sliders1234
No bio...
User ID: 685
sliders1234
6d ago
Basketball it doesn’t happen. When I have played soccer there was often a few girls. My guess is it’s easier to play pickup soccer as a bad player than basketball as a bad player. And basketball is a bit more physical so it’s tough for the few to fit in.
But even small towns I tend to hear about a basketball game. So in a larger city like 100x you would expect enough people that even if female interest was 1/10th you would run across women only games and I’ve never seen one.
For the jogging comment below my guess is jogging is one of the more efficient ways to stay skinny.
This tweet from an economists caught my eye.
“One of the biggest gaps in economics is explaining why outcomes differ across countries.
Why is homeownership lower in Germany? Why do the rich live the center of the city in Argentina, but in the suburbs in America?
We don't have great frameworks to answer these Qs.“
https://twitter.com/arpitrage/status/1786042798275277144?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
Is this a question we really don’t know the answer to or a question that good people have learned to not consider the frameworks that are explanatory? I feel like the white nationalist and the woke can easily answer this question. One side will say racism and the other side will say diversity is not our strength and people fled from crime.
Wikipedia has the Great Migration occurring 1910-1970. And White Flight as occurring 1950’s-1960’s. Cities largely built before then have dense urban cores . Those cities built after are endless suburbs. Of course cars took off as a middle class thing around this time period too. Argentina might be a higher percent European ancestry than any country in the world.
How many other question have solutions to them that aren’t analyzed because the researcher starts with the wrong frame.
sliders1234
7d ago
It’s probably about $4 trillion to just pay to raise tfr to 2.3. (75 million roughly 0-18 years olds now) and a 30% increase gets to about a 100 million. Times 40k = $40 trillion. Plus whatever tax income you lose from women not working.
Men provide two things. Sperm and financial support for mothers raising children. If you cut out financial support then it’s just sperm and females would maximize for whose sperm has the highest probability of creating talented children.
You are talking marginal pricing. You would also need to pay everyone for the first 1.7 tfr. The costs would be 4-5x plus less income tax collected.
This would take like an additional 30% VAT. That every man needs to pay. And since women are getting funded by the government they would only mate with the top 5% of men. A literal slave state for the other 95% of men.
Explain your math I’m not following. Also would be reducing taxes by a lot.
If half of women had one child you would have a tfr of .5.
sliders1234
7d ago
Hungary spends 5% of gdp on boosting fertility. So yes they cross that threshold. Without verifying that number it’s going to be very hard for governments to go any higher than 5% of gdp. Countries need to do a lot more things than subsidize fertility.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-populist-right-want-you-make-more-babies-viktor-orban/
So like $2 million a kid? For the people you want breeding the most. IQ >110. That’s a yearly income of probably $150k give or take which capitalizes to $2 million plus or minus.
Having someone carry your biological kid for you thru pregnancy runs 50-150k and that’s recruiter lower class. Doesn’t include the 18 years of motherhood. I don’t think we have anywhere close to enough money to boost tfr at the rates you imply by paying people. You need people to desire motherhood as it’s own reward.
sliders1234
7d ago
You said it was a simple solution to just pay women to have kids. Now it sounds like you are arguing being a mother sucks so we need to pay them a lot of money? How much like a million a kid? More? Obviously we do not have that much government money. So government paying women money to have kids instead of worker would not be viable. At the end of the day women being homemakers and taking care of children has to be funded by basically the earning capabilities of one man (whether direct or indirect thru taxation of men). It sounds like your saying one man can’t make enough money to fund a women staying home which means we should just accept low fertility.
If women prefer being boss babes and going to Bali instead of motherhood then just isn’t a solution. Personally I think the current viewpoint is the propaganda and most would prefer motherhood if society did not pressure them to oppose it. But if Bali is preferred to babies there really is not a solution. Motherhood is evolutionary programmed into females since well it’s necessary to survive so I think it’s the other side doing the propaganda.
sliders1234
7d ago
Solution isn’t simple. Countries have tried economic incentives and mostly failed or slowed the decline.
It also introduces a huge deadweight loss of higher taxes. Since most of these ideal heavily bread females would be supported by heavily taxed men who are their husbands it’s wooing just further depress economic activity. The past would have expected the man to man up and work 80 hrs a week if he needed and transfer directly to his wife instead of using the government as a middleman.
Probably far easier to propandize all the Instagram executives. Instead of filling young females with attractive girls traveling to Bali bombard them with pretty pregnant chicks with 5 children and a dutiful loving husband. You can change economic incentives sure but changing what people value changes how the evaluate incentives. If real life hot pussy is begging men to man up I am guessing there is no shortage of men willing to work 80 hours a week for that deal.
Social media turned a not insignificant faction of young girls into Hamas lovers so I would bet on social media being able to make young girls obsessed with cute little humans.
sliders1234
7d ago
That’s just an example. You are still proposing something radical to deal with protestors blocking roads that would apply to a pedestrian tripping and falling into the street. Just legalizing murder for a death that could be avoided.
There is a much simpler solution. Give the protestors 5 year jail sentences.
That takes a sort of good thing and goes too far and makes it a bad thing. I jaywalk all the time. Usually with the flow of traffic which makes things way more efficient (pedestrians crossing opportunistically means you don’t need 40 seconds of pausing the road for them to cross).
Your idea would make it legal for the car to speed up and kill me while driving outside of the flow of traffic conditions. Also would provide no zone of safety if I make a mistake. This applies to cars too. If I accidentally pull out in front of you it’s better you brake than have a right to ram my car.
More broadly this applies to all sorts of things. If someone in a business deal has their lawyer make a mistake in the other sides favor is it better to bankrupt the guy or adjust the contract. Maybe for the other side it’s even more profitable to burn the guy but for society as a whole it’s better to adjust and continue with the deal providing a good/service for society. In business deals like this if you always chose short term gain it would mean all deals needs more lawyers for longer contracts detailing every possibility and more eyes to catch mistakes. But lawyers overall are a negative sum game as they costs money and produce nothing.
Of course in many ways these protestors who glue themselves are shitting on the commons. We won’t run them over because saving ourselves 2 hours isn’t worth killing them just like it’s not worth killing a pedestrian who fell into the street when you could have just breaks. Yes the pedestrian is an annoyance to you and costs you 10 seconds and the pedestrian is in the wrong but the commons are that everyone is sometimes partially in the wrong and inflicting maximize damage on them for a small gain to yourself doesn’t benefit the whole of society.
For the protestors though you could argue running one over when they are costing 300k people one hour or like 13k days gets close to being net efficient.
sliders1234
7d ago
The white nationalist guy had me thinking about this a lot when they did the full discussion. You can’t just make whites holes by doing things to mitigate black crime. More policing makes a neighborhood feel worse. Many of the small crimes and generally annoyance of the lower class blacks that will find there way in will make the neighborhoods less desirable. People will do things to mitigate the undesirableness by doing nimby things or moving to the suburbs. The mitigations themselves have costs (longer commutes/more pollution). We would probably build our cities more like Buenos Aires which is chill and dense with very walkable communities.
sliders1234
7d ago
It does seem that “when unification happened” is the key predictor for biggest city versus rest for most of Europe. Or maybe it’s just random geographic factors. China of course has mostly been unified forever (and I believe more ethnically pure than any European country) but has multiple equivalent cities. Mexico and America settled around same time but Mexico City seems dominant while America is spread out (and there are geographical factors for Mexico of course).
sliders1234
8d ago
This feels though similar to Americans do not travel to other countries but everyone in Europe does therefore everyone in America are uneducated proles.
The one big city countries all seem to be NOT continent size countries. All of Europe seems to have outsized capital countries, but the countries are probably more comparable to regions of the U.S.
The only of the big Euro countries that might be less capital dominant is maybe Italy? Rome is still dominant for tourists because of history but Milan is only half the size and perhaps more economically important and Naples list a higher population.
sliders1234
8d ago
Outside of the few actual connected Hamas terrorists do they even care? Or are they cosplaying civil rights leaders? They are heavily limiting who can talk about what they want. And there are enough videos online about people in the movement not really knowing all the details.
Perhaps they are happy they got their universities to largely do as they are told.
That being said they did get Biden to limit weapons to Israel. Without them Israel may have had more of a free hand to do as any other ME country would do if a rival population killed and raped 1500 of their people.
sliders1234
8d ago
My issue with his post was all those issues seem beaten like a dead horse already.
For the DR it’s funny but Milei claims he’s a little Jewish. And seems to have all but officially converted.
I have accepted my Jewish overlords. May they be kind to me.
sliders1234
8d ago
I agree they have done it in the past. But what is happening now is different. In the past it was doing it from a position of strength. Now it’s being down as a counterattack.
sliders1234
8d ago
I see 2021 as a time where the right got comfortable adopting tactics the left had been using longer.
Before 2021 I thought the GOP stayed towards traditional powers like voter backlashes or challenging things in the Supreme Court.
Post 2021 they have added more direct challenges like busing illegals to blue states, giving a FU to Biden on the border when I think his position wins in court, muddling things up in lawfare (which is different from doing what a court tells you to do), etc.
sliders1234
9d ago
I think a lot of what you say about the right is pre-2021 right. They realized they get no mercy and now are willing to sacrifice their principles.
I would say Desantis war with Disney is a prime example. The right traditionally would have been against punishing Disney for Free Speech, but backed Desantis when he went after Disney within the rules of the law. Even though the Spirit of Free Speech was against doing anything. When you have institutional power to punish your enemies the right seems down with it now. The no pacifist in a foxhole standard has emerged. It’s better to win sacrificing principle than lose and end up dead. Abbott has also challenged a lot of legal principles and challenged Biden to try and stop him when he’s probably wrong on the law. The right also got aggressive with abortion using bad means to do it like Texas civil suit law. My guess is if Hillary was the 2024 candidate and destroyed her hard drive and lost lock her up would be attempted versus just being a campaign slogan.
When the right feels threatened they can do more. Pinochet was on the right and his plan worked. Until recently the right didn’t realize the system was risks. It was just annoying HR ladies and an occasional weirdos to laugh about on college campuses.
It’s not like the right has been opposed to force when it’s necessary. We killed a lot of commies. The right didn’t realize they were in a war until recently.
sliders1234
11d ago
No.
The most important parts of our army have dropped out of the army. Masculine males often southern no longer feel they fit in with the military.
Racial resentment is higher now.
A significant portion of the right (and disproportionately our best fighting men) now have a great deal of fondness for Putin or Xi. A masculine Chinese or Russian ruler doesn’t sound that bad to them versus being an adrogenous they/them with no real purpose in society.
On Balkanization - moreso in Europe but you did not have to worry about balkanization when a Swede was a Swede and you didn’t invite in sub Saharan blacks or Syrian immigrants. In the U.S. I think we have fewer big cultural issues with our immigrants coming from the South but they aren’t going to be our sophisticated fighting class.
Blacks in America have never posed a political problem. They are lower class. They have never been a key part of our fighting class. If they rose up against white well violent repression would not be hard.
On the left wokeism and oppressor-oppressed has literally caused a not that small group of Americans to identify with Hamas and take the side of our enemies.
In short if wokeism came from the intelligence community it’s the worst idea they have ever had.
The lefts concern that Putin in 2016 infiltrated our social media to radicalize America against itself plus China weapononizing wokeism on Tic-Tock is far more logical. America is far more Balkanized today than it was in 2008.
sliders1234
12d ago
On 1. Can a lawyer answer for me how that case has gone forward. It feels as though there are serious questions on the law in the case versus proving whether he did the acts in question.
Interpreting the law seems like a question for judges not juries. I guess my question is did Bragg provided the SOL run to the current judge and he agreed it’s a correct interpretation. Now the jury is deciding if he did the actual acts? If he’s convicted then does Trump challenge Bragg’s interpretation of the law to try and get the conviction thrown out. To me it would make more sense to challenge the legal interpretation of the law first (does SOL apply). Then do the jury trial.
Even if Trump is convicted now I feel like there are years of appeals. Potentially all the way to the SC to litigate whether SOL applies. Obviously not a lawyer but I would have thought he could have done a lot of challenges before the trial on the SOL issues. There is no reason to have a jury trial on whether he’s guilty if the underlying act he’s accused of either isn’t a crime or is protected by SOL.
sliders1234
13d ago
Can you defend how praciticing religion harder isn’t a solution to most societal ills?
sliders1234
13d ago
Is Tiberius Gracchus someone we are expected to know here as common knowledge? I’ve actually read Gibbons huge book and can’t place him a long time ago. I assume I am just expected to be smart enough to google and hit Wikipedia.
sliders1234
13d ago
I remember that posts. But Trump appears to no longer be Gracchus. Trump seems to be rising from the dead. He survived the Jan 6 loss in popularity. Crushed the GOP nomination. I saw on Twitter today that everyone on Wall St assumes he’s won the election. I know the prediction markets say 50-50 but I don’t feel those vibes at all and prediction markets have some issues. If the elections goes as expected and he’s survived all of this that feels like he’s crossed the rubicon with all the memory of his own experience being Gracchus. I think we have to upgrade him to Caeser if he pulls off the election victory.
I am actually not sure if this economists is blind. I think he might be asking the question when he can’t say the answer.
They do discuss this paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292198000191
And he eventually says this.
"How different countries deal with race and ethnic differences more broadly" is very much an example of the cross-country differences I think are interesting!”
I am updating my priors to he knew he was posting bait in a completely innocent way. My guess is he’s not woke. He chose Buenos Aires for the comparison when I think he could have chosen many other comparisons. Even I think Mexico City would work as I know plenty of rich Mexicans who live there. Argentina even seems to the average person to have some Nazi/fascists connotations. So he picked a country without diversity to beg the question why is their urban core different.
More options
Context Copy link