The_Perseverent_Icarus
No bio...
User ID: 2809
The_Perseverent_Icarus
4mo ago
From Zvi's review:
Michael Lewis roots for the wicked smart, impossibly hard working, deeply obsessed protagonist taking on the system saying that everyone else is an idiot, that has unique insight into and will change the world. It all makes too much sense, far too much for him to check.
I read The Big Short by Michael Lewis, which is about the 2008 housing and financial crisis, and the 4 hedge fund managers that predicted it and profited from it. I relished in Lewis' writing style; emphasizing how the world had gone mad, how the so-called experts knew nothing, and how the people who made accurate observations were ostracized and punished up until the minute that they were proven right.
The book version of "The Big Short" had more details than the star-studded 2015 movie, including details about the day of the collapse of New York's financial industry, how that day compared to the 9/11 attacks, and how one of Steve Eisman's employees (Eisman was re-named to Mark Baum in the movie, for those keeping track) was hospitalized for a heart attack during both the 9/11 attacks and the day that the stock market crashed.
Based on my enjoyment of The Big Short, and the similarities between the writing style of The Big Short and the writing style of Going Infinite that people here are criticizing, I'm being led to conclude that I would enjoy the latter, and that everybody here is selling this book short (no pun intended).
Although, I do have this nagging feeling that Going Infinite sounds a lot like a version of The Big Short where the 4 prescient hedge fund managers ended up being wrong and losing all their money; I probably would not enjoy a version of the Big Short that ended similarly to the SBF saga.
The_Perseverent_Icarus
4mo ago
This will be my first comment outside of Reddit.
Assume for the purposes of this argument that the male only border control is fullproof and has no workarounds. What are the effects of this open borders system? Are there any consequences I have not forseen?
Here are some new consequences: Fewer native male bachelors, more children being born, less aggression in the native population due to male sexual needs being met more easily.
And, if I recall correctly, research from economists on the dynamics of the sexual marketplace shows that societies with more women tend to become more liberal, and societies with more men tend to become more conservative. When it is easy for men to find partners but difficult for women to find partners, society ends up with more liberal sexual mores, fewer restrictions on public nudity, and a cornucopia of other subtle changes in laws that can be indirectly traced back to the supply and demand of romantic or sexual partners.
I would expect such an immigration policy to receive bipartisan support.
On the flip side, while America's male-to-female ratio goes up under this immigration policy, the corresponding ratio in emigrating countries will go down. Leading to sexual marketplace dynamics that result from a high male-to-female ratio. That includes social conservatism, religious fundamentalism, and a thirst for revolution among a population of men that are destined to die as virgins.
So the equilibrium is a distorted version of Henry Kissinger's general foreign policy: The US military gets entangled in foreign wars, and then lets in immigrants from the countries that we're disrupting. Except that events will happen in reverse: the foreign wars will be caused by the immigration policy.
It's impossible to know which candidate person X voted for, but it's easy to find out whether or not person X voted.
In America, at least.
More options
Context Copy link