The Rantmaster sums it up

CNBC’s Rick Santelli explicates the most fundamental problem with Keynesian economics:

At the end of the day, it’s simple. A lot of the president’s advisers are saying that there’s a multiplier effect to the government money, and it’s over one. Now if that’s true, then the government should spend non-stop for the rest of our lives, because we’ll get a positive return. And it makes no sense.

None at all. And do check out his on-air apostasy. It’s got to have a few folks in the White House rattled.

Redneck vs Harvard Business

It’s a bloody massacre, albeit not the way you might assume:

You must understand that the vast majority of the talking heads are Keynesian. That is.. they subscribe the few remaining theories postulated by John Maynard Keynes that have not quite been 100% proven incorrect just yet.

Now the Keynesians describe a recession like this… “demand no longer equals productive capacity because people have started storing up large cash reserves.”

So… recessions are bad… and they are what happens when companies are making stuff that people aren’t buying.. because those bad people have decided to save some of their money. Out of curiousity… Do you remember any massive rash of unified saving among your friends and family recently?

It’s always amusing to me when explaining the different economic theories to non-economists. Almost uniformly, they find themselves aghast at the absence of thereness at the heart of mainstream economic theory. In a delicious and apropos addendum, Nate goes on to kick the quants just for good measure.

[C]an someone explain why we should trust anyone that is off by 800% to even measure inflation.. much less predict it?

Confusing effort with result

University educations are totally wasted on these crippled minds:

Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade. Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.

“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”

“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”

What else is there? I don’t know, perhaps demonstrating that you actually learned anything. Now, I’m probably more skeptical than most about the idea that receiving good grades and acquiring academic knowledge is a reliable indicator that one is actually useful for anything, but if an A now means nothing more than the retarded kid managing to avoid eating the pages out of his textbook and humping his female classmates during the lectures, there will be no loss in shutting down the entire university system today.

And to think people are accepting a lifetime of debt for these magic pieces of worthless paper….

As for me, I could not possibly care less how hard people try. I’m only interested in results and I much prefer those who achieve them by working smart to those who do it by working hard. If you can deliver results while rolling out of bed at the crack of noon and taking hourly bong breaks, that’s just fine with me. Excellence often requires effort, but it should never be equated with it.

More atheist cowardice

So, it turns out that not only did the brave, bold Christopher Hitchens get beaten up… he was beaten up by ONE guy while running away despite the fact that he and his buddies outnumbered the guy three-to-one:

So rather than getting stomped while fighting bravely against a gang of Syrian fascists, we have Hitchens plus two sidekicks deliberately provoking Syrian thugs in a foreign city…and then fleeing like bitches when one lone Syrian nerd came after them. And even with their three crusading Western selves versus one lone Syrian nerd, Hitchens STILL got thrashed. The offended Syrian fascist even followed Hitchens into the back of the taxi and rag-dolled him in the backseat!

But he’s still fearless when it comes to taking on dead Catholic nuns! So much for the idea that he was engaging in free speech with courageous disregard for the consequences. Hitchens is a poser and clearly never would have raised pen to poster in anger if he’d known anyone who disapproved and was likely to act on that disapproval was watching. It may not be news that New Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens and Myers are cowards, but it is really amusing to see them demonstrate it time and time again. While the no-atheists-in-foxholes theme can’t be applied to all atheists, it certainly has its foundation in reality. It’s also amusing to note that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party is apparently a secular party with Marxist influences.