Friday, March 27, 2015


Today, Fed Res chairman, Janet Yellen gave a speech at the The New Normal Monetary Policy conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Like her predecessors, Yellen speaks in an obtuse, truly meaningless language that needs to be decoded for anyone to gain meaning.

Luckily for you, I have done that. Here are the key parts decoded for you.

Janet Yellen said: With continued improvement in economic conditions, an increase in the target range for that rate [interbank lending rate] may well be warranted later this year.

What Yellen means: As Fed Res bankers, we decide how to set the Fed funds rate based on measures of profitability for the key banks that comprise the majority of commercial banking sales of the Federal Reserve System.

Janet Yellen said: We'll increase funds rate and its subsequent path will be determined by the Committee in light of incoming data on labor market conditions, inflation, and other aspects of the current expansion.

What Yellen means: We'll increase the FFR based on banking sales expansion and for no other reason.

Janet Yellen said: I will also discuss why most of my colleagues and I believe the return of the federal funds rate to a more normal level is likely to be gradual.

What Yellen means: The current FFR remains at an abnormal level. It is going to take a long time to restore the FFR to a normal level.

Janet Yellen said:  The Committee is now giving serious consideration to beginning to reduce later this year some of the extraordinary monetary policy accommodation currently in place.

What Yellen means: We're going to continue quantative easing (buying securities, mostly those from Congress), but perhaps not buy as much as we do now.

Janet Yellen said: Of course, we still have some way to go to reach our maximum employment goal.

What Yellen means: As bankers, we're not concerned if millions never get jobs. We seek to have enough employment to expand sales of banking products of our member bankers of the Federal Reserve System.

Janet Yellen said: The unemployment rate has not yet declined to the 5.0 to 5.2 percent range that most FOMC participants now consider to be normal in the longer run.

What Yellen means: We're trying to psy-op you into believing that a 5.2% unemployment rate, which means the ratio of those who looked for work in the last four weeks to the sum of those aforementioned with those who have jobs.

Janet Yellen said: But I think we can all agree that the recovery in the labor market has been substantial.

What Yellen means: It looks like there are enough people working for our bankers to offer more credit.

Janet Yellen said: I am cautiously optimistic that, in the context of moderate growth in aggregate output and spending, labor market conditions are likely to improve further in coming months. 

What Yellen means: I hope things better but we are not making our plans based on that.

Janet Yellen said: I think consumer spending is likely to expand at a good clip this year given such robust fundamentals as strong employment gains, boosts to real incomes from lower energy prices, continued increases in household wealth, and a relatively high level of consumer confidence.

What Yellen means: If gasoline prices remain low, this will free up discretionary spending from those who buy gasoline now.

Janet Yellen said: But overall, I anticipate that real gross domestic product is likely to expand somewhat faster than its potential in coming quarters, thereby promoting further gains in employment and declines in the unemployment rate.

What Yellen means: I hope that real GDP grows even though there is little potential for it.

Janet Yellen said: In assessing the actual strength of the labor market and the broader economy, we must bear in mind that these very welcome improvements have been achieved in the context of extraordinary monetary accommodation. 

What Yellen means: Without quantitative easing, the economy would be far worse than it already is.

Janet Yellen said: While the overall level of real activity now appears to be much closer to its potential than it was a year or two ago, the economy in an "underlying" sense remains quite weak by historical standards, for the simple reason that the increases in hiring and output that have been achieved thus far have required exceptionally low levels of short- and longer-term interest rates, reflecting a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy.

What Yellen means: The true potential of the economy is quite low. So, real sales are matching that quite low potential. The economy is in bad shape. It's weak. We know it. Don't you?

Janet Yellen said: Interest rates have been, and remain, very low, and if underlying conditions had truly returned to normal, the economy should be booming.

What Yellen means: If this economy were legit, we would have boom times give dollar strength and low oil prices. But because the economy isn't legit, we continue with quantitative easing and these horribly written speeches that I must deliver in public to convince you otherwise.

Janet Yellen said: Inflation as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures has been running below the FOMC's longer-run goal of 2 percent for a number of years, and on a 12-month basis is currently 1/4 percent. Some of the weakness in inflation likely reflects continuing slack in labor and product markets.

What Yellen means: Our bankers aren't selling enough credit instruments because many Americans who could work aren't working. Lacking income, they can't service debt if credit were offered to them.

Janet Yellen said: On balance, I therefore think it is appropriate for monetary policy to remain accommodative for some time, fostering an environment of tightening labor and product markets that, together with stable inflation expectations, will help move inflation up to 2 percent over the medium term.

What Yellen means: We're going to keep with quantitative easing until enough start ups cause serious competition to existing sellers of products. We hope that happens and  if it does, real hiring will happen and the economy will go back to normal. Besides, we don't have any other plan. We don't know what to do otherwise.

Janet Yellen said: The Committee's decision about when to begin reducing accommodation will depend importantly on how economic conditions actually evolve over time. Like most of my FOMC colleagues, I believe that the appropriate time has not yet arrived, but I expect that conditions may warrant an increase in the federal funds rate target sometime this year. 

What Yellen means: The economy is still a wreck. And if I say I expect maybe we could raise the FFR, it appears to you that we're in charge and everything is under control.

Janet Yellen said:  The near-zero setting for the federal funds rate has facilitated a sizable reduction in labor market slack over the past two years and appears to be consistent with further substantial gains. A modest increase in the federal funds rate would be highly unlikely to halt this progress, although such an increase might slow its pace somewhat.

What Yellen means: We're afraid if we were to raise the FFR, no hiring would arise.

Janet Yellen said: That said, we must be reasonably confident at the time of the first rate increase that inflation will move up over time to our 2 percent objective, and that such an action will not impede continued solid growth in employment and output.

What Yellen means: We're not raising the FFR until our bankers growth of credit products increases.

Janet Yellen said: A substantial body of theory, informed by considerable historical evidence, suggests that inflation will eventually begin to rise as resource utilization continues to tighten.

What Yellen means: Business execs will seek credit to outbid competitors for commodities when enough firms have entered markets. When that happens, our bankers shall be selling banking products at the rate we seek.

Janet Yellen said: With respect to wages, I anticipate that real wage gains for American workers are likely to pick up to a rate more in line with trend labor productivity growth as employment settles in at its maximum sustainable level.

What Yellen means: Employers won't pay higher wages until they buy and put to use more capital.

Janet Yellen said:  But the outlook for wages is highly uncertain even if price inflation does move back to 2 percent and labor market conditions continue to improve as projected. For example, we cannot be sure about the future pace of productivity growth; nor can we be sure about other factors, such as global competition, the nature of technological change, and trends in unionization, that may also influence the pace of real wage growth over time. These factors, which are outside of the Federal Reserve's control, likely explain why real wages have failed to keep pace with productivity growth for at least the past 15 years. 

What Yellen means: We don't care if Americans see an increase in real wages.  We care only if there is enough working with discretionary income to buy banking products.

Janet Yellen said:  I have argued that a pickup in neither wage nor price inflation is indispensable for me to achieve reasonable confidence that inflation will move back to 2 percent over time.

What Yellen means: Our bankers will sell products at the rate we want, eventually.

Janet Yellen said: That said, I would be uncomfortable raising the federal funds rate if readings on wage growth, core consumer prices, and other indicators of underlying inflation pressures were to weaken, if market-based measures of inflation compensation were to fall appreciably further, or if survey-based measures were to begin to decline noticeably.

What Yellen means: We're keeping the FFR where we want it, anytime.

Janet Yellen said:  But the prescription offered by the Taylor rule changes significantly if one instead assumes, as I do, that appreciable slack still remains in the labor market, and that the economy's equilibrium real federal funds rate--that is, the real rate consistent with the economy achieving maximum employment and price stability over the medium term--is currently quite low by historical standards.

What Yellen means: We're keeping the FFR where we want it, anytime, and by that, we mean we're continuing with quantitative easing for awhile yet.

Janet Yellen said:  Under assumptions that I consider more realistic under present circumstances, the same rules call for the federal funds rate to be close to zero.

What Yellen means: As of now, there will be no change to the FFR. It's staying near zero.

Janet Yellen said:  The FOMC will, of course, carefully deliberate about when to begin the process of removing policy accommodation. But the significance of this decision should not be overemphasized, because what matters for financial conditions and the broader economy is the entire expected path of short-term interest rates and not the precise timing of the first rate increase. 

What Yellen means: We're going to talk about raising rates, endlessly talk about it. But when we do, it's not the first rate increase that you should care about, but the last one, because the last one means the economy shall be in recession again after a recovery. However, we're far from having any recovery.

Janet Yellen said:  the Committee's decisions will be data dependent, reflecting evolving judgments concerning the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. We cannot be certain about the underlying strength of the expansion, the maximum level of employment consistent with price stability, or the longer-run level of interest rates consistent with maximum employment. Policy must adjust as our understanding of these factors changes.

What Yellen means: We will raise the FFR when we see the necessary, legit improvement in the economy.
Read more ...
Blogger Tricks

Tuesday, March 24, 2015


So, today, likely anti-Christian bigoted writer, Rick Ungar attacked Americans who believe that Christians founded America. Worse, Ungar attacked everyone who believes Jesus as a divine being.

To unleash his attack, Ungar first attacked U.S. Senator Ted Cruz because Cruz announced his candidacy to get nominated as the 2016 Republican Party candidate for the Office of the Presidency of the United States while giving a speech at an evangelical Christian university. Ungar wrote,
"After all, how could it when the majority of our Founders were not Christians at all?"
Ungar seems to be suffering from a slew of false beliefs. Ungar falsely believes the second Constitution of the United States is "our founding document." And because Ungar believes such silliness, Ungar believes American couldn't be Christian since the second Constitution fails to include the words, God, Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible or Creator, the founders of the country were not Christian.

The first attempt at constitution was defined with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Clearly, since the second try at constitution, is not the first, the second try cannot be "our founding document."

More so, those of Constitutional Convention drafted a design for the union of States to establish permanent peace among Americans of the various states. To wit, the States delegated and relinquished their rights to lay taxes or duties on "articles exported from any State." As well, the designers agreed that "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another."  They prohibited states from establishing alliances with other countries including entering "into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power or engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will admit of no delay".

With a rather schoolboy, childish understanding of American and U.S. history, Ungar blathers about "the founders" committing the lame fallacy of appeal to authority for his fallacious argument.

One-time senator as well as president, Warren Harding coined the phrase founding fathers. Harding himself specifically connected spirituality and the founding fathers when he said, " the divine inspiration of the founding fathers."

Though Harding gave no definition of who constituted the founding fathers, in a speech to dedicate the unveiling of a statue of Simon Bolivar, a leader in the South American movement for independence, Harding compares Bolivar to George Washington while mentioning Founding Fathers. Again, in a October 19, 1921, speech at Yorktown, Harding says, "unfailing courage which made Washington truly the Father of his country". Further in the speech, Harding mentions Washington in the same sentence as "the founding fathers."

Further, Ungar blathers about "the diests" claiming "majority of the nation’s Founders were Deists, not Christians." Interestingly, key architect of the second constitution, "founder" James Madison, accepted Christian tenets generally and formed his outlook on life within a Christian world view according to a 1990 biographer.

As to the history of America, without doubt, mostly English protestants founded America.  To deny this highly-documented reality either is to express profound deficiency of intellect or to engage in an nefarious attempt at deception.

No one founded any aspect of America for the cause of Buddha, Brahma, Mohammad or Moses and Jewry. No colonies that became states were founded by the worshipers of these. The Jews didn't land at Plymouth Rock nor did the Mohammadans. There weren't a bunch of atheists who set up shop at Jamestown.

William Penn, a Quaker, founded the Province of Pennsylvania specifically for Quakers. With his charter, Penn became the world's largest private landowner. 

Penn governed Pennsylvania from the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania,  which later provided key parts for the second constitution of the United States. With his Frame of Government, Penn sought to create a province of religious toleration and political freedom.

George Carteret and Lord Berkeley, the proprietors of the provinces of West Jersey and East Jersey, which would become New Jersey drafted the Concession and Agreement, a document granting religious freedom to all inhabitants of New Jersey. They did so to entice settlement. Eventually, Berkeley sold his share of New Jersey to the Quakers.

The Catholic province of Maryland was founded by Lord Baltimore who sought to create a haven for English Catholics in Colonial America. The first settlement and capital city had the name St. Marys City.

Christians founded America. No one else did.

As well, almost all of the Christians who founded America were English Christians. And while the Swedes, who lost their colony to the Dutch in war, along with the Dutch might have come to Colonial America strictly for trade, neither lasted. Those left standing were the English protestants and English Catholics. 

Christianity were the driving force in the history of America.  The Christian Protestant movement known as the First Great Awakening happened between 1730s through 1740s in Colonial America. Those of the movement preached an anti-religious trappings message along with a personal relationship message. 

And after the Constitution became the law of the land and the first Congress assembled (1789), the Second Great Awakening began (1790). The rejection of deism by Christian Americans gave rise to the Second Great Awakening.

Contrary to false belief or nefarious deception, one would be hard pressed to find a founding document of America that fails to mention Christian affinity, God, divine providence and Jesus.

The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 authorized Raleigh to enact statutes to govern a proposed colony provided that such statutes "be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England." 

The first charter of Virginia granted by King James I in 1606 had this, "We greatly commending and graciously accepting of their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work which may by the providence of Almighty God hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God."

The Mayflower compact made by the Pilgrims in 1620 states, "Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and the honor of our king and country a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia." 

The Massachusetts Bay charter granted by Charles I in 1629 states, Whereby our said people inhabitants there may be so religiously peaceably and civilly governed as their good life and orderly conversation may win and incite the natives of the country to their knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind and the Christian faith which in our royal intention and the adventurers free profession is the principal end of this plantation.

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1638-1639 state, "Forasmuch as it has pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of His divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor,  Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabitating and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the lands thereto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter enter into combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us."

The first settlers of Rhode Island agreed to this in 1638, "We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth to be guided and judged thereby."

The Rhode Island charter of 1663 stated, "pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minds,  their sober, serious and religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves and one another in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded; together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor, ignorant Indian natives, in these parts of America, to the sincere profession and obedience of the same faith and worship." 

The Carolina charter granted by Charles II in 1663 states, "being excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith."

In 1778, the Constitution of South Carolina declared "the Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed and is hereby constituted and declared to be the established religion of this State."

Part I Article 3 of the Constitution of Massachusetts of 1780 required "the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require the several towns parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable povision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." 

Article 6 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of New Hampshire of 1784 required "the legislature to authorize from time to time the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provision at their own expense for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality."

The famous philosopher John Locke wrote Article 96 for the Constitution of the Carolinas of 1769. Article 96 stated,  "As the country comes to be sufficiently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the Church of England, which being the only true and orthodox and the national religion of all the king's dominions is so also of Carolina, and therefore it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by grant of parliament."

The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 stated, "That no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."

Justices of The New York Supreme Court in Lindenmuller vs The People decreed,  "Christianity is not the legal religion of the State as established by law. If it were, it would be a civil or political institution, which it is not but this is not inconsistent with the idea that it is in fact, and ever has been the religion of the people. This fact is everywhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been from the first recognized and acted upon by the people as well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice." 

In Updegraph vs The Commonwealth, justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court  ruled, "Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; Christianity, without the spiritual artillery of European countries; for this Christianity was one of the considerations of the royal charter, and the very basis of its great founder William Penn; not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, and tithes and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

It is no wonder then, the U.S. Supreme Court justices declared the United States of America consisting of a Christian nation. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs United States 143 US 471, the justices decreed "these and many other matters which might be noticed add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
If you are wondering about me, like Jesus, I am irreligious. And like Jesus, I know the saving force of the law of love.

Disclosure: I am neither a member of the Republican Party nor a donor to it.
Read more ...

Thursday, March 19, 2015


In spite of everything you see peddled by Janet Yellen, news reporters and others, the economy is not growing. In fact, it's still shrinking.

Janet Yellen and her yes men are trying to manipulate public opinion. In short, she wants all to believe that she is in charge and could raise the Fed Funds Rate while at the same time suggesting a slow pace for raising rates.

By count, there are twice as many Americans who would be starving, perhaps to death, without food stamps welfare given to them by Congress, as the 1996 to 2007 peak credit average. As a percent of population, there are almost twice as many (1.9 times) as Americans who need their bellies filled by SNAP food stamp purchases today compared to the 1996 to 2007 peak credit average.

Food stamp neediness has hit a permanent plateau since April 2011. Until food stamp neediness by Americans falls to about 7.69% of total population, no one should talk about a settled economy, a strong economy, or any other foolery.

There hasn't been any recovery in what has been shaping up to be the longest depression in American history after the Greenspan-Bernanke Bubble, the biggest banking credit bubble in the history of mankind. How could Yellen and her buddies raise rates on a shrinking economy with a mass of needy Americans who would starve without welfare food put into their bellies?

We're still living in the Greatest Depression, Americans.

Read more ...

Wednesday, March 18, 2015


A season after leading the San Francisco 49ers defense in tackles, former rookie linebacker for the San Francisco 49ers, Chris Boland, announced his retirement from NFL football after playing one season. Almost everyone expressing opinion about Borland's sudden, unexpected retirement have used Borland to attack the NFL claiming the sport is unsafe.

Almost all have failed to see a likely alternative why Borland decided suddenly to end his NFL career after one season. Borland might be suffering from mind disorder associated with anxiety.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health, Anxiety Disorders affect about 40 million American adults in any year.

Excessive worry, irrational fears, self-doubt, and stage fright are telling signs of anxiety disorders. Other symptoms include feeling as if all eyes are upon you, feeling panic, the troublesome behavior of perfectionism. Even having problems such as falling sleep or staying asleep, muscle tension, persistent indigestion, and flashbacks might signal an anxiety disorder.

Borland has stated publicly, "I just honestly want to do what's best for my health. From what I've researched and what I've experienced, I don't think it's worth the risk. "I just thought to myself, 'What am I doing? Is this how I'm going to live my adult life, banging my head, especially with what I've learned and knew about the dangers?'" Did Borland's first year experiences fuel excessive worry, irrational fear, self-doubt?

It is likely the majority of players who have ever played NFL football never sustained concussions nor have any lasting effects from any injuries sustained in games, practices or training. According to Jeff Miller, the health and safety policy guy for the NFL,  "By any measure, football has never been safer ... concussions in NFL games were down 25 percent last year, continuing a three-year downward trend."

Of course, Borland could have quit after one year on the job merely because he doesn't like the work anymore. Millions do quit jobs soon after working.

Only Chris Borland will know his true whys.

Read more ...

Tuesday, March 17, 2015


Hubris. It's gets the best of many. In a stunning marketing gaff perhaps on par with Coca-cola's ill-fated New Coke blunder, CEO Howard Schultz of Starbucks has forgotten that he is in the brewed coffee-to-go business.

The demographic reality of Americans contradicts foolish men like Howard Shultz. According to a work built on U.S. Census Bureau data and published by the Pew Center, in 2010, 15% of all new marriages happened between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another, which is more than double the 1980 figure (6.7%). In 2010, the share of intermarriages reached an all-time high of 8.4%. Compare that to 3.2% in 1980.  

In 1960, white-black marriages amounted to only 1.7% of all black same-race marriages, but in 2010, such marriages amounted to 12%. Telling, in 2010, almost one of every four black men married someone who wasn't black. If that doesn't signal black acceptance by others, what does?

More than four-in-ten Americans (43%) believe inter-racial marriage is beneficial for all Americans. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) are good with anyone in their family marrying outside their race or ethnicity. As it is, more than one-third of Americans (35%) say that someone of their family has married someone of another race. 

If Shultz walked his foolish talk, he would strive to reduce the price of a cup of coffee he is willing to accept by becoming more efficient. Also, if Shultz were to become a man of action instead of a man of blather, Shultz would focus on opening all new Starbucks stores primarily in minority-concentrated neighborhoods.

At day's end, corporate America needs to get out of the public opinion making business. It's quite a lowly tactic of style over substance when firms must rely on pandering to Social Justice Warriors in effort to win sales. 

The last time I checked, the two-term president of the United States and leader of the free world, Barack Obama, had a black dad and a white mom. Racism died years ago. The only ones desperate to keep racism alive are poverty pimps, politicians and hubris-suffering CEOs.

Read more ...

Saturday, March 14, 2015


Once again, it is time for South by Southwest, also known by the initialism SXSW, the nerdfest / Internet trade show of sorts that goes every March in Austin, Texas. At this year's twenty-something, big-tent nerdism revival and platform to shape public opinion by sway-masters, the organizers held a panel discussion over censorship by executives of social media giants, Facebook and Twitter.

George Anders over at Forbes wrote that George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen urged Twitter and Facebook to allow just as much free speech as the U.S. government permits under the First Amendment. It's quite sad to discover that a law professor believes that Congress and the President allow free speech.

As part of the agreement known as the U.S. Constitution that establishes the Congress as well as the Presidency, the Congress has a duty not to create any law, which would abridge (lessen, diminish, curtail) the freedom of free speech. Further, freedom, the Old English word for liberty, means the absence of law in the presence of legislators and their agencies, or that which we call government.

The essence of freedom is no law. Without law, legislators cannot assign duty nor right. Every law requires both a right and a corresponding duty.

In spite of bogus Supreme Court rulings, never should anyone ever get prosecuted for anything said, anytime in a public forum. However, neither Twitter nor Facebook are public forums.

The execs of Facebook and Twitter are right to take down anything, anytime, not because anyone in particular might be offended by what someone else expresses. Rather execs are right to do so because they are the stewards of those who have property, which is the right of ownership and not what is owned) in Facebook or in Twitter.

If you owned a comedy club and Michael Richards took the stage ranting, shouting the word niggers, you would be right to yank Richards from the stage. The same goes for the execs of Facebook and Twitter.

Read more ...

Thursday, March 12, 2015


Over the last few days, jealous females and their effeminate male counterparts have taken to the Internet to engage in whining politics about "gender gap." Likely, these women and their womanish familiars are trying to leverage International Women’s Day for their yearly stab at one of the biggest rhetorical con jobs of the last 40 years, the "gender gap" for pay. Even hack politicians like Barack Obama have blathered platitudes about "equal pay for equal work" in efforts to deceive Americans.

Lost in the entire debate of "closing the gender gap" is the reality of superior male intellects. It has been well-established scientifically and known for decades that average IQ for females and males measures about the same with measurements for males showing greater variability. Most studies suggest males have between 3 and 4 points more than females.

Yet, substantially more males exist with with IQs approaching 130, which is the measure considered to be intellectually gifted. There are almost twice as many males as there are females having stronger intellects as measured by IQ.

If you were to meet with a group of 100 selected at random, about two will have IQs that measure above 135 and both will be male. You would need to assemble a group of 150 also at random before you would get your first female with an IQ above 135.

First, let us divvy up the 147 whose IQs are below 135. Well make 74 women and 73 men. It won't matter if there is one more woman as well assume each half below 135 IQ earns $10 an hour. Well also assume the pay rate for those with IQs above 135 is $12.

So adding the Mensa woman to her kind, the average pay for women now calcuates to $10.02 an hour. Adding the two Mensa men to their kind and the average pay for men calculates to $10.06 an hour.

It should be clear that fewer women with higher IQs means fewer women working in the highest paying jobs. When averaging wages across all 148 million jobs, from lowest to highest, the average for women will calculate lower by this effect alone.

When hazard pay jobs get thrown into the mix, for example, underwater welder, it should be no surprise that men earn more than women, on average, averaging across all jobs. It should not surprise anyone that women as a group, across all jobs for all IQs, earn 82.5¢ for every $1 earned by men as group, on average.

Nothing should be done about it. Legislators cannot increase the number of smarter women nor can legislators force women to work more dangerous jobs.

I found this description at Return of Kings interestingly amusing,

Take I.Q., for example. Despite the noise trotted out by those with lower-to-average intellects about the validity of I.Q. tests and scores, I.Q. remains the strongest single indicator of financial abundance, vocational prestige, academic success, and a host of life’s other achievements. On average, men and women have roughly the same I.Q., give or take a negligible point or two. The glaring differences, however, arise in how this average is distributed. Compared to women, who tend to flock towards neither extreme, men deviate from the average far more, and thus fill out most numbers at both the top and bottom ends of life in general.
It is for this reason, perhaps more than any other, that the majority of outstanding achievers are men, and have been throughout history. The vast majority of scientists, philosophers, musicians, academics, inventors, writers, political leaders, and so forth, are men. 
But men also comprise the bulk of society’s shit heap. The homeless, long-term unemployed, criminals, drug addicts, mental health patients, alcoholics, and degenerate gamblers are also, overwhelmingly, men.
Oddly enough, I’m [SIC] yet to hear a feminist complain about the disparity between genders when it comes to prison populations, or drug rehab centres, or the impoverished unemployed. But when a new government installs only one female in its entire cabinet? Outrage! When yet another report hits the papers of only a handful of female board members in blue-chip? Patriarchy! When women are outnumbered by men in award nominations in almost every field? Misogynist conspiracy!

Read more ...