The Age of Reptiles

This chart is from the classic Spearhead article "The End of Marriage":

Spearhead contributer Novaseeker responded thusly:

Interesting article.

The data I have seen suggests substantial disparities in marriage rates based on socio-economic slice, such that in the “dual educated, dual working with combined income over 100k” slice, marriage rates are high, still, and divorce rates are low. Of course that is a very small demographic slice, but it seems significant because it describes how the elites are living — in the world of the elites, there is no marriage crisis, because when they look around at each other, they see most of each other are married and a rather small number have ever been divorced — so the reality of what is happening to marriage in the culture as a whole is less “real” to the elites who are in a position to change policy and so on. So the problem perpetuates itself, and marriage becomes increasingly an elite institution, while it effectively dies in the rest of society.

Certainly people are cohabiting rather than marrying — that’s a given. And outside the socio-economic elites, women are avoiding marriage as much as men are, because there really isn’t that much of a benefit for them either unless the guy brings a substantial amount to the table. The reason for this is fairly simple — old marriage was based on a division of labor between husband and wife. That division of labor pretty much no longer applies outside of the elite because most cannot afford that division of labor. So that model of marriage is pretty much scrapped — the new watchword is independence, and the social model has been created to support that. Among the elites, the new model that has emerged is the “consumption marriage”, which is held together by the raw consumptive power of two incomes creating a lifestyle that only one of them would be hard-pressed to replicate alone — > these are couples that are not super-rich like movie stars, but folks who depend on the dollars from both incomes to support their upper middle class lifestyles.

They tend to not divorce a lot, because the cost is high in terms of lifestyle hit. And they tend to marry a lot because the benefits, in economic terms, are clear. Trouble is — that model only works for people who earn a lot of money. In lower socio-economic rungs, it just doesn’t work because there isn’t enough economic “there” there. So there really is no viable social model (i.e., one that is based on brass tacks interests of the spouses rather than emotional fulfillment) that supports marriage in most socio-economic demographics.

As we move forward, we will see the results of this experiment as to whether an advanced civilization can sustain itself for very long with most of the demographic not having stable marriages, or even marriages at all.

No precedent for that, of course, so it’s brave new world for everyone. And as far as the elites are concerned, they don’t see an issue, because in their small demo there isn’t an issue.

The other point I’d like to make is that we need to lose our sentimentality about this culture. If it is to end, which seems more likely than not but clearly not a given, it is to end. The world will go on, and men will go on, long after any demise of the West. It was a good run, for a while, but it’s foolish to tie yourself to the fortunes of the West. It may very well be nearing the end of its run.
_______________________________________________________

Note: Golden Dawn is a political party in Greece. They seem far more supportive of the kinds of traditional sex roles which once made marriage a successful institution than other western parties.

Golden Dawn's website is found here:
http://www.xryshaygh.com/index.php/home

Information on how to donate to Golden Dawn can be found here:
http://www.xryshaygh.com/index.php/home/oikonomikh-enisxysh

Golden Dawn New York's website is found here:
http://xaameriki.wordpress.com/

Read more...

Rearranging the Deck Chairs

Why most economists are not hopeful about "quantitative easing," the Fed's latest idea to help the economy.

The U.S. economy's biggest problem, businesses and policymakers agree, is widespread lack of demand. If only people and companies would buy more stuff, the theory goes—a car, an office park, a forklift—then the stores and companies that make and sell that stuff would hire more workers, who would then spend more money, and just like that (or almost)—economic growth.

One way the Federal Reserve has spurred economic growth traditionally has been to lower interest rates, which has a known and a tested impact. If the Fed lowers rates, money becomes cheap and the economy heats up. But the federal funds rate, the Fed's main lever, is now near zero.

So the Fed is turning to a policy known as "quantitative easing." Essentially, the Fed is using its license to print money. (Technically, it doesn't have a license, but it knows someone who does.) On Nov. 3, the markets expect the Fed to announce that it has decided to create somewhere between $500 billion and $1.2 trillion that it will then spend to help goose economic growth. Rather than buying space in office parks or forklifts, though, the Fed—which purchases only government-backed assets, like bonds—will probably pick up long-term Treasury debt. The strategy has been termed "QE2" because it is the second time the Fed has used this arcane monetary policy tool. The Fed makes money ex nihilo, pulling it out of thin air rather than taking it from its coffers. Then, it pushes the money into the economy by buying up assets from banks.

The problem is that the strategy is indirect. The Fed cannot just buy up goods and services, so it is trying to convince investors to invest and banks to lend more, creating more economic activity. And a many prominent economists, ranging from the wonks at the libertarian Cato Institute to liberal Nobel-winner Joe Stiglitz, are skeptical. Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke sounds uncertain. "Monetary policymaking in an era of low inflation has not proved to be entirely straightforward," he sighed in a speech earlier this month.

QE largely succeeded the first time the Fed used it, Bernanke says. From late 2008 through 2009, the Fed created about $1.7 trillion and used the funds to purchase debt in housing-finance firms like Fannie Mae, Treasury bonds, and a whole lot of mortgage-backed securities—tripling the size of its balance sheet to $2.3 trillion. That helped clean some bad assets from the banks' books and reassured spooked markets. But in 2009, the government was trading cash for mortgage-related assets nobody wanted. In 2010, it wants to try to trade cash for an asset that is essentially as safe as cash. If QE2 is to work, it will have to work differently than QE did—and probably won't work as well.

So how might it work? One hope is that by giving banks cash in exchange for assets, the Federal Reserve will induce banks to lend. With more cash on hand, the banks will be more willing to make loans to homeowners and businesses. But the reason for the banks' current stinginess has little to do with the size of their reserves—banks are sitting on excess capital, as are the big companies they like to lend to. Banks are not making loans because they don't see anyone or thing worth lending money to. Just because they have $500 billion or even $100 trillion more to lend doesn't mean they will decide to lend it...

Another hope is that by trading non-interest-bearing assets (cash) for interest-bearing assets (bonds), the Federal Reserve will reduce the supply of bonds and make them more expensive, prodding big institutional investors to invest less in government debt and more in the American economy. The problem with this theory is that the bond market is huge—really huge—and international. To have any sort of impact, the Fed would need to buy a lot of bonds. Economists worry it won't buy enough. Paul Krugman, for one, says the Fed would need to buy $8 trillion to $10 trillion to have an effect.

A third hope is that by pushing up the price of bonds, the Fed could improve the balance sheets of some big investors. (Firms like PIMCO, for example, already hold hundreds of billions of dollars in government debt.) That might make them feel wealthier, increasing their appetite for risk. The problem here is that the Fed isn't changing the economic fundamentals. If big investors thought there was money to made in the economy right now, they'd be out there making it—just as if banks thought there were worthy lenders, they'd grant them loans.

Read more...

The Groanings of Empire

'The aim of Operation Moshtarak in February was to capture the city of Marjah in Afghanistan's war-torn Helmand province. Fifteen thousand troops, mainly American, British and Afghan, were to take on between 400 and 1,000 Taliban insurgents holed up in a city of 80,000 people.

Commanders talked of a "new model war". An Afghan administration and police force would move into Marjah behind the soldiers. Engineers would maintain power and water supplies. "We've got a government in a box, ready to roll in," said the then-US General Stanley McChrystal.

But as the offensive unfolded, reported Taliban casualties were few, and Marjah turned out not to exist. Faithfully reported by global news media, it was in fact invented by US military officials. "This is all a war of perceptions," McChrystal said. As The Washington Post reported, the decision to launch the offensive was intended to influence US public opinion on the effectiveness of military action in Afghanistan by showing it could win a "large and loud victory". In reality, Marjah is a vaguely-defined area of villages, markets and family compounds. If there are tens of thousands of people, they are spread across 125 sq miles. Marjah was invented because a military operation has to have a clear-cut goal to be deemed a victory. President Obama had doubled the total US troop deployment, but public support was waning. The generals needed a victory, so they created Marjah and planned Operation Moshtarak to capture it.'

-From Lawrence to the Taliban

_______________________________________________________________________

'Petraeus is a bull-feather merchant who gained primacy in the U.S. officer corps through sheer genius for self-promotion and wizardry at public relations. Though he is celebrated as our “best general” and enjoys a reputation as the military genius who “wrote the book” on counterinsurgency, he has in fact been singularly and purposefully responsible for entangling us in a long war that he himself admits cannot be won but that we will likely continue to fight for at least another generation.

Bob Woodward’s latest book-length spin surgery, titled Obama’s War, quotes Petraeus as saying “I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. … This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.” Petraeus supposedly blurted this and other uncomfortable revelations to Woodward “after a glass of wine on an airplane.” If Petraeus’s tongue can be yanked that loose with a single glass of wine, the guy’s as much of a drinker as he is a general. Maybe that explains a few things, like how the 190,000 AK-47s he handed out to Iraqi security force recruits vanished like a wallet on a New York City sidewalk and wound up in the hands of militants.

If, as prominent warmonger Lindsey Graham suggests, King David Petraeus is “our best hope,” our ship of state is already on a bow-first vector for the ocean floor. Lamentably, the state of American military wisdom is so pitiable that Petraeus may in fact be the sharpest utensil in a drawer otherwise inhabited by spoons.'

-Long Warfare Theory

Read more...

Mystery Date

It was interesting how this Fox News video from yesterday includes the claim that "at least" three seperate US Intelligence Officials told the reporter that "terrorist chatter is at an all time high".

Also interesting how the mystery terrorist is evidently from the mountainous tribal area of Pakistan, one of the purest vestiges of that ancient form of social orginization called the Tribe left in this increasingly Americanized and individualistic World.

Read more...

No Social Security COLA expected for 2011

In 1975 Social Security started having an automatic inflation based cost of living increase.

The only two years where there's been no cost of living increase have been 2009, and just now it was announced 2010 won't have a cost of living increase either.

That's an awfully big coincidence, the only two years in 36 coming one right after the other like that.

The oddity of this AP article on this situation is that the obvious question isn't addressed in any way: "Has there really not been any inflation over these last two fiscal years, or is it more that the Government's starting to go broke?"

In any event I find this interesting given there's a serious argument that Social Security payments to old people are one of the most important causes of the breakdown of Western Society.

For all of Human History the primary responsiblity for caring for an old person was that of the old person's children.

This created a World where it was important to do the following if you wanted to have a comfortable old age:

Contribute to the welfare of society by having children, and then contributing to society further by going through the trouble of teaching them to respect their elders and inherited moral strictures.

This created a situation where people had a personal and easy to understand incentive to act in the interest of their society's long term interest.

But now with Social Security we have a dangerous situation where the old people who didn't have children are mooching off the hard work of the old people who did have children.

The money for Social Security doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from young workers.

And why do we have the benefit of young workers?

Because of the dedicated people who went through the profound trouble and expense of having children.

They tilled the field, they planted the seed, they watered the land, but then they have the crop taken out of their hands and divided up in such a way that they get nothing more than those who did nothing to help.

This creates a situation where the childless are able to party and spread sexually transmitted diseases at the expense of the people who have children, the people who make it possible for society to continue existing for more than a few decades.

I think one of the key reasons why sub-Saharan African countries have such high birthrates, and European countries have such low birthrates, is simply because sub-Saharan African Countries are too chaotic and/or tribal to set up social security programs for themselves.

In tragic contrast the European countries are stable and individualistic enough that they've been able to set up social security programs for their citizens, and thus a crucial link between the generations has been weakened near to breaking.

Read more...

"But I'm Saying It Anyway"

Read more...

David Cameron to Middle Class: Go Extinct

David Cameron has so far turned out to not be as awful a Prime Minister as I expected based on him acting in public like the politician in a movie made by someone who hates the guts of politicians and wants them all to die.

It was good how he stood up to the EU when they tried to bully him into giving Brussels control of the UK budget.

That was crucial because if you give the EU control of the budgets of its member states, you effectively make the EU immortal.

At the same time his Government just pulled a dirty trick:

Stay-at-home mothers hit by child benefit cut

Three million families will lose the universal benefit, worth more than £1,700 a year to families with two children, from 2013, under plans unveiled by the Chancellor. Families have been entitled to the payments since 1945.

Mr Osborne chose to announce on breakfast television that he had decided to scrap child benefit for the better off despite repeated assurances during the election campaign that the benefit was safe.

Child benefit will be removed from any household with a higher-rate taxpayer from 2013. This will penalise households with one earner on a salary of more than £43,875.

You can see it really is like they decided to go out of their way to hurt stay-at-home mothers. 

Instead of going by combined income of the couple to determine if they’re “too rich” to get the child tax credit, they instead go by the whichever of the parents has the most income.

And then there’s the issue that they’re deliberately discouraging people who are relatively high income, which correlates within a Country with higher productivity, from having children.

But on second thought, why would we want the economically productive people having children, anyway?

What do they do that’s useful, except stopping everyone else from starving to death?

The Hedge Fund managers and other assorted millionaires will have plenty of money for having children even without the credit, and that's the important thing.

Read more...

Phonics

I noticed this excerpt from a Newsweek profile of Nevada Senate Candidate Sharron Angle:

Angle’s past might offer a portrait of her style of legislating. In the state Assembly, where she sat from 1999 to 2005, Angle, several Democratic and Republican colleagues recall, was reflexively disapproving. When the body met every odd year (Nevada has a part-time citizens’ legislature), Angle would always keep to herself. Frequently, she would vote that way too. It became a running joke in the legislature that fairly germane bills, such as increasing teacher incentives or requiring candidates to report campaign contributions, passed “41 to Angle” (out of 42 members). Angle was the sole 'no' vote 39 times. Twice as often, it was Angle and fellow conservative Don Gustavson, now a candidate for a seat in the state Senate, who bucked the rest of the bipartisan legislature.

On other votes, Angle mostly fell in line with many in her caucus. But some of the bills Angle pushed herself proved unpopular; some even confused her fellow GOP colleagues. Twice she tried to push an education bill requiring that elementary schools only use phonics to teach reading, essentially ignoring the conventional wisdom of the day that students learn in different ways.

That's interesting. 

Phonics is the only way to teach children how to read which actually makes sense.

If you were trying to teach someone how to do math who didn't know anything about it, how would you start out?

You'd start out by teaching them what the individual numerical symbols mean.

In the same way if you were trying to teach someone how to read, you'd start out by teaching them what the individual letters mean.

One of the most simple principles of effective education is that if a complex technique is build on a simpler technique, you teach the simpler technique first.

But somehow a lot of American teachers got the idea into their head that it would be a good idea to skip past the simple technique of learning what letters mean, and instead to jump straight to trying to teach the students how to read whole words.

I tried to find a peer reviewed study addressing these issues and found a meta-analysis entitled: “Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn To Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel”:

A quantitative meta-analysis evaluating the effects of systematic phonics instruction compared to unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on learning to read was conducted using 66 treatment-control comparisons derived from 38 experiments. The overall effect of phonics instruction on reading was moderate, d = 0.41. Effects persisted after instruction ended. Effects were larger when phonics instruction began early (d = 0.55) than after first grade (d = 0.27). Phonics benefited decoding, word reading, text comprehension, and spelling in many readers. Phonics helped low and middle SES readers, younger students at risk for reading disability (RD), and older students with RD, but it did not help low achieving readers that included students with cognitive limitations. Synthetic phonics and larger-unit systematic phonics programs produced a similar advantage in reading. Delivering instruction to small groups and classes was not less effective than tutoring. Systematic phonics instruction helped children learn to read better than all forms of control group instruction, including whole language. In sum, systematic phonics instruction proved effective and should be implemented as part of literacy programs to teach beginning reading as well as to prevent and remediate reading difficulties.

Note even though the study calls the effect size of +0.41 for Phonics instuction moderate, it actually comes out to a difference equal to 41% of a Standard Deviation.

It would be interesting to determine if the effects persist into adulthood.

Read more...