Post: #1

I have a theory.

As anyone who studies history knows, many ideas and movements that started out 'left-wing' gradually morphed into right-wing movements over time. I.e, there's a reason free-market capitalism is called 'classical liberalism.' Free speech used to be a leftist rallying cry, but try telling that to any European with a negative opinion of Islam.

I think we're reaching a point where Feminism has outlived its usefulness to the political left.

http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2013/02...r-the-bus/

Thoughts?

Post: #2

(02-11-2013 10:07 AM)Frost Wrote:  I have a theory.

As anyone who studies history knows, many ideas and movements that started out 'left-wing' gradually morphed into right-wing movements over time. I.e, there's a reason free-market capitalism is called 'classical liberalism.' Free speech used to be a leftist rallying cry, but try telling that to any European with a negative opinion of Islam.

I think we're reaching a point where Feminism has outlived its usefulness to the political left.

http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2013/02...r-the-bus/

Thoughts?

I think it is more accurate to say that the left is shooting itself in the foot, at least with respect to the left in most European countries that are importing a lot of Muslims. These Muslims, when they get to be a big enough group, will demand Sharia type laws and generally make life miserable for the gays, feminists, and beta boys on the left.

Post: #3

The reason why "classical liberalism" is now seen as right wing/paleoconservative is not because it has changed, but rather because society has shifted so far to the left that this is now advocated by conservatives as "yesterday's sanity" to oppose today's nonsense. Feminism will only become a right wing movement if the radical left advocates something more extreme, so that conservatives feel obliged to promote "good old fashioned feminism" as a rock of stability. Already the right wing has mostly accepted the basic principles of feminism -you unfortunately never hear mainstream calls to reduce the amount of women in the workplace, to encourage women to have children and be stay at hme mothers, to repeal women's suffrage, etc.

Post: #4

I left a post at the blog, but also, I don't see the smug enthusiam and naivete of the dumb young feminist being yet replaceable. The War on Women thing worked ridiculously well, and I'm not sure they'll be able to do without stuff like that for a while.

However, keeping feminists in the coalition will NOT be because of true belief but will instead rely entirely on political expediency. If it's to their advantage to throw the feminists under, they will. I just don't see it happening yet.

Post: #5

(02-11-2013 10:32 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:07 AM)Frost Wrote:  I have a theory.

As anyone who studies history knows, many ideas and movements that started out 'left-wing' gradually morphed into right-wing movements over time. I.e, there's a reason free-market capitalism is called 'classical liberalism.' Free speech used to be a leftist rallying cry, but try telling that to any European with a negative opinion of Islam.

I think we're reaching a point where Feminism has outlived its usefulness to the political left.

http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2013/02...r-the-bus/

Thoughts?

I think it is more accurate to say that the left is shooting itself in the foot, at least with respect to the left in most European countries that are importing a lot of Muslims. These Muslims, when they get to be a big enough group, will demand Sharia type laws and generally make life miserable for the gays, feminists, and beta boys on the left.

You are assuming that the ultimate goal of the left is to advance the interests of women, betas, gays, etc.

If importing vast numbers of Muslims is a better strategy for undermining western civilization than pushing gay rights, the left will throw the gheys under the bus in a minute. And I suspect they will.

Post: #6

(02-11-2013 10:41 AM)Ovid Wrote:  The reason why "classical liberalism" is now seen as right wing/paleoconservative is not because it has changed, but rather because society has shifted so far to the left that this is now advocated by conservatives as "yesterday's sanity" to oppose today's nonsense. Feminism will only become a right wing movement if the radical left advocates something more extreme, so that conservatives feel obliged to promote "good old fashioned feminism" as a rock of stability. Already the right wing has mostly accepted the basic principles of feminism -you unfortunately never hear mainstream calls to reduce the amount of women in the workplace, to encourage women to have children and be stay at hme mothers, to repeal women's suffrage, etc.

Yes. What is considered Radical today will be considered Liberal in 20 years, and Conservative in 50. Today, conservatives would be happy to embrace some good old-fashioned equal-rights feminism, rather than the modern reality of affirmative action, lack of due process in rape and DV cases, etc. Perhaps in 20 years, when trans rights are all the rage, we'll long for the good old days of 2013...

But hopefully we'll have either expatted or organized a revolution by then.

Post: #7

(02-11-2013 11:43 AM)Frost Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:32 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:07 AM)Frost Wrote:  I have a theory.

As anyone who studies history knows, many ideas and movements that started out 'left-wing' gradually morphed into right-wing movements over time. I.e, there's a reason free-market capitalism is called 'classical liberalism.' Free speech used to be a leftist rallying cry, but try telling that to any European with a negative opinion of Islam.

I think we're reaching a point where Feminism has outlived its usefulness to the political left.

http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2013/02...r-the-bus/

Thoughts?

I think it is more accurate to say that the left is shooting itself in the foot, at least with respect to the left in most European countries that are importing a lot of Muslims. These Muslims, when they get to be a big enough group, will demand Sharia type laws and generally make life miserable for the gays, feminists, and beta boys on the left.

You are assuming that the ultimate goal of the left is to advance the interests of women, betas, gays, etc.

If importing vast numbers of Muslims is a better strategy for undermining western civilization than pushing gay rights, the left will throw the gheys under the bus in a minute. And I suspect they will.

True. The left is there to advance the power of the state, nothing else.

Good food for thought.

Post: #8

(02-11-2013 10:07 AM)Frost Wrote:  I have a theory.

As anyone who studies history knows, many ideas and movements that started out 'left-wing' gradually morphed into right-wing movements over time. I.e, there's a reason free-market capitalism is called 'classical liberalism.' Free speech used to be a leftist rallying cry, but try telling that to any European with a negative opinion of Islam.

I think we're reaching a point where Feminism has outlived its usefulness to the political left.

http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2013/02...r-the-bus/

Thoughts?

I don't see much evidence of this. Feminism plays as big a role in progressive politics today as it ever has. In fact, I would say that feminism has replaced the central role of multiculturalism in progressive politics.

Your Islam example isn't very persuasive. Progressives have always been prone to falling for other people's radicalism. Think about the progressives who were sympathetic towards the Soviet Union. It comes from the mistaken belief that your enemy's enemies must be your friends. Sooner or later people wisen up.

As for all the demographic destiny arguments, they are deeply flawed as well. They assume that the children and grandchildren of today's Muslim immigrants will be every bit as fundamentalist as the original immigrants. Over the course of successive generations, people begin to assimlate into the host culture to varying degrees as the host culture takes on some of the character of the immigrants.

Post: #9

Post: #10

(02-11-2013 10:41 AM)Ovid Wrote:  The reason why "classical liberalism" is now seen as right wing/paleoconservative is not because it has changed, but rather because society has shifted so far to the left...

Politics in this country has shifted far to the RIGHT in this country. Nixon would be considered a leftist and is probably left of Obama on a lot of issues.

Society has become more permissive, at the same time...

Post: #11

Brave New World that's for sure.

France upholding the law that paternity test by fathers is illegal without a court order, pretty much means it's the start of men being removed from the biological role of fathers.

Throw women under the bus for another breed of minority privilege, be it homosexuals, transgenders and the like, have society hold them in low esteem and they'll ride the carousel every night.

Post: #12

(02-11-2013 11:43 AM)Frost Wrote:  If importing vast numbers of Muslims is a better strategy for undermining western civilization than pushing gay rights, the left will throw the gheys under the bus in a minute. And I suspect they will.

They are not "importing" Muslims to undermine western civilization. They are doing this in order to maintain the size of the pool of people in the working force. Since the population is rapidly dropping in some European countries, this means that their workforce decreases in size. Following logic from Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, if your labor force decreases, the wealth of the nation decreases overall. Essentially these European countries are allowing immigrants, just like the U.S. in order to prevent a rapid descent into poverty. One that Japan is experiencing right now.

Post: #13

Erhh, that's not a good interpretation of Adam Smith, and reall isn't important.

A nation's wealth is the aggregate of its product. Now sure your labuor force diminishing usually means diminished aggregate product, however it can be compensated by improvements in productivity, and that means investment in technology that enhances inputs, (and that means keynesian economics )

But even if the aggregate diminishes, it doesn't matter because you've got less people to share it around with.

It's only meaningful if you want to engage in a dickwaving contest about comparing GDP sizes. Otherwise India is a better country than Normay, because of a bigger GDP.

A shrinking national economy is a lie sold to useful idiots. Workers quality of life diminshed for the preserve of the rent seeker.

Post: #14

(02-12-2013 01:53 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  Erhh, that's not a good interpretation of Adam Smith, and reall isn't important.

Actually, it's a direct interpretation. The greater the labor force, the greater the wealth. Look at China, a prime example of a large labor force producing massive amounts of wealth.

It is also highly important. You cannot have a large group of people in retirement while the workforce is small. No country can sustain a relatively large group of people who have passed the working age, it leads to rapid economic downfall. Again, I point to Japan as a prime example of this.

(02-12-2013 01:53 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  A nation's wealth is the aggregate of its product. Now sure your labuor force diminishing usually means diminished aggregate product, however it can be compensated by improvements in productivity, and that means investment in technology that enhances inputs, (and that means keynesian economics )

But even if the aggregate diminishes, it doesn't matter because you've got less people to share it around with.

It's only meaningful if you want to engage in a dickwaving contest about comparing GDP sizes. Otherwise India is a better country than Normay, because of a bigger GDP.

How are you going to make improvements in productivity? That is the question. It costs money to improve productivity. Will those costs that are onset initially be offset at a rapid pace, or will it never generate profit? Is there technology that is even available to increase productivity? Even more so, which areas of workforce would deplete and be in need of increased productivity? A lot of questions, little to no answers.

If the aggregate diminishes, especially if it is largely occurring in the working force due to decreasing birthrates, then the wealth of the nation produced takes a rapid drop in addition to the population drop. In fact, the wealth of the nation would decrease faster than the population due to the fact that the working force would be decreasing in size faster relative to the rest of the population decrease.

GDP size does not matter as much as economic stability along with the average person's well being, which is what I am discussing here.

Quote:A shrinking national economy is a lie sold to useful idiots. Workers quality of life diminshed for the preserve of the rent seeker.

Well, it seems that the idiots understand basic reality while you cannot see things that are clearly happening in the world. I will say this again, look at Japan. Japan is facing severe economic crisis due to the fact that its workforce is too small to sustain the entire relative population (aka too many old people). The reason why countries like the U.S. and Germany allow so many immigrants is because it sustains the workforce and neutralizes many of the problems that would occur in a country where its workforce is rapidly decreasing.

Post: #15

(02-12-2013 02:51 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:53 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  Erhh, that's not a good interpretation of Adam Smith, and reall isn't important.

Actually, it's a direct interpretation. The greater the labor force, the greater the wealth. Look at China, a prime example of a large labor force producing massive amounts of wealth.

No, that has to do with enhanced productivity. if it stayed the backward Agrarian nation of the 1970's, it would still be dirt poor.

The parallel is a nation of 100 people earning $100,000 each, therefore aggregate income is $10,000,000, or a nation of 200,000,000 earning $1 each.

The latter scenario is a richer nation, but I wouldn't want to be part of that nation.

China hasn't had a population explosion, it has enhanced its productivity.

And Adam's Smith number one principal was increased wealth came about through ehancing productivity.

Quote:It is also highly important. You cannot have a large group of people in retirement while the workforce is small. No country can sustain a relatively large group of people who have passed the working age, it leads to rapid economic downfall. Again, I point to Japan as a prime example of this.

That's not a feature of increasing your workforce, it's a feature of increased life expectancy. If you don't increase your population levels exponentially for perpetuity, you will eventually run into this problem.

The problem is the retirement age hasn't been recalibrated to compensate for increased life expectency.

Quote:

(02-12-2013 01:53 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  A nation's wealth is the aggregate of its product. Now sure your labuor force diminishing usually means diminished aggregate product, however it can be compensated by improvements in productivity, and that means investment in technology that enhances inputs, (and that means keynesian economics )

But even if the aggregate diminishes, it doesn't matter because you've got less people to share it around with.

It's only meaningful if you want to engage in a dickwaving contest about comparing GDP sizes. Otherwise India is a better country than Normay, because of a bigger GDP.

How are you going to make improvements in productivity? That is the question. It costs money to improve productivity.

No, more inputs. Raise the retirement age, means more labour input, means more product to market. Whetehr those old people are working or not, they are still going to demand product. if they work, they are actually brining some of the product they demand to market.

Quote:Will those costs that are onset initially be offset at a rapid pace, or will it never generate profit? Is there technology that is even available to increase productivity?

A productivty enhancer has never failed to materialise in history. Your conjecture is an stock standard malthusian claim.

Technology has rarely reached the level of productivity enhancement as it has in the world right now.

Quote:Even more so, which areas of workforce would deplete and be in need of increased productivity? A lot of questions, little to no answers.

The workforce doesn't need to deplete. Pruning the least productive may enhance productivity at the margins, not the aggregate.

Quote:If the aggregate diminishes, especially if it is largely occurring in the working force due to decreasing birthrates, then the wealth of the nation produced takes a rapid drop in addition to the population drop.

No, if the aggregate diminishes, then those that aren't producing have to start producing to reverse the trend. The more people work, regardless of age, the more product is created.

Kicking up stumps at receiving someone elses output at 65 is not an immutable law.

Quote:In fact, the wealth of the nation would decrease faster than the population due to the fact that the working force would be decreasing in size faster relative to the rest of the population decrease.

No, the decrease is faster due to the (presumed) declining maginal productivity due to feebleness and infirmity. technology can compensate many of these areas.

Quote:GDP size does not matter as much as economic stability along with the average person's well being, which is what I am discussing here.

yes, you are try to assimilate GDP per capita into the argument, which is what I've infered.

Aggregate output is the numerator.

If people die, the per capita bit.. the denominator also shrinks. if they shrink at equal levels, then you don't need to do anything.. GDP per capita stays constant.

Quote:

Quote:A shrinking national economy is a lie sold to useful idiots. Workers quality of life diminshed for the preserve of the rent seeker.

Well, it seems that the idiots understand basic reality while you cannot see things that are clearly happening in the world.

When it comes to macro economics, i see things clear than a vast majority in the world, andI see it clearer than you.

Quote: will say this again, look at Japan. Japan is facing severe economic crisis due to the fact that its workforce is too small to sustain the entire relative population (aka too many old people).

And as if on queue about clear vision..... too many old people is not a barrier to production, other than a social construct making it that way.

Raise the retirement age, and your workforce increases.

Quote:The reason why countries like the U.S. and Germany allow so many immigrants is because it sustains the workforce and neutralizes many of the problems that would occur in a country where its workforce is rapidly decreasing.

No, the reason they allow it, and Australia, my country, is the OECD country with the highest percentage immigration intake at this point in time, is to allow bottom feeding rent-seekers more customers in shopping centres, houses and our very own education bubble more customers.

These are all low tech industries to serve and generally rampant consumerist in nature, with only the latter has potentially high value outcomes.

As I said, useful idiots espouse this. if you think your nation's qyuality of life improves by cramming housing and public schools, as well as 3% more customer trawling your shopping malls, then I think I prove my point.