Why Gold?

Why gold as a reserve currency? Here's a cogent explanation from intellectual-detox.com, emphasis added:

The Gold Standard

Some people ask the question: "Should the dollar be backed by a gold standard." But that is the wrong question. The right question is what will happen.

Any government that is strong enough will want to enact a fiat currency. If the government is greedy it will enact a fiat currency to reap the benefits of seinorage. If the government is benevolent (or thinks its benevolent) it will enact a fiat currency to smooth over economic fluctuations.

The world switched to a fiat currency when the U.S. had enough domestic and international hegemony to enforce the dollar as the global standard. The fallacy that many believe is that gold was made obsolete because of technology and "progress". They believe that somehow basing a currency off a inert, mostly useless metal is somehow archaic.

But gold is not a natural currency because its shiny. It's a natural currency because it is the best Schelling point/Nash equilibrium for a group of independent actors to settle on as a store of value. If you have five independent, mutually wary agents (either individuals or governments) trying to negotiate a common store of value, then gold is the default because a) no one can simply print infinite amounts of it b) it has the highest stocks to production ratio, so its has the least amount of dilution from mining.

As the American manufacturing base rots, its military fails at yet another war, and its political system continues to spin in circles, people and nations may start to lose faith in the dollar as a store of value. At that point, the most natural alternative as a reserve currency will be gold.

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Food

From a friend: http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/health/2010/fall/sweet-satisfaction.shtml

Thinking about food makes you eat less.

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Interesting blog

Interesting blog. Will get added to my regular feed.

http://www.halfsigma.com/

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

MLK Day Terrorist Bomb

About four hours away from me: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0119-spokane-bomb-20110119,0,3022661.story

Is al Qaeda diversifying outside of airports, or is this another lone crazy like Loughner?

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Marriage rate

This data is U.S.-only:

Age	1970	1999	2000	2002	2004	2008
Male:
20 to 24 years	35.8%	83.2%	83.7%	85.4%	86.7%	86.9%
25 to 29 years	10.5	52.1	51.7	53.7	56.6	57.6
30 to 34 years	6.2	30.7	30.0	34.0	33.4	32.4
35 to 39 years	5.4	21.1	20.3	21.1	23.4	23.0
40 to 44 years	4.9	15.8	15.7	16.7	18.5	16.9
Female:
20 to 24 years	54.7%	72.3%	72.8%	74.0%	75.4%	76.4%
25 to 29 years	19.1	38.9	38.9	40.4	40.8	43.4
30 to 34 years	9.4	22.1	21.9	23.0	23.7	24.0
35 to 39 years	7.2	15.2	14.3	14.7	14.6	15.2
40 to 44 years	6.3	10.9	11.8	11.5	12.2	12.9

(From http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763219.html)

It used it be that 95% of 45-year-olds had been married at least once. According to this chart, it's now down to 87% for women, 83% for men. On one level this is worrisome: the U.S. is already underpopulated by global standards, by about x3, if you go by people per acre of arable land. On another, Darwinian level it's merely amusing. I predict that the marriage rate in 2070 will be at least as high in the United States as it is today, and families will probably be slightly larger, because the people who never marry (like me) will have bred themselves out of the gene pool...

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Manipulation WAS RE: Touching base

Hi T.,

[Max wrote] "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life. But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." (Matt. 19:29-30.)

[T. wrote] I've never thought of applying that scripture in that way, I've always thought of it regarding the Gentiles and house of Israel.  The house of Israel was the first to receive the gospel at the time of Christ (focusing specifically on the Jews for example) then the Gentiles after Christ's ascension; even so, in this dispensation the Gentiles (and the lost tribes of Israel) will receive the gospel first while the Jews will be after Christ's second coming.

[Max replies] Some principles apply in multiple situations and are given as the answer to more than one question. For instance, see JST Matt 5:32-34 ("if thy right hand offend thee..."), where hand/foot/eye represent sins according to v 34, and the same analogy in JST Mark 9:40-48 where they represent other people. The scripture does apply to the Gentiles & House of Israel as well (for instance 1 Nephi 13:42) but here in Matthew 10 (and also in Mark 10:29-31) Jesus is answering a question about personal destiny. It wouldn't make sense if he answered Peter's question by talking about the Gentiles: he is talking about Peter (and it's quoted in the scriptures because the same answer applies to all the righteous).

[Max wrote] 2.) One reason the inversion occurs in the first place is that eternity and mortality play by different rules. Things that work inmortality don't work in eternity and sometimes vice versa. (See Moses 8:15 for an example of playing by mortality's rules, and where it leads.) ...

[Tom wrote] I'm not sure I follow your thinking here.  Are you saying Noah's daughters were playing by mortality's rules and thus condemned of God?

[Max replies] I suspected that reference was too oblique when I wrote it. Compare Moses 8:12-14 to Genesis 19:14, and think about the fact that Noah's granddaughters (and grandsons-in-law) were not on the Ark. Why? At least in part, because their husbands weren't spiritually awake. (Didn't take Noah seriously, just like Lot's sons-in-law didn't take him or the message from the angels seriously.) Why then did they marry these men? They must have had something to offer--we don't know if it was good looks, or money, or just making them feel great emotionally--but they valued those qualities more than they valued a love of righteousness, which is why the Lord says they "sold themselves." As for the husbands in question: yes, they got the girls, and were probably popular with their (wicked) friends and rich to boot. And then they drowned. And spent the next 3000-4000 years (at least) in spirit prison. Short-term success, long-term failure. It only looks like success in the short term.

[Tom wrote] After reading your example below I'm glad you wouldn't treat your wife that way.  I do not believe manipulation is behavior becoming a priesthood holder.  I've found manipulation to, in a way, deny a person their God given right to be a person and choose despite their motivation.

I don't think I share that view, and in fact I think manipulation, in a sense, is an important duty of a husband. Women are emotional creatures, and it's my duty to know what her buttons are and how to push them. What is a candlelit dinner and a romantic evening but a form of emotional manipulation? You're using your knowledge of her psychology to customize her experience to put her in a certain mood. It's not like she minds, either, and in fact she will cooperate because it makes her feel good. Self-manipulation is also very useful: knowing how to push your own buttons in such a way that your emotions do what you want them to. The key component to both kinds of manipulation is actual knowledge of the details of how a person works internally.

However, I have other problems with the described behavior.

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

RE: Touching base

Hey T.,

 

I will have some questions to ask you about rock climbing, etc., at a later date, but right now I just want to make a quick observation about this topic:

 

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM, ... wrote:

With regards to single life in Salt Lake, I'm on the up and up, despite the impending 'ejection' from the young single adult ward due to my upcoming birthday.  I am hopeful things will eventually work out, but I only have minor girl interests at this point in time as well.  I hold to the maxim: "If you do your best, you can't do any better."  I believe everything else is God's timing and grace.

 

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life. But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." (Matt. 19:29-30.)

 

1.) Many that will be first in that day must be last here and now, or the scripture would be broken. If someone has to be last, it might as well be guys (and girls) who are equipped to handle it. Tougher, more stable, able to accomplish things even alone.

 

2.) One reason the inversion occurs in the first place is that eternity and mortality play by different rules. Things that work in mortality don't work in eternity and sometimes vice versa. (See Moses 8:15 for an example of playing by mortality's rules, and where it leads.) I think I mentioned that I've learned some interesting things from the pick-up artist community (sosuave.com for example), and there are some principles that I can use (paying attention to emotions), but there are plenty of other things that I can't bring myself to use because I would never treat my wife that way[1]. The price is that my success with normal, emotional women will be limited. I expect this to change over the next thousand years or so as resurrected women develop more perspective and better control over their emotions, but for now it's a price to be paid. Playing by long-term rules can impede short-term success: just ask your average socialite what the value is of following the Golden Rule.

 

There are things I don't know about your situation (and tastes, etc.) but I think these observations probably apply to your situation. Factor #1 is one reason I plan to look quite hard at girls who never married during mortality: it stands to reason that there should be some superb individuals among them.

 

-Max

 

[1] For example: never apologize even if you're partially in the wrong--being an emotional creature, she will take the cue from your demeanor. If you act like you're in the wrong, she will assume you're in the wrong whether you were or not. If you act like you're not in the wrong and freeze her out, she will chew over her own behavior until she finds something she did wrong and then decide she was in the wrong and come crawling back. Thus you maintain psychological dominance and the upper hand in the relationship, which conveys masculinity and keeps her attracted to you.

 

P.S. If you are at all interested in thinking about the long term, geopolitics is an interesting discipline to look at. George Friedman has a book called The Next 100 Years which is quite readable.

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

Case study: minimum wage laws

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/printer_101130-williams-minimum-wage.php

 

"The higher the price of something, the less people will take of it; and the lower its price, the more people will take of it? The law of demand applies to wages, interest and rent because, after all, they are the prices of something... [because of minimum wage increases in 2007] Sea International moved its operation from Samoa to a highly automated cannery plant in Lyons, Ga. That resulted in roughly 2,000 jobs lost in Samoa and a gain of 200 jobs in Georgia."

 

Let me be clear: I'm not concluding anything, or trying to tell readers (if any) that increasing minimum wage is always a bad idea. I don't know. I _am_ pointing out a case study to the effect that it's stupid to think that increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour is the same thing as increasing income of the poor by $1 an hour. Unless they are underpaid in actual fact (i.e. they are actually worth more to the business than they are currently being paid, with their employer pocketing the difference), increasing the minimum wage will just result in their unemployment.

 

If you think about it, that makes minimum wage laws a pretty blunt policy instrument, since it has no way to account for actual worker value. If you set minimum wage at level X, you are making life better for some unknown number of people who are worth X and being paid less than that, and much worse for some other unknown number of people who aren't worth X and are now doomed to permanent unemployment unless their skills can be somehow upgraded.

 

Original link via Chaos Manor (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2011/Q1/mail656.html).

  

-Max

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!