How can I get people to read my blog?

[KrazyHorse]

It's a troll because I got the response I was looking for...

[C0ckney]

Crime isn't wealth creation, it's wealth redistribution.

depends on the crime...

[Aeson]

The only fallacy inherent to my post, statistical* or otherwise, was to misjudge the level of quoteworthiness and thus bring laughter to people I despise. I take solace in the realization that since no one paid me for my post, or has made any sort of offer to purchase it or compensate me for it, it is indeed worthless still, along with the unintended lulz. Thank god for economics!

*While one might make the seemingly sound argument that the risk of injury due to bathrooms does not scale linearly, reality clearly refutes that claim. For instance, there are 79272 registered users here at poly, but only 2 or 3 have claimed to have even just 6 bathrooms. Of those 79269 remaining, the vast majority have not claimed to have any bathrooms at all. Perhaps some of those users did have 6 or more bathrooms, but in such cases it is clear that they have been incapacitated already, perhaps succumbing to toothpaste overdose, arsenic laced floor tiles, or even something mundane like too much toilet plunger to the anus, and so can't tell us how many bathrooms they did indeed have.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not my fault you didn't plan ahead and attempt to capture some of my consumer surplus...

[Aeson]

The market for humor has already been ruined by wiglaf, who is bundling it with his posts for free (much like how Microsoft killed Netscape). Without protectionist policies giving subsidies, absurdly high tariffs, or prohibiting trade from crime ridden slums (such as DC), I simply can't compete.

(Similarly I can't compete with curtis for the long-winded niche market anymore )

[Hauldren Collider]

The market for humor has already been ruined by wiglaf, who is bundling it with his posts for free (much like how Microsoft killed Netscape). Without protectionist policies giving subsidies, absurdly high tariffs, or prohibiting trade from crime ridden slums (such as DC), I simply can't compete.

(Similarly I can't compete with curtis for the long-winded niche market anymore )

You never charged either.

[Aeson]

Of course I never charged for my humor, nor even for my much more valuable long-windedness. I am after all, an immoral philanthropist. You may blame me for your current rent-seeking behavior if you wish. (Another rent I gladly pay you.)

[curtis290]

I'll respond to this garbage later.

[Dinner]

Crime isn't wealth creation, it's wealth redistribution.

They were reallocating poorly used resources. It was creative destruction and thus provided a valuable market services!

[Dinner]

Clearly Viking raiders were just giving their neighbors what they wanted as they amassed their fortunes. :yes:

Is this supposed to be insightful? The Vikings accumulated whatever wealth they did through involuntary exchanges.

I suppose even a monopoly which abuses it's position is never the less still involved in voluntary exchanges and it is increasing shareholder value by abusing said monopoly.

In the end it's still extracting unearned rents due to a lack of a properly function market (no competition) so this would be another example of where money changing hands isn't exactly giving people what they wanted. It's more of a default action due to having no other choice because the market is not functioning as it should.

[Elok]

Actually, I seem to recall reading that the Vikings established a powerful trade network.

[curtis290]

Army? Well if you want to be average...

Smart thing to do would be to begin preparing physically now. Don't be like me and rush into it and have your body break on you.

Well I've told him to join the military. If he could get into Swarthmore, he should be mentally qualified to be a military officer.

For Curtis: I can't speak on the other branches but you need a 1250+ SAT (old style scoring), a 3.3+ college GPA, a physical fitness test score of at least 275 and have no criminal, medical, or tattoo issues to be competitive for the Marine Corps.

A 275 PFT score may not be enough to prepare you for the rigors of OCS, though. I had a 279 and still developed fractures in my legs.

I'm serious. Don't think oh I'll look into teaching for a year and then apply and go to OCS. While the Army may be crazy easy (I don't know but it seems like it is), don't underestimate the damage OCS can do to your body. You NEED to prepare physically at least a year in advance of your class date at a bare minimum. Typically, guys who want to go after they graduate college start training their junior year of college.

What's wrong with the Army? It's where I've always wanted to go. As for the physical aspect, that's the problem. That's why I'm unsure as to whether or not I should join the services. I tore my ACL in high school pretty bad and I don't know if I'd be able to handle it physically anymore. It was a very disappointing moment.

What's Poli Sci?

It's not "Political science", is it? That would be just too distressing for words.

Unless anyone here claims to have successfully replicated capitalism in a test tube, I refuse to accept that politics can be studied as a science.

They just slap the term science on anything these days. Hell, even the janitor is now a maintenance engineer.

Well in all fairness, somewhere near the middle of the 20th century there were some people trying to graft to the field a submission of data derived from actual, observable political behaviors to high-level statistical analysis and reaching replicable conclusions in a manner approximating the scientific method, but then the postmodernist, anti-positivist fruitcakes steamrollered over the whole thing from the 70's on and turned it into another silly offshoot of filosofizing. The only thing remotely resembling political "scientists" today might be pollsters and poll analysts, but they're better labeled statisticians.

I couldn't agree with you guys any more. I hate my discipline (although it took me a while to realize it). I don't believe in 'Political Science.' Beginning with the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, we stopped being political philosophers and became "political scientists." Instead of being concerned with true values such as what is good and noble, we decided to become "disinterested observers" who are concerned with utility. Such a "scientist" cannot be a judge of what matters or of the validity of an argument because they are moral relativists. The empiricists and their descendants rebelled from political philosophy and declared itself a distinct discipline in the positivist movement. They stopped paying attention to values, only to what can be easily quantified and understood from the scientific method.

Most of my professors didn't think we needed to study the classics and ancient political philosophy. They thought it was "irrelevant" since it came from a different culture and time period. Well, you can't understand the discipline of modern political science or anything relevant pertaining to the political without studying ancient political philosophy. This is where everything came from, and it puts everything we know into perspective, informing us of where we are now and where we've come from in regards to our roots.

Ahh, poly sci and liberal arts... It's what people study when they're either lazy or lack the mental acuity to learn a subject with actual employment potential. He'd be better off if he'd spent his time studying basket weaving because then he'd actually possess a semi-marketable skill.

There is more to education than preparing yourself for a career. But in a society without values other than maximizing profit, I can see how such a statement would seem ludicrous. And I studied English, not 'liberal arts.' That's not a discipline.

OMFG, you ****.



You did a degree in POLITICAL SCIENCE and ENGLISH at SWARTHMORE and you think you got an elite education? You have got to be ****ting me.

And where exactly could I have gotten a better education? If I studied the math and sciences, that would be MIT and CalTech. But I didn't. That leaves the big 3 (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). Harvard is not the place to get a good education as an undergrad (you'll have huge classes full of students who don't really care about learning, only about 'success,' and you'll be tought by TA's, since Harvard profs don't care about undergrads). True, Yale and Princeton rival Swarthmore in terms of the quality of the education, but there's a reason liberal arts schools have become extremely popular over the past couple of decades. They are the ideal learning environment. And Swarthmore is the best (Amherst kids don't study, and Williams kids are a bunch of jocks who can't think creatively). We have the most studious student body of all the liberal arts schools, and we're consistently in the top 3. So yeah, I did get an elite education.

But I didn't bring this up to brag. I'm not like you. I was merely bringing it up to demonstrate the fact that had I wanted to, I could have gone straight into iBanking like many of my peers, and eventually made more money than you (or could have started as a consultant and worked my way up). This is relevant because all that matters to you is money, and you think you are the best person on the planet because you have a high salary. And where did you go to school for your undergraduate degree that gave you such an elite education, by the way?

I'm going to go to one of those design your own major colleges and study underwater basketry.

My graduate degree will also be underwater basketry, but with a focus on feminism.

So I take it you think English and Political Science aren't legitimate fields of study? That they are on the same level as underwater basketry? I take it that you think the only thing people should study is math, chemistry, and physics, right?

The education provides a sense of confidence in their own opinions while its mediocrity does not provide a corresponding sense of humility.

The best demonstration of the uselessness of a liberal arts education is the existence of people like curtis....

Thank you KH, for one of the funniest moments of my day. Hearing you talk about humility is just...indescribably hilarious. You are the most arrogant d##chbag I have ever run into on the internet. Possibly the most I have ever run into in my life, although I'll spare you that judgement since I haven't met you in person. All because you (supposedly) have a PhD and a six figure salary. Well, everyone that I know that is wealthier and more scholastically accomplished than you (and this includes people within physics, I knew a few physics professors and took a physics class) is much, much more humble than you are.

And as far as the uselessness of the liberal arts education, it's funnier to hear you say that, since Williams is called the 'West Point for Wall Street.' Williams is a great school but I think you get a better education at Swarthmore. So it's definitely not mediocre and anyways, even by your standards, it's very useful. After all, according to Forbes, Williams has the highest median salary of any college. And the only thing you value is money, so by your standards, a liberal arts college is the best school.

Note his claim that he received some kind of elite education doing nonsense subjects at a mediocre school. Now he's teaching elementary/high school, and will likely drift from one such low-value job to another. He will continue to grow more frustrated with the lack of status these jobs impart him, and will become more and more convinced that his failures are due to society valuing the "wrong things".

You say it's a low-level job because the only thing you can comprehend is money and mathematical models. But most people believe it is a noble profession (of course filled with a lot of incompetent people). And if there is a successful teacher that motivates their students to succeed by your standards and make a lot of money, and does this over many years, than wouldn't that be more valuable than one guy making a good salary on Wall Street?

Actually, I majored in Poli Sci and English. But I did take some Econ courses as well as a few Poli Ec courses that I put a lot of effort into. Carnegie Mellon is a good school for the math and sciences, but objectively speaking, it's just not as competitive as Swarthmore.

Kid, it dosn't matter how 'comptetitive' your school is if its measuring something useless.

Carnegie Mellon grads are, on average, more intelligent than Swarthmore grads: FACT.

Again, I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest with you, I was merely trying to demonstrate to KH that I could have made a lot of money if I wanted to (he said I wouldn't have been able to). But if you want to play that game, how exactly are you measuring this? Swarthmore grads have higher SAT scores, something you seem to think measures intelligence.

I have to admit the prestige factor of Harvard was very difficult to turn down, but I would have gotten a terrible education there. Getting taught by TA's, being surrounded by slackers, and having no academic culture at my school (other than make connections and succeed in business or politics) did not appeal to me.

it mattered to you who taught your lectures? You went to lectures?

Yeah, I actually went to school to learn.

And he could have gotten the same education at Harvard and at least have had people look at his resume for it.

Although, I did take a creative writing class at the Harvard Summer School for fun and have to admit that the teacher was quite knowledgeable and brought it to a higher level than you'd get at workshops taught by English majors from Swarthmore. We also had some really impressive writers in there. I was ****.

No. Although Harvard is more competitive, the quality of the education there is a complete joke. I have many friends with friends at Harvard, and they all say the same thing. You can't get a good education with big classes taught by TA's. The profs there do NOT care about undergrads. They are at Harvard for the research, prestige, and maybe graduate students.

Well, first off he couldn't have gotten my job, period. Quant work is well outside his capabilities.

And he would have had a lot of trouble even getting a reasonably good job on the street. Maybe he could have gotten some BOMW job if he got lucky...

If I had decided as a freshman that I wanted to do quant work, I could have. I was always good at the math and sciences, they just never interested me, so I studied something else. English, BTW, was always my worst subject. But I found it interesting and I majored in it.

And I know a lot of people making six figure right out of my school who have unlimited potential and opportunities. So yeah, I easily could have worked my way up to a very nice living on Wall Street. I chose not to though. I think it's because I haven't sold my soul.

You're not of a mind that maybe with an educational track not so wasteful and an alma mater not so ignorable he might not have become the halfwit we see today? To me, the mere fact that he can produce such immense walls of text at will (albeit with little substance and faulty analysis where there is substance) suggests not so much stupidity as some combination of wasted potential and mental illness.

FWIW, Curtis, would you care to lay your IQ out on the table (or if you never had one - and I mean a real one - conducted, at least an ACT or SAT score) so we could have a picture of your intellectual capacity before Swarthmore had its way with it? I'm genuinely curious.

Standardized tests are a very poor indicator of intelligence. I never took an IQ test, but I didn't do very well on the others. A 2160 on the SAT and a 32 on the ACT. I got 5's on pretty much all of my AP tests though, which I would say are a better indicator of one's scholastic aptitude. Anyways, some of the most intelligent people I know didn't do well on their SATs, and this includes professors.

You're not of a mind that maybe with an educational track not so wasteful and an alma mater not so ignorable he might not have become the halfwit we see today? To me, the mere fact that he can produce such immense walls of text at will (albeit with little substance and faulty analysis where there is substance) suggests not so much stupidity as some combination of wasted potential and mental illness.

Quant work requires a very special set of capabilities, many of which cannot be taught to any but a very small number of people.

Not really. Just study math and work hard. It's not that complicated, and you're not as elite as you think you are.

curtis, don't take the above comments to heart. Swarthmore is a good school and while you didn't study the greatest or most productive thing in the world, you studied something that interests you and you have something that less than 30% of Americans have: a college degree, and from Swarthmore at that. Anyone normal would be impressed by that.

Somewhere along the line, both KH and Kuci lost all humility (although, I don't believe Kuci ever had it) and now just want to put down everyone they deem their intellectual inferior for some really absurd things (like laughing at someone's college education) and by saying some douchey things that I'm really surprised other posters don't take issue with (such as comments that they will make more money than someone every year of their lives). Also, they've somehow come to the conclusion that intelligence used to make money is the ultimate measure of a man, which should be prima facie ridiculous and is more morally ignoble than anything you've said.

I'm a bit disgusted that others have joined in these personal attacks on curtis. As much as people may dislike his beliefs or believe him a joke, that does not excuse mockery of curtis the individual. Curtis didn't initiate this and yet he is the one being attacked, not those who made comments about they'll make more money than him every year of their lives, a comment which I personally find very stinging and inappropriate for a civil forum. I would expect it from the Gordon Gecko clique but from everyone else?

Let's get some normal perspective here... assuming everything curtis says is true, he's a poor boy from the deep South who got a degree from Swarthmore. Since when is that something to be mocked instead of applauded? You are no longer even responding to his points in any way but just putting him down. Have all of you lost your god damn minds?

Thank you for being the only person in this thread to show reason and humanity.

I'm a bit disgusted that others have joined in these personal attacks on curtis. As much as people may dislike his beliefs or believe him a joke, that does not excuse mockery of curtis the individual.

Yes it does. He, like you, believes things that are completely absurd and retreats into ill-thought-out personal attacks (e.g. "I could make more money than you, KH!") when his folly is demonstrated.

No. I was only responding to KH's claims that I never could have been "successful" and made his salary. I don't think that's true, I just chose a path other than the pursuit of wealth. And yeah, maybe I did get a little personal, but not NEARLY as much as you and KH. It's hard to keep your cool when you're being insulted by pretty much everyone on the board for having a different set of beliefs, and when you have to read KH's posts. I have to fight my gag reflex everytime I do, because he epitomizes everything that is wrong with economists and America in the past 20-30 years. He is truly a vile creature.

Also, to reiterate: he's a freaking Nazi!

Again, do you know of any Nazis that aren't anti-semitic, support Israel, and believe in Christianity?

Everyone should go kill foreigners at least once in their life. It's a character building experience.

Joining the services is most definitely a character building experience. As for killing an enemy, I hear it is, but I've never done it so I won't make that claim myself.

Well, from someone who's more or less separate from this whole fray: Curtis has some eccentric viewpoints that seem based more on a flowery view of the past, acquired by reading, than on actual experience with human beings. AFAICT he is merely naively romantic rather than an actual fascist bastard. Of course, if an actual charismatic fascist leader were to appear, he could probably snap up Curtis's support, but that's hypothetical. I suspect he'd get disillusioned and leave before the body count reached triple digits.

And in any case Curtis's support wouldn't work too well, since he's not the best at communicating his message. Really, I'm not trying to slam you, Curtis, but people are in fact capable of reading books these days. They demonstrate this ability by READING BOOKS! Not extremely long internet posts by people they don't know, books that they buy or borrow with the intention of reading. If you want, by all means keep trying the "complain at people until they change to suit my wishes" approach, but I'm telling you, it isn't going to work. The internet is Darwinian--adapt or perish.

With all that said, he's ultimately harmless, and until you yell at him polite--and genuinely polite, not in that sideways-while-I-pull-out-my-knife BK way. Certainly he's not as evil, or as Nazi, as Hera is/was, depending on whether this "return to God" thing of his is sincere and whether it changed his curious ideas about race.

You may be right, Elok, in your statements about the internet. But I have to believe that some people will be willing to test their attention spans and read a few paragraphs. The internet has corroded our capacity to think, but in trying to write something substantial, perhaps I can make a small difference.

I honestly can see where curtis is coming from. I agree with the spirit of most of his ideas (except for the Christian nonsense) and anyone here who remembers my posts from my childhood would probably agree.

I'm actually a little surprised that no one thought he was my DL, especially since he showed knowledge of long-time posters which is usually the mark of a DL.

I think most people agree with many of my sentiments. Why do you think they vote Republican? It's because they at least vaguely understand the importance of values and want to fight their decline within a liberal society. Unfortunately the Republican Party can't make good on any of their claims since it too is corrupted by liberalism.

As for being a DL, I came here occasionally to look up stuff on civ, and then I'd peruse the off-topic form to see what European liberals and socialists had to say. I had never been exposed to people with those viewpoints, so it was very educational to read them from time to time. I never felt the need to contribute though until now.

Well that's the thing... my interview skills aren't relevant because I never get the interview! It's all on my resume which I have posted here and I have worked on to change but I highly doubt my resume was that terrible especially since I took a resume writing class and I've seen what other business undergrads are capable of producing for resumes (which aren't pretty).

I think a lack of internships screwed me immensely. I couldn't afford to take an unpaid or even a low paid internship because I needed steady income so I worked two food service manager jobs (which, honestly, isn't even terrible for a college student; students usually are the servers/waiters/burger flippers, at least I shot into managerial jobs). What that means is I never got my foot into the door in the industry or could show that a financial/accounting/insurance/etc. firm had been willing to take me up. I think that may have been a big deal but I can't believe it would still be haunting me years later.

Keep on trying, hopefully something will come up. Just remember, your value as a human being is not measured by your salary or the prestige of your career.

I said spirit, kuci. Stuff like money isn't everything. You know I hate this Gordon Gecko stuff that you and KH espouse. I think we would do good to take a step back and appraise ourselves as a society and shy away from all this materialism and sexuality. I dislike Christianity and never want it imposed in any form but I have always believed that Americans in general need an awakening and stop being this society of drugged-up, obese, debt-producing, fad-obsessed, having babies as teenagers, reality show-watching, etc. creatures. I know it's cliche but that doesn't mean that it's not true.

Thank you. At least someone gets my drift.

This amounts to "other people enjoy stuff that I think they shouldn't enjoy, so they should somehow be made to want the stuff I'd prefer".

I dislike Christianity and never want it imposed in any form but I have always believed that Americans in general need an awakening and stop being this society of drugged-up, obese, debt-producing, fad-obsessed, having babies as teenagers, reality show-watching, etc. creatures. I know it's cliche but that doesn't mean that it's not true.

Called it!

No. Some of us just don't believe in worshipping extreme individual freedoms that came about recently in history. Some of us value traditional social structures that provide people with meaning. You can't be truly free to do whatever you want, even in your liberal society (there will always be laws), and society's rules and values are important to human beings. That's why they continue to believe in religion and submit to a set of rules made by people wiser than they are.

Not surprisingly, Curtis has chosen not to enter those occupations. I'm sure if Curtis ever had to work on a farm or an assembly line he would change his position.

Because I would be better at something else. My talents could be serve people by teaching or being a soldier. And yes, I have worked on a farm AND an assembly line. I've also done some mindless, white-collar work. I didn't find it enjoyable, valuable, or intellectually stimulating.

And you're willing to extend the tenuous justification for banning hard drugs (intertemporal externalities) to a wholesale dictatorial "readjustment" of everyone's preferences? How about you just let people enjoy what they do, you enjoy what you do, and otherwise leave each other the **** alone?

Because it's not a good idea to run a society like that, not to mention, liberal society is a very new concept historically.

We already out spend the next 60 or so countries combined in military spending and most of those 60 countries are allies so we should be slashing military spending by 50% rather then increasing it still higher. Every penny we waste on the military (beyond the needed deterrent amount) is ultimately money wasted and not spent on more productive uses.

Like what, blowing asset bubbles so that a few wealthy bankers can make even more money? Or on more meaningless consumer goods?

You realize, AS, that what this means is that your "money isn't everything" piece is really just an expression of "what you want is less important than what I want".

No, he's just trying to point out the fact that there is more to life than money, and it's actually a good thing if people pursue something other than maximizing their own profits. A concept completely foreign to you it seems.

Why do you think you're the one qualified to tell other people how to live, given how well your own life has worked out?

So pretty much every society in history (except for a few states in Europe and their former colonies recently) functioned improperly? You're fighting an awful lot of history there.

Precisely.

Money is how people tell each other what they want. Getting a lot of money is, to large extent, the same thing as providing other people with what they want.

There is no higher calling than that.

The fact that you have no shame in saying this truly testifies to the nature of your character.

Clearly Viking raiders were just giving their neighbors what they wanted as they amassed their fortunes. :yes:

Is this supposed to be insightful? The Vikings accumulated whatever wealth they did through involuntary exchanges.

Yeah, and free markets have always been spread through peaceful means. :eyeroll:

Actually, I seem to recall reading that the Vikings established a powerful trade network.

Yes. Often times violence is used to establish trade networks.

[Kuciwalker]

I couldn't agree with you guys any more. I hate my discipline (although it took me a while to realize it). I don't believe in 'Political Science.' Beginning with the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, we stopped being political philosophers and became "political scientists." Instead of being concerned with true values such as what is good and noble, we decided to become "disinterested observers" who are concerned with utility. Such a "scientist" cannot be a judge of what matters or of the validity of an argument because they are moral relativists.

Holy ****, you don't even understand the philosophy lessons you claim to value. Utilitarianism is distinctly not moral relativism. The use of utilitarianism is a choice to value people's happiness over your "good and noble" bull****.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, I actually went to school to learn.

Some of us don't have to sit in a special room listening to old people talk to learn.

Also, you don't seem to have actually managed your goal.

[Kuciwalker]

Standardized tests are a very poor indicator of intelligence. I never took an IQ test, but I didn't do very well on the others. A 2160 on the SAT and a 32 on the ACT. I got 5's on pretty much all of my AP tests though, which I would say are a better indicator of one's scholastic aptitude.

The AP's a ****ing joke. 11 5's, 3 4's (all in subjects for which I never actually took the class).