Turnabout is fair play

I’m on the other end of the interview for a change:

Mr. B.A.D.: Does your greater intelligence give you grace for dealing with people less capable than you, or do you spend most of the day sighing and irritated?

Vox Day: Absolutely not. Unfortunately, it took me a very long time to learn to regard people of relatively normal intelligence with sympathy and amusement rather than simple contempt. What still remains annoying are the people of moderate intelligence, say the 110 to 120 range, who simply don’t understand that they are closer to the normal people to whom they condescend than I am to them. So it’s annoying when they assume I’m talking gibberish just because they aren’t capable of understanding something.

This was for Facebook or Myspace or something. I’m not entirely clear on why, but I have to admit that it was the first time I have ever thought about fictional characters and with whom I might identify.

Productivity and deflation

Karl Denninger reaches a conclusion:

The Labor Department reported Thursday that productivity jumped at an annual rate of 6.9 percent in the fourth quarter, even better than an initial estimate of a 6.2 percent growth rate. Unit labor costs fell at a rate of 5.9 percent, a bigger drop than the 4.4 percent decline initially estimated.

In the real world this means:

Work harder and get more done. Get paid less. Suck it up, don’t complain, or you’re fired. That’s all.

And by the way, reduced pay per unit of work spells DEFLATION.

That’s not necessarily so. Inflation and an increase in the supply of labor can lead to reduced pay per unit of work; real weekly wages haven’t increased in the USA since 1973. But in general, declining labor costs do tend to point towards deflation, especially if they are nominal as well as real. Productivity up and costs down is a good thing for corporations; whether that is good for the smaller number of workers working and the reduced pay they are receiving may not turn out to be good for an economy already facing widespread defaults. Especially if those corporations happen to be foreign corporations sending those profits overseas.

Exploding government debt

Carlton has a nice series of charts providing a graphic representation of the rapid growth of U.S. debt over at the RGD blog:

Even more striking is the annual percentage change in the debt. Between 2002 and 2006 there is a surge in growth, presumably to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, peaking in 2003 at around 9%, but the growth begins to slow down again until 2008, when it surges over 11%, and then in 2009 it jumps to almost 19%.

Needless to say, the recent post-2007 surge is in direct contradiction to the 10% contraction in private debt that has taken place over the same period.

It’s never enough

Once more, a woman attempts to shame men into not responding rationally to consequences of female actions:

There is a message to be delivered to men, and it may not be popular. We hear a lot about the injustices visited on fathers over divorce and access: for the record, I am largely on their side and dislike the thoughtless and sentimental favouring of mothers in residency disputes. We also hear a bit about the flailing ineffectiveness of the former Child Support Agency. What we do not often hear is the bald, uncompromising truth that if you father a child, you set up a non-negotiable duty.

Sorry, men, but it really is so. We may live in a shag-happy porno culture, where flings and “hotties” and zipless one-nighters are seen as the norm; we may be liberal about divorce, stepfamilies and serial cohabitation. Some of this is good, some of it bad. But none of it negates biology, or the entry-level ethical fact that when a sexual act creates a human child, that child is as much of a moral burden to its father as to its mother. Unless it is a matter of sperm donation or formal adoption with a clear contract, the man has, at the very least, a duty to monitor the child’s physical safety.

This is absolutely and utterly false under the current legal regime. It is totally unconscionable to claim that men who have been forcibly stripped of their paternal rights by the unilateral decision of the mother supported by the anti-paternal legal system have any duty whatsoever to the children that have been taken away from them. If it is the man’s decision to leave the family, then yes, his paternal responsibilities remain intact. If he fathers a child unintentionally his paternal responsibilities remain, barring the commission of intentional fraud on the part of the mother.

But if his paternal responsibilities have been stripped from him by the unholy alliance of ex-spouse and state, if he has been threatened with the full force of the law if he so much as attempts to contact them without the permission of the mother, then the onus for the children’s well-being lies with those who have assumed the full responsibility for it. It is absurd to write, as this woman does, that “men who turn aside from this duty should be looked at askance, stigmatised as dishonest weaklings.” The fact is that men who do not turn aside from this “duty” under these circumstances and this system are doing nothing more than enabling it. The writer’s real agenda is revealed in this sentence.

“Most mothers do their best but some are weak, depressed, drugged, or just lovelorn and intimidated by violent boyfriends.”

In other words, it’s the same old line that is based upon the underlying assumption that because women are children who can’t be held responsible for their actions, every female failing must ultimately be blamed on men. Clearly the logical solution is beyond her, which is to stop permitting mothers to unilaterally exclude fathers from the lives of their children. The concept is really not that hard to understand. Assuming that one considers the rule of law to be legitimate, once a man has been stripped of his status as a father by other parties, he no longer has any paternal responsibilities. They have been assumed by the parties that stripped it from him.