" about declining wages, he's onto something, esp. a promotion. But today's media and DNC rarely get economics right, which most certainly includes the income equality myth.

Income inequality is a fallacy primarily because it says that just because the guys at the top have so much more money than you somehow that means you're making less. Well, I hate to say it, but that's a load of crap. For example, if you are in a business contest with all the other students in your class, and they do better than you, does that mean you have less money? No, of course not! You still got the money you made, and they made the money they made. It just means they made more!

You have to put things like this in perspective, or else you're gonna wind up looking like an idiot who doesn't think things through. In fact, contrary to popular belief, incomes for the lower and middle classes have risen sharply, even over just the past half century- the post-war economic boom! Don't believe me? Look it up. As the rich have gotten richer, so have the the other classes!! Sure, the rise for other classes wasn't as sharp as the rich's, but who cares?? You're richer. The per capita GDP (or the average individual income, in a sense) is $47,000! That's a lot of money. Yes, household income hasn't risen nearly as fast as individual, but why would it? Households usually have at least 2 people. It's pretty costly to take care of many people if you're the only breadwinner.

Besides, why the hell would big business purposely lower wages for everyone so much, or lay off so many people, that we become a 3rd-World country? Do you honestly think that's a good strategy? Hell no! Big businesses would lose an enormous amount revenue, and they would go out of business because we would be able to afford their products much less. Big businesses may be cunning, "evil" (as some liberals claim), and greedy, but they're not stupid. A free enterprise system has lifted far more people out of poverty than all the socialist and Communist countries combined! Why don't liberals ever see this? They always focus on the bad things in economics: "We're becoming a 3rd-World nation" "The rich are making more than ever" "Wages have stagnated since the 1970s." None of these claims are true, but it sure makes for good campaign rhetoric, doesn't it? If you can convince the masses you're telling the truth, that's all that matters in politics anymore, right?

Wages have hardly stagnated, except maybe for some lower-skilled jobs. But that's to be expected. I mean, how much more can you possibly make in a sector which has essentially "maxed out" and is becoming less and less important to overall growth as time goes by, such as manufacturing? I'm happy for postindustrialization. It means overall growth and productivity is higher! It means that, eventually, lower-skilled folks will have to graduate high school and go to college, at least for a few years, to get the skills needed for real jobs that require intelligence, not just learning how to operate a machine or put something together. Anyone with a little strength, good eyesight, fair listening skills and manual dexterity can do that!

Besides, what's so bad about income inequality? I'm glad there are rich people at the top to keep the economy going, and I'm even gladder that there are wealthy companies that hire lots of people and make their lives better through high wages. It's often been said that the best cure for poverty is not welfare, food stamps, AFDC, WIC, Medicaid, or any of those entitlements, but a job, preferably a high-paying one. I couldn't agree more.

Idiot liberals like to talk about how the Gini coefficient is lower in many European nations with larger welfare states. What they don't tell you is that these nations also have much more burdensome business regulations, higher taxes, and high unemployment. Unemployment in Western Europe was similar to the U.S.'s in the 1960s, but then it stagnated with the introduction of huge government.

Simply put, it's hard as hell to get the kind of economic growth over there that America has, and it's even harder to become a billionaire or even a millionaire. America has at least a few million millionaires. Few European countries come close, I would imagine. In poll after poll, Americans are consistently ranked highest when it comes to who thinks they have the greatest social mobility. That has to mean something.

When are liberals gonna learn?

Homosexuality Is Historical

You ever hear an anti-gay activist say something along the lines of, "The first recorded case of homosexuality was 1869 with Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs"? Well, don't believe it for a second. Yes, it is true that he was gay, and he was "molested" (although he probably just had a thing for) his equestrian trainer when he was 14 (the other guy was in his 30s), but that is hardly a reason for making him gay. Why do conservatives always assume if some younger guy/gal has sex with an older man/woman that it's automatically "rape"? It's such nonsense. What, it's not possible for consent to happen between these 2? Is age really such a big deal?

Anyway, as I was saying, homosexuality has been prevalent throughout much of history. Just about every culture has had it. It's very rare that you see a culture without at least one gay. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can deny that gays are in Iran all he wants, but he's fooling no one.

Here's just one timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

As you can see, Egypt had the first recorded gay couple thousands of years ago, believe it or not (Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum). In fact, if you go even further back to 12,000 BC (14,000 years ago), you'll find plenty of gay cave paintings and sculptures emphasizing homoeroticism. Sappho of Lesbos may is rumored to have been a lesbian. As perhaps was Plato (or was it Socrates?), Alexander the Great (or bisexual), Marquis de Sade (who probably was bi), and plenty of other historical figures! Hell, even Julius Caesar allegedly had a gay experience. And plenty of Roman emperors in the latter centuries of Rome's existence, including Hadrian and Trajan, were openly gay or were in gay relationships.

Why archconservatives continue to act like "gay" is something new is beyond me. Why can't they just accept it and move on? I swear, modern-day cultures and civilizations are so sexually repressed. We give up tolerance for things such as pedophilia and female genital mutilation, but we exchange it with becoming prudish assholes on sexual practices we do legally allow.

Homosexuality has never been the sole demise of any culture, and I have yet to see any evidence that being gay was even one of the main factors at all! There are plenty of reasons why Greece, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and several other world powers fell. To think that "promotion of homosexuality" is somehow a reason is just ludicrous. Is homosexuality supposed to be some kind of virus that spreads like an epidemic and infects all facets of society?

Redefining Marriage (History)

I always get a good rise whenever I hear some archconservative say that gay marriage "redefines" marriage. Oh, really? Well, what exactly is marriage? Just one man and one woman who love each other? Because that is not the way it has happened throughout history. In fact, marriage, for most cultures outside of the West, is not simply a contract between 2 heterosexuals in love.

In Kenya, for instance, there actually is a form of gay marriage (although it's not purely gay). In this ceremony, an infertile woman from the Nandi tribe can "marry" a younger, more fertile woman, and that younger woman will have sex with the man to have children (or produce boys, if I remember correctly). However, the 2 women who "marry" aren't actually in love, and it's more of a contractual arrangement for convenience. The younger woman, after she gives birth to at least one boy, is allowed to have sex with the man, and the older woman can no longer. She's more like a servant or caretaker now.

In many different cultures, like the Imbonggu in New Guinea, marriage is hardly for love. When children reach the ages of 7-10, they are initiated by the elders and trained to be warriors. At the end, they are selected wives. These wives, as all women, are considered inferior to the man in Imbonggu culture, and thus, she is limited in the marriage. The main purpose for the man is to have sex and have kids, as well as the woman serving as partially his "servant." There's not a lot of affection shown between the 2 spouses. And Imbonggu is one of many polygamous cultures, as men are allowed and even encouraged to have more than one wife.

Polygamy is still widely practiced in the developing and underdeveloped world. Men can have as many wives as possible, or they can have multiple, but there's a limit (such as Arab states that allow up to 4). Western romance and marriage rituals are not the norm worldwide. They are relatively new throughout human history.

In many cultures, marriage is more of an arrangement to unify and align different tribes. A member of one tribe marries another, and they form a bond of protection and kinship. They are allies.

In places like India, marriages are arranged, not necessarily for alliances, though. Many husbands and wives do learn to love each other later on, but oftentimes they do not at the beginning.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Western marriage rituals and traditions have hardly been normal. They are pretty new in the whole of human history. So, all this crap about "redefining marriage" is just nonsense! Marriage has been defined and redefined dozens of times throughout history. Not every civilization has the same definition. There is no "5,000 years of recorded history" of Western marriage. It's just not there. Where these cretins get this idea is beyond me.

Maybe if they'd take an anthropology class or something, they'd finally understand.