Keith Hudson wrote: > So far, concerning the subject of economics, the female of the species > might as well not exist.
Funny comment from the country of Thatcherism and the Queen on the coins. > When basic food and minimum shelter are available for all in any > post-agrarian society Thatcherism has gone a long way to UNDO this. The Queen also globally. > The male can't get sex willingly from a female unless he has some minimal > status -- a role in society or possession of money. How ironic then that the brothel and porn industries are _thriving_ in times of economic crisis. > The female won't give > sex willingly unless she is given some form of security -- safety of a > partnership or money. As if cash was a security at this time! And then there's the pimp... > The exploitation of all of them is deep within our genes. Would you kindly only talk for yourself? > It is > sad, therefore, that the study of economics (as defined in all text books) > is still largely trapped at a primitive level That's sad indeed, but you seem trapped at the cavemen level of psychology. > -- that of the distribution > of basic resources (together, in the last 350 years only, with the > distribution of the mass manufactured products of those resources). Naah, the profiteers are not content with basic resources at all... > Even the classic economists got little further than this. Even the three > greatest economists of the last century -- Keynes, Friedman and Hayek -- > were preoccupied with money and trade and little else. That's how predators are, alas. > How can we restore the female to her rightful place both in economic > discussion but also as an equally important actor in economic development? > It can be solved immediately by giving much more cognizance to the fact > that teenager girls, mainly obsessed with the looming possibility of > becoming mothers , endeavour to select the most able male that is available > within her culture. This culture can be her immediate culture or, if she is > more than usually able herself, in a better culture that might lie > elsewhere. This is instinctive and applies everywhere and in every society. Don't forget the pill that disrupts this "looming possibility" in many cases. Ironically, it tends to be taken by the "most able"... Could it be that this was the (zionist) inventor's intention? To get dull masses? > The same evolutionary phenomenon also explains why almost all the bums and > vagabonds in a city are almost exclusively males The female bums simply end up in brothels... > and also, at the other end > of the ability range, why exceptionally gifted females find it very hard to > find a suitable male whom they can respect as a partner and provider. Aren't there enough exceptionally gifted males, or don't these want an equal female? > But perhaps the most serious consequence of female sexual (and thus > economic) choice is that it accounts for the growing underclass in modern > society and also for the vast majority of crime. Why only in modern society? Above, you wrote that upwards-marrying was particularly strong in agrarian societies. > The females who are not > able enough to leave the more economically distressed parts of a country > will tend not to get married because the males around them are not able to > provide for them or who are even less able. But because such girls can also > receive adequate welfare benefits from a developed country government and > have priority in local council housing lists they will still have children. Ah, now I understand: In Africa, poor women don't have children, because there are no welfare benefits from the government....... > However, in recent years since the availability of cheap abortion, these > girls no longer have multiple children but nevertheless they produce > children in families without fathers. Such children tend to be lonelier and > less socially able than children born into normal families. In their very > earliest and most formative years of life such children tend to be left in > front of the TV while their mothers, themselves much lonelier than they > would be if marfried, seek social (and/or sexual) comfort outside the home. But this is a NEW phenomenon, my friend. How can this be due to "cavemen's instincts"?? No, it is due to the 1968 fraud of "feminism" combined with neo-con economic frauds that lead to poverty, lack of education and jobs, and wage dumping (creating the "need" of BOTH parents to work)! > Another important result of this is that the male single children make up > the bulk of crime 15 to 20 years after their birth. This was first proved > by Steven Levitt in a brilliant analysis some 20 years ago and now widely > accepted. He was able to prove this scientifically by analysing overall > crime figures in all American cities before and after abortion became a > basic female right by a ruling from the Supreme Court.^^^^^^^^ Abortion causes crime & poverty? Wow, that explains the "Celtic tiger", eh? But wait, that was due to EU subsidies bigger than to Greece... (per capita) > There have always been the poor in any society. This is a natural result of > the variability of talent in every generation. But, in advanced society > these days, the poor are becoming an underclass, and a criminal underclass > at that. And, furthermore, a permanent, criminalized underclass. This cannot be blamed on cavemen's instincts, nor on government handouts, but on neo-con schemes of creating mass poverty for a few mega-rich! Russia is a textbook example of this, but the West is not very far behind! > In a society which is becoming even more meritocratic and specialized Actually, the super-rich oligarchs have little to do with merits (like the Queen, btw). And from the poor, not the "brightest" will move upwards, but those with the strongest "elbows". > it > will mean that either (a) the human species will inevitably divide into two > separate species over a period of time or, (b) that the most radical > attempts must be taken to give every child the maximum opportunity for self > development from the moment he or she is born. To the extent that we are > already losing a great deal of potential talent, even genius, then this is > by far the most important economic and political problem in any developed > country -- far beyond the economic depressions that we are wont to > experience from time to time. > > And, as a byproduct, economics must become a much more rounded subject. We > need far more Veblens, Schumpeters and Levitts than so far. That's right, we need to take away power from what Veblen called the "Leisure Class" (predators) and give power to the producer class. And the economic frauds of the Austrian school belong into the dustbin of history. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
