Lion of the Blogosphere

Politics of rich people fall mostly into two categories

Politics of rich people fall mostly into two categories:

1. Those rich people who are in close or even complete agreement with the policies of Obama and Hillary Clinton, and they voted for Obama and Clinton.

2. Rich people who have the same worldview as the first type of rich people, but nevertheless they hold their noses (to avoid the stench of prole anti-gay anti-abortion anti-environment anti-immigration anti-affirmative-action stuff) and vote Republican because they want financial benefits from Republicans. Either they want lower taxes, or freedom from regulation because their money comes from industries that Democrats hate, oil and gas being most notable, but including other non-urban-based industries such as agriculture, mining, chemicals, transportation, and certain types of manufacturing.

The Koch brothers are #2 type rich people. Koch Industries are involved in all of those non-urban-based industries, including oil and gas, that Democrats hate.

The #2 type of rich people who vote Republican are NOT to be admired in any way. Since they agree with the worldview of #1 type rich people, they are only voting Republican because they are greedy. When they vote Republican they are thinking “I agree with everything the Democrats say, but screw that, I want to make more money!”

Many of the #2 type of rich people voted for Hillary in 2016. They would have voted for Jeb Bush, but the stink of Trump’s proleness was just too overpowering for them. They weren’t concerned about the Supreme Court falling into liberal hands because they agree with liberal jurisprudence.

It is very typical that there’s an older male Republican-voting #2 type whose wife and children all vote Democratic.

Some have said that the Republicans need the #2 type of rich people for their political contributions, but Trump showed that political contributions from rich people are vastly overrated. Jeb Bush spent massively more money in the primaries thanks to his rich donors, but Trump totally schlonged him. And then Trump beat Hillary who also had far more money in donations from rich people.

* * *

To give credit to commenter “destructure,” this is the comment he wrote:

If you read the wikipedia entries for the Koch brothers, who basically own the GOP, you’ll see they’re the kind of people who claim to be ‘socially liberal but fiscally conservative’. The thing is, they equate being ‘fiscally conservative’ with being libertarian which are NOT the same at all. The Koch brothers support abortion, feminism, gay rights, SSM, open borders, free trade, etc. About the only Democrat policies they don’t support are higher taxes and environmental regulation — because the latter interferes with their business. In other words, they’re liberals on everything that doesn’t affect them and libertarian on everything that does.

Now, obviously, there might be disagreement among conservatives on some issues. But, from what I can tell, the GOP are just liberal Democrats who don’t want to pay taxes. So the Democrat establishment are liberals who want to pay more taxes. And the GOP establishment are liberals who want to pay less. And conservatives wonder why the GOP hasn’t been doing what they want? There’s the answer.

The thing is, the GOP couldn’t push higher taxes without losing their billionaire supporters who want lower taxes. Those billionaires would just switch parties. After all, that’s the only difference they have with liberals anyway. And I kind of think that the establishment is already too tilted in favor of the Democrats as it is.

* * *

One of the points of this post is that when rich people say they want higher taxes, it’s not because of some hidden scam they are running, it’s because they agree with the policies of Democrats.

Certain middle-class conservative types who comment on social media and blogs just don’t seem to grasp that the rich people are liberals.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 21, 2017 at 2:11 pm

Posted in Politics, Wealth

153 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The Mercers, Trump’s biggest donors, seem to be an exception to this, although I’m not sure they’re quite as populist as the media would have it.

    IHTG

    March 21, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    • Of course there are exceptions. Steven Bannon is rich (although only decamillionaire rich and not billionaire rich) but he believes in Trumpism.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 21, 2017 at 2:22 pm

      • Also remember red pilled, cognitively elite white guys like Scott Adams and Peter Thiel who are fed up with identity politics.

        B.T.D.T.

        March 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm

      • I find it hard to believe that Steve Bannon is wealthy, given his reactionary politics. A high profile decamillionaire is a pauper in today’s elitist circles.

        JS

        March 21, 2017 at 4:23 pm

      • Bannon is different because he came from a working class family.

        destructure

        March 22, 2017 at 12:00 am

      • I didn’t realize, but now it makes a LOT of sense. Scott Adams also comes from a working class family.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 12:17 am

      • Robert Mercer (the patriarch of the family) was actually a gifted computer programmer. Made his billions in a hedge fun run by STEM guys.

        PerezHBD

        March 22, 2017 at 7:46 am

    • If Lion was Michael Bloomberg or David Koch, Steve Bannon would be considered a “guido” that gets tossed around in the LoftB.

      JS

      March 22, 2017 at 12:39 am

  2. “it’s not because of some hidden scam they are running”

    Yes it is.

    They want to prevent other people from getting wealthy enough to challenge them.

    Lion o' the Turambar

    March 21, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    • That taxes prevent social mobility is a myth invented by libertarians. No basis in fact.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 21, 2017 at 2:54 pm

      • a. where is your evidence? Mathematically it clearly does. If the tax rate is 93% there wont be any new centimillionaires

        b. it really depends on what people believe doesnt it? If Sumner Redstone thinks that a confiscatory tax will prevent people from challenging his position that is enough to motivate his behavior.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        March 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm

      • 93% tax rate is a straw man argument, and furthermore, as long as business investment goes against income, you can indeed build up a business to being worth $100 million even if your personal tax rate is absurdly straw-man high.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 21, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      • So its not a straw man since the rate has been in the 90’s.

        And if you are a sole proprietor or S corp you get taxed at the personal rate.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        March 21, 2017 at 4:47 pm

      • When the rates were that high, there very super=generous allowances for accelerated depreciation, investment credits, and the corporate rate was a lot lower, so yes, many 100 million dollar busilness came about during that time.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 21, 2017 at 5:22 pm

      • If you look at the richest people in the 1950’s under the high tax rates its old money family who are at the top- Rockefeller and Mellon. People who had made their money before high tax rates really bit.

        If you look at the exceptions in that period- like Hughes and Getty- what they stand out for is being massive tax avoiders. J Paul Getty famously saying income tax has made more liars out of men than golf.

        Howard Hughes had a huge number of tax dodges Like living in hotels so he didnt have to establish a residence and having his executive file defamation suits against him which he would settle so he could pay them tax free.

        http://oddline.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-howard-hughes-avoided-taxes.html
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurelmoglen/2017/03/09/wall-street-rules-the-forbes-30-under-30-finance-list/#29a393867a8b

        So the data would seem to suggest that the tax code did prevent people from becoming rich and those that did increase their wealth during the period are the ones who completely outfoxed the code.

        Since you arent advocating putting in place a code that people can get around, this undermines your point.

        Lion of the Turambar

        March 22, 2017 at 9:54 am

      • The rich tend to stay rich and the poor tend to stay poor in the absence of some big foundational change, and that change happened in the 1970s and 1980s with computers.

        However, the ability to become a billionaire from nothing is probably closed off now.

        Not saying that the tax code of the 50s 60s wasn’t a little bit stupid, but it didn’t prevent business formation. Corporations had much lower taxes, and there were way more deductions depreciation and other types of capital investment (such that they rose to the level of being loopholes).

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 9:57 am

      • Evan Spiegel is 26 years old and worth 4.4B so its clearly not closed off.

        You think Wyatt Rockefeller or Charlie Munger want to have to compete for tee times or Aspen real state with these whelps? That’s why they like high tax rate- to block out anyone new.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        March 22, 2017 at 1:48 pm

      • Lion,

        Unless you inherit money, most people build their capital through savings from their income. The higher that the taxes bite into their income, the harder it is to build savings and wealth.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 2:52 pm

      • Most people build capital from paying off their home mortgage, and that’s tax deductible and has been since the beginning of the income tax (when all interest payments were deductible).

        And since business interest is still deductible, as well as issuances of stock, you can get tax-free capital from banks and the public and private financial markets.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      • Most people build capital from paying off their home mortgage, and that’s tax deductible and has been since the beginning of the income tax (when all interest payments were deductible).

        And since business interest is still deductible, as well as issuance of stock, you can get tax-free business capital from banks and the financial markets.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      • given how few billionaires there are, luck plays a major role. But the odds are boosted if you have a very high IQ and start a technology company. The era of ‘prole’ retail/food billionaires is probably dying

        grey enlightenment

        March 22, 2017 at 3:06 pm

      • Yes, it’s not likely ever again that someone will become a billionaire the way John Catsimatidis did it.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    • Turambar is right.

      It’s analagous to how libs agitate for diversity, bussing, open borders and always make sure they stay or flee to the whitest possible places.

      They want to prevent other white people from staying white; they want everyone else to become a shade or two darker while they firm up their grip in the master class.

      fakeemail

      March 21, 2017 at 10:03 pm

  3. You are letting your NYC worldview and the media inform your perception of rich people. There are many rich people in this country that are socially conservative. They just live in flyover country and make less noise.

    B.T.D.T.

    March 21, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    • If you read his post he said most, as in > 50%, fall into these two categories. It’s incredibly easy to describe most rich people.

      Magnavox

      March 21, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    • Messy Manhattan has a lot of rich people in a one square mile radius.

      Everything in America revolves around effing Manhattan!

      JS

      March 21, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    • And yes, it sucks to live in Manhattan when you’re not wealthy and/or goodlooking.

      Not sure if Lion feels this way!

      JS

      March 21, 2017 at 4:20 pm

      • Manhattan is a great place to live if you care about the arts or business or just like excitement, even if you are ugly or relatively poor, you just have to keep your envy on check. If it hurts your feelings to see beautiful women you’ll never have a chance of fucking every five minutes, or guys with clothes and cars you’ll never be able to afford, well, maybe you should stay away.

        Gozo

        March 21, 2017 at 7:04 pm

  4. Where Trump got killed in the general was with middle class, college educated, suburban whites. Losing the votes of the Koch’s was no big deal, losing the votes the bourgeois “muh temperament” crowd was devastating. According to Nate Cohn, Trump actually lost college educated whites which is why Trump feels so unpopular in comparison to guys like Bush, McCain and Romney who all dominated amongst college educated whites.

    The super rich in general have been vastly less hostile to Trump then the aforementioned middle class, college educated whites, a group Coulter refers to as “the Strivers”.

    2020 comes down 100% to whether or not Trump wins the Strivers back. Assuming no recession or other crisis, Trump should be able to do so unless the Dems run Biden or Oprah. Trump can maybe beat Biden but no way can he beat Oprah.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 21, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    • Based on twitter activity, Trump isn’t even interested in winning over the Strivers.

      Mike Street Station

      March 21, 2017 at 3:12 pm

      • Trump is in trouble. He’s allowed the media to control the narrative, gets into stupid petty arguments with celebrities, and is allowing the judiciary to take away his powers. He’s not schmoozing Congress.

        He should read up about what the patrician Romans really thought of celebrities. They were nothing but whores, not to be taken seriously, and that’s what our whole society is based on: celebrity worship. I wonder if Bannon knows that.

        More Roman stuff: an Emperor should cut heads of as easily as a dog sits down. No one is suffering a bit for defying Trump. What’s going on?

        gothamette

        March 21, 2017 at 9:40 pm

      • Who cares about the “Strivers”? That kind of electoral trigonometry is for the losers and puppets we’ve had in office for the past 50 years. Trump is aiming to win by actually improving America. And based on my own barometer, he is doing a damned good job already (despite some fumbles, and the backstabbing of weasels like Ryan and other tRaitors).

        Panther of the Blogocube

        March 21, 2017 at 11:55 pm

    • He needs to explain himself more. We’re going to build a wall is not an explanation. There are good arguments that could win over the strivers. It wouldn’t even be that hard.

      Dave

      March 21, 2017 at 4:46 pm

      • All the strivers think they are going to be rich so they buy into all of the global economy, immigration, and leftists crap.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    • He doesn’t have to do anything to win over the Strivers beyond just succeeding. As long as there are no crises and the economy remains strong the Striver will support Trump in 2020, unless the Dem nominate a great candidate like Biden or Oprah.

      Otis the Sweaty

      March 21, 2017 at 5:32 pm

      • Biden is 74. Oprah is not going to run, and I got news for you, implicit whiteness is now becoming explicit, and I can’t think of a candidate that will register a few million more whites than Oprah. Oh, Corey Booker.

        The Dems are a mess, but that doesn’t mean Trump is doing well.

        What’s going on with the healthcare mess, Otis? Splain that one to me.

        gothamette

        March 21, 2017 at 9:42 pm

      • I don’t know what Trump’s game is with the healthcare thing. He doesn’t have the votes and his supporters hate it.

        You know that Bannon and Ivanka are against RyanCare and yet Trump is going forward with it anyway, which makes me think that this might be part of a plan to allow Ryan enough rope to hang himself.

        Once it become clear that repeal is impossible, we can move on to tweaking Obamacare and then to tax reform. The SC will rule in favor of the Muslim ban because to rule against it would cause a Constitutional crisis. Construction on the wall should begin before the end of the year. Destruction of the immigrant community is already well underway.

        So far, so good.

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 22, 2017 at 11:15 am

      • OK, Otis, if you say so.

        It strikes me that he is losing precious time and capital on this Ryancare debacle, and that the wall has been swept into the dustbin of history.

        We’ll know in a year. No point in arguing about it.

        gothamette

        March 22, 2017 at 12:25 pm

    • 2020 comes down 100% to whether or not Trump wins the Strivers back

      Trump isn’t even interested in winning over the Strivers.

      2020, Biden, Oprah, and winning over Strivers are of no interest to Trump. Trump does not want and will not seek a second term.

      E. Rekshun

      March 21, 2017 at 6:05 pm

    • Otis wrote: “Where Trump got killed in the general was with middle class, college educated, suburban whites.

      More fake news Otis – That was just leftist/libtard propaganda to explain to their fellow losers that they’re really much smarter (muh edumacation) and just couldn’t go low enough reach the dull-witted whites the way Trump could.

      Here’s the reality.

      White and wealthy voters gave victory to Donald Trump, exit polls show
      “The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Back in May, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver punctured the myth of the “working class” being Trump’s voter base: In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins.”
      https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class

      White and wealthy voters gave victory to Donald Trump, exit polls show
      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

      Nedd Ludd

      March 22, 2017 at 7:17 am

      • “In exit polls of 23 states from the primaries, all showed a higher median income for Trump supporters than the national average, usually around $70,000.”

        That could probably describe Staten Island guidos.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 9:55 am

      • Exit polls are trash. Nate Cohn used actual precinct data to show that Hillary beat Trump amongst educated whites by an estimated 2%.

        And by the way, if Trump won educated whites by 5 to 10 percent and still lost the popular vote by over 2%, then we are much worse demographic shape than we realized.

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 22, 2017 at 11:23 am

      • Sailer, who is usually great on election analysis, said that prosperous whites who live in areas full of not prosperous whites voted for Trump, i.e., concerned citizens who personally do OK (for now*) by neoliberal policies, but who see what neoliberalism has done to less fortunate people.

        *For whom the bell tolls.

        gothamette

        March 22, 2017 at 12:27 pm

      • If you look at the Trump counties that always voted for Democrats pre-Trump they are all working class, mostly in the rust belt.

        If you look at the (relatively few) counties that voted for Hillary after voting Republican for decades they are all wealthy. Orange County California comes to mind right away. Also rich suburban areas of Atlanta and Dallas voted against Trump when they always voted Republican before him.

        Jay Fink

        March 22, 2017 at 2:09 pm

  5. Mostly correct, but there are plenty of rich Social Conservatives, like the billionaire who funded Santorum’s campaign. I think the Wyly brothers who funded W are also standard social conservatives, as are most Mormon rich. Most rich are in the NE or West Coast, where this is most correct, but you underestimate the number of rich SoCons in the rest if the USA.

    Pop

    March 21, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    • Mormons are more liberal than supposed. They support open borders. They have come to peace with the sex issues (gays, abortion and trannies). They oppose abortion and gay issues themselves but they are not on the barricades fighting against it. It’s an “all other things being equal” issue for them. And they don’t give one damn about what scares the proles: race and economic displacement. Mormons are not the allies of proles or prole interests.The only utility they have is supplying 2 reliably Republican Senators for the Senate, who will go along with the Republican majority when pressured to.

      Proles really need to start asserting that they/we own the Republican party and if the rich don’t like it they can go over to the Democrats. Trumps opponents (Republican and Democrat) must have outspent him 20 to 1 and he whupped them. Message and alpha-tude are better qualities to have.

      Daniel

      March 21, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      • I agree the official Mormon position on immigration is left wing. But that also is the case for a lot of right wing churches.

        Here on the West Coast, Mormons rich people and lawyers are the bulwarks of social and economic conservatism. They have more money, organization, and education than the large but dwindling reactionary WWC and WWC-assimilated hispanics here that actually provide the votes for social conservatives.

        Pop

        March 21, 2017 at 7:19 pm

      • The Mormon Southwest of UT is much a prettier and liveable place than Arizona (which attracts proles).

        JS

        March 21, 2017 at 9:23 pm

  6. Meanwhile, Lion would be considered liberal on:
    education
    taxes
    Planned Parenthood
    SSM
    regulation
    health insurance
    labor
    child support law

    conservative on:
    disparate impact law
    immigration
    policing

    ???? on:
    military

    Fiddlesticks

    March 21, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    • What is conservative or liberal on military issues any more?

      Do liberals want a larger or smaller military? I think the mainstream left mostly wants a pro-trans/gay/feminist military. As long as that objective is met, they can have their 12 carriers and F-22 or whatever.

      Trump apparently wants his 12 carriers. As do many TradCons. I don’t see the point. But they also don’t want the trans/feminist stuff to get in the way of warfighting.

      The alt-right seems divided between types who think we should have a strong military as a hedge against leftist tyranny and America First types who think we should scrap it. Some think that Trump wants a strong military for the first reason, but I think he mostly just wants a strong military because America should be the strongest and the best and should win.

      I mostly think we should scrap it — the military is as likely to be an instrument of tyranny as a hedge against it, but it’s definitely a waste of resources in the meantime. Internationally, we’re as likely to attack our allies as our enemies.

      Wency

      March 21, 2017 at 4:43 pm

      • Carriers are only useful for random stupid third world wars. China, Russia, and maybe even Iran and North Korea can sink them with guided missles and torpedos.

        Maybe we should keep the existing ones for their useful life. Building new ones is crazy.

        Pop

        March 21, 2017 at 7:24 pm

    • Lion would be considered liberal on:

      …and gun control

      E. Rekshun

      March 21, 2017 at 6:07 pm

    • whats the conservative policy on child support law?

      gm

      March 21, 2017 at 7:02 pm

      • I think he supported Obama when he made it harder to imprison poor men who don’t pay their child support.

        Magnavox

        March 21, 2017 at 8:14 pm

    • The Alt Right (and I am speaking broadly here and including Lion in the Alt Right) is a left wing movement. The Alt Right’s only gripe with the welfare state and socialism is that in its current form the welfare state privileges non-whites and homosexuals and women at the expense of straight white men.

      Gozo

      March 21, 2017 at 7:26 pm

      • What exactly is the objection to a society that is structured in such a way that it benefits its constituents? Last I heard being suicidally self-destructive wasn’t a prerequisite for being considered right-wing, but it is awfully hard to keep up these days.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        March 22, 2017 at 12:38 am

      • Elitists like trap think they can structure a society to benefit their favorites; the elites who take on this task are usually corrupt or incompetent and make society worse with their crimes and blunders.

        Gozo

        March 22, 2017 at 8:58 am

  7. Let’s talk about the politics of really intelligent people.

    To do this, first, let’s create a simple definition of what we mean by politics. I will define politics as a person or a group’s opinion about the best decision that society and/or the government can make with respect to three kinds of problems: a) Social Issues (abortion, gay rights, women’s rights); b) Externalities* (social security/healthcare, immigration, environmental regulations, global warming); and c) Economic Growth Issues (income taxes, foreign trade openness).

    Second, we require a definition of really intelligent people.
    Definition 1: Those who have studied in prestigious academic institutions, have advanced degrees, and are highly regarded experts in their fields.
    Definition 2: Those who have succeeded in creating extremely successful businesses, are captains of industry, and are extremely wealthy by their own merits.
    Definition 3: Those who have high wealth, and high educational attainment. They may not be at the extreme of either, but they are far high above than the average person in both.

    Now we ask, what are the politics of really intelligent people?

    a) Social Issues: Under all 3 definitions, very intelligent people are pro-gay rights, pro-women’s rights, generally very socially liberal. A majority of them are pro abortion, but not all of them, especially those who have strong ties to religion.

    b)Externalities: Under Definition 1, and 3, most very intelligent people believe drastic changes are necessary to address global warming, and to impose regulations that force private individuals to internalize the effects of their actions on the public welfare. As explained by Lion, under Definition 2, there is mixed support for anti-global warming policies but the position of these people is determined by a conflict of interest, so it is not possible to disentangle their true belief vis-a-vis their economic interest. With respect to social security, there is less consensus as to the right policies to implement, but all very intelligent people acknowledge that healthcare has many characteristics of a public good,* and some form of government intervention is desirable. With respect to immigration, there is consensus that illegal immigration cannot be allowed, that a wall is a terrible way to deal with it, and that the state-of-the-art policies to deal with it are human-rights based.

    c) Economic growth issues: Under all 3 definitions, there is consensus that free trade is a net positive. Under all three definitions, there is no consensus as to the correct way to address issues of taxation. There is no consensus that reducing taxes is good for the economy, and there is no consensus that higher taxes are either.

    Based on this analysis, it is clear that this forum spends way too much time arguing against matters that are agreed upon by very intelligent people, and not nearly enough time discussing the real debate issues.

    I am happy to address objections that this forum may have against this framework, or to change my perspective if shown evidence to the contrary.

    trap-n-skeet

    March 21, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    • “Definition 1: Those who have studied in prestigious academic institutions”

      almost disqualifying right there

      Lion o' the Turambar

      March 21, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      • A non-trivial portion of the population would agree with this definition. US courts rely on this type of ‘very intelligent’ people to decide on the most fundamental aspects of business, economics, torts, forensics, etc. (google Testifying Expert for more details). Would you want to propose a different definition and see how it fares in my test?

        trap-n-skeet

        March 21, 2017 at 4:43 pm

      • Again, if non-trivial portions of the population were always right, then the Roman Empire would still be here.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    • The social issues that you refer to are hard to define because the left is continually moving the goal posts. What exactly does “gay rights” or “women’s rights” mean? If it means equal opportunity then no doubt the vast majority of intelligent people support that. That’s not what it means anymore…it means preferential treatment in hiring, contracting and even scientific reasoning (i.e. Cross dressers shitting and showering with peoples kids. Plenty of smart people are against this kind of inverted “liberalism”.

      B.T.D.T.

      March 21, 2017 at 3:22 pm

      • I agree that there are various degrees of “social liberalism.” However, on average, very intelligent people’s policies are more socially liberal than those the average citizen. For example: based on polling in 2016 (Pew research center), a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 37% who oppose it, at the same time, the support for gay marriage increases with the level of education and with the income level.

        I do not believe there is such thing as “the left.” Or at least not in the sense that you seem to portray it: an organized homogeneous group pushing a well-defined agenda. So I do not believe your argument that the “left is continually moving the goal posts.” I think you and I do agree in that most intelligent people see equal opportunity as a positive feature in society.

        Preferential hiring and contracting policies have a long-standing tradition in the US as a mechanism to support disadvantaged minorities. I think there is room for debate as to the degree in which these policies are implemented, but very intelligent people agree that action must be taken to address systemic unfairness.*

        I do not understand your comment about “scientific reasoning.” To me, this is a perfect example of how this forum gets sidetracked on unimportant debates. The impact of this type of discussion pales in comparison to the impact of discussing a change in income taxes, or a change in the healthcare system.

        From a personal perspective, if individual freedom is a value that one considers important, then the government has no business dictating where one should go to the restroom, especially since there are no studies that indicates that it is a good thing for society to have gender segregated restrooms.

        *Even from a purely self-interested perspective–ignoring any considerations of human rights, or social equality–addressing systemic unfairness is a mechanism to reduce the effects of crime, homelessness and social unrest on the privileged groups.

        trap-n-skeet

        March 21, 2017 at 4:38 pm

      • Trap,

        You’re behind the curve. You talk as if no one has any experiences observing the effects and arguments the Left makes.

        We’re not living in the perpetual sixties where every issue is new.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    • “With respect to immigration, there is consensus that illegal immigration cannot be allowed” [citation needed]

      dynkin

      March 21, 2017 at 3:45 pm

      • It is true that I did not cite a source, but I do not think the point is that controversial, is it? (Please note that I am explicitly referring to illegal immigration, which excludes refugees, legal workers, and legal immigrants from middle-east countries).

        Even Hillary Clinton’s campaign was explicit about enforcing immigration laws.

        Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

        trap-n-skeet

        March 21, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    • This is dumb. What does “pro gay rights” mean? Does it mean sodomy shouldn’t be a crime (i.e. the law in CA since 1976) or does it mean whatever new “transgression” the latest generation of gays comes up with to piss off straights? An “intelligent” person would know that gays have been left alone to live their lives for a long, time in this country, but that that isn’t good enough for them, so they also have to destroy your freedom of association, anf fine you $100k for refusing to bake a cake for them. Nobody who misses this distinction can be considered “intelligent.”

      Mel Belli

      March 21, 2017 at 4:32 pm

      • “I don’t like it” does not equal “This is dumb.”

        “What does ‘pro gay rights’ mean?”

        There are two categories of issues that I understand are covered by this label:
        1) Providing gay people with the same rights as non-gay people.

        You claim that an “‘intelligent’ person would know that gays have been left alone to live their lives for a long, time in this country,” yet same-sex marriage is still prohibited in many states of the union:
        http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html

        2) Creating laws to prevent discrimination of gay people (in housing, lending, etc.)
        Did you know that there are laws to prevent discriminating against persons aged over 40? These laws are the same in spirit to the laws you are complaining about. Should a bakery have the right to discriminate against a 41 year old man just because he is old? Of course not! Same with gays.

        Very intelligent people recognize that all groups (including gays) that have been discriminated against for a long time must be protected.

        You say that “nobody who misses this distinction can be considered ‘intelligent.’” Then, who do you consider a group of very intelligent people?

        trap-n-skeet

        March 21, 2017 at 5:54 pm

      • Should a baker have the right to serve who he wants to serve?

        Yes. If you don’t get to choose who you conduct business with, but have to conduct business with whomever the government says you must, it is not your business, it is the government’s business and you are little more than the government’s slave.

        Gozo

        March 21, 2017 at 6:58 pm

      • Lawrence v Texas involved two men arrested and criminally prosecuted for sex in their home, discovered by police when they busted down the wrong door. It might not have happened a lot, but it still happened or there would not have been any case to take to the Supreme Court.

        Pop

        March 21, 2017 at 7:46 pm

      • (This is a response to Gozo’s comment)

        A business can deny service to a customer for almost every possible reason imaginable.
        A baker can deny service to a customer because the customer is rude, because it does not pay on time, because it is smelly, or just because the owner does not like the customer as a person.

        All anti-discrimination laws say is that the baker cannot deny service to an older man BECAUSE he is old.

        The rational for such limitation on the baker’s freedom is that the baker’s discrimination infringes on the other person’s freedom. So the baker indeed has the right to serve who he wants to serve, limited to not infringing on the client’s rights.

        trap-n-skeet

        March 21, 2017 at 8:23 pm

      • Trap:

        Why does a homosexual or an old man have a right to the baker’s time and property, but not someone who smells?

        Because homosexuals and old people are voting blocks. This is all about power; homosexuals and old people can sic the police in you the way smelly people can’t.

        Don’t pretend your ideas about discrimination are a reflection of an interest in freedom–your ideas are just pathetic rationalizations for using the state’s monopoly on force to tell other people what to do, for exploiting and oppressing them.

        Gozo

        March 21, 2017 at 10:17 pm

      • Gozo:

        “Why does a homosexual or an old man have a right to the baker’s time and property, but not someone who smells?”

        In short, because homosexuals, old people, women, quadriplegic, and other protected categories cannot change their status. A smelly person can get clean,* and a rude customer can change its attitude, but a 41 year-old man cannot become younger.

        I am an economist by training, so I don’t care about rationalizations, I care about efficiency. Freedom is a valuable–perhaps the most–element of efficiency. However, if some degree of government intervention increases efficiency, then that is a good use of the power of the state.

        Why do Lion’s readers get hung up in this type of worthless debates? There are obvious benefits to reducing discrimination (For example, white, middle-class neighborhoods benefit significantly from a local decrease in discrimination against black people: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777442/ )

        Tell me whether you think Trump’s increase in defense expenses is a good idea or not. Tell me what ideas you have to replace Obama-care, or what you think of Ryan-care. Quit fixating on nonsense like “Cultural Marxism,” “Alpha-proles,” and “red pills.”

        *A homeless man cannot clean himself, you say? Well, that is why there are laws against discriminating against homeless people.

        trap-n-skeet

        March 22, 2017 at 12:34 am

      • The baker is not a tool to be used for the benefit of strangers as dictated by some technocrat’s whims. The baker has one life to live and should live it as he sees fit.

        You just pay lip service to “freedom” if your conception of freedom is that everybody should obey the dictates of elites who supposedly know better. Just because you say the magic word “efficiency” doesn’t mean we should all align our lives with your opinions.

        Gozo

        March 22, 2017 at 8:54 am

      • Again, you are well behind the curve.

        The pattern of legislation and law enforcement that the Left champions is Anti-White legislation and law enforcement. That is what is being debated because that is what is being observed.

        Why were no one Muslim bakeries subjected to these laws?

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    • Stupid people say A. Smart people say B. Really smart people say A.

      Peterike

      March 21, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    • Trap,

      This is all very circumstantial.

      If you took a survey of all of the wealthiest, best educated, and smartest people in the year 1400, then what do you think they would believe in? That God and Christ exists. That the Resurrection was real. That leaching was a sound medical practice. That the Sun orbited the Earth. Possibly, that the Earth was flat. That women belong in the home. That witches should be burned at the stake. That the Crusades were necessary.

      What the best and brightest believe is usually compelled by looking smart and being smart enough to know what other people want to hear. If the wisdom of these elites were really that profound, then the Roman Empire would still exist.

      Modern elites don’t believe that having 60 million hostile foreigners in-country is any sort of problem, completely at odds with history. They think a “science” with no predictive track record is compelling, again, against the grain of history.

      map

      March 22, 2017 at 3:19 pm

      • Map:
        I really like your proposal of continuously challenging the thinking of the elites. However, the reason why I wrote the original post is because a lot of people in this forum seem to think that ranting about nonsensical stuff is a good way to go about it.

        From reading this post over the past few months, I’ve gathered that there are people out there who think that the “left” is a thing they have to fight, that “red pills” are to be taken, and that “cultural marxism” is to be avoided. This is all very unscientific, juvenile, and what is much worse, detracts from the conservative agenda.

        The challenge against the elites must come from facts, from science, not from feelings, and “common sense.” There are lots of readers of this blog that seem to only discuss how they feel about transgenders, or how they are angry at women having sex with other people, but not with them. This type of nonsense and vitriol is pure gold to SWJs. They use it to portrait conservatives as easily-triggered, sexually frustrated (or even homosexualiy repressed) teenagers.

        I want a conservative movement that is intelligent, fact-based, scientific, but more importantly, effective. I appealed to the concept of “very intelligent” people, because I thought this would help some realize what the important points of the conservative agenda are. Sadly, I think I failed at it.

        trap-n-skeet

        March 22, 2017 at 4:36 pm

      • Trap,

        “Red Pill”, “cultural marxism” and “Left” are useful taxonomies. What is there to object?

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 9:08 pm

      • Trap,

        Your belief that the challenge to elites must come from facts is largely incorrect. Facts are only a small component. Dialectic only goes so far. You need rhetoric to carry you all the way.

        Take, for example, your stance on bakers and who they can or cannot serve. You argue that the freedom of the baker must be limited to expand the freedom of the gay customer. But, really, what freedom is the gay customer losing? The freedom to buy a cake? How so? He can go to any bakery at Walmart or Costco and have any number of cakes of any style produced.

        No, the purpose of getting the Christian baker to bake a cake for the gay is to force the baker to write, and create, with his own hand, blasphemy at the whim of the gay customer. It is a show of power, not an application of some public accommodation law. The gay customer is not a traveler on the highway needing rest and having to stop somewhere to sleep, but being denied due to the bigotry of motel owners.

        But you would not understand that, being focused on some alleged freedom argument concocted by know-nothings. Once you understand that this is simply another anti-White program, you can call it out as such with confidence.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 9:52 pm

      • Map,
        I don’t buy it. Obama won based on rhetoric, and eight years later, Trump did as well. Rhetoric is good at winning elections, but not at solving problems.

        You say “Red Pill”, “cultural marxism” and “Left” are useful taxonomies. I call them rationalizations of a few non-representative individuals’ experience. Where is the data? Anecdotes of PUA, or of armchair philosophers are as good as the paper their ramblings are printed on. Especially when these ramblings have a strong tendency to unravel into circlejeck, and pure gold quotes to SWJs.

        I do not claim to have an answer about whether the freedom of the baker is more or less valuable than the freedom of the gay (and based on your arguments, neither should you). What I do understand, is that reducing discrimination (whether against gays, blacks, or others) will make my neighborhood safer in the long term, and my–white, privileged, cis-gendered–kids more likely to have a happy life. Empirical research tells me this. Nutsos on the Internet tell me that trannys will rape my kids when they pee at the zoo. Who do you think I will end up believing?

        I don’t have easy answers, and to be honest, I distrust anyone who tells me they do. What I do have, is the believe (backed up by blatant evidence) that rambling about “the destruction of white culture,” or about “alpha fucks,” just gives the other side (SWJs) more ammo to dismiss conservative talking points.

        trap-n-skeet

        March 23, 2017 at 1:18 am

      • Trap,

        “I don’t buy it. Obama won based on rhetoric, and eight years later, Trump did as well. Rhetoric is good at winning elections, but not at solving problems.”

        No, Obama won not because of rhetoric, but because of the fawning adoration of the media. Trump won because of rhetoric and never backing down to the media.

        “You say “Red Pill”, “cultural marxism” and “Left” are useful taxonomies. I call them rationalizations of a few non-representative individuals’ experience. Where is the data? Anecdotes of PUA, or of armchair philosophers are as good as the paper their ramblings are printed on.”

        Don’t be obtuse and pedantic. What “data” do you expect to get? You want hypotheses-control-experiment to be the ruling paradigm? Why? Your political opponents don’t follow this standard. Why would you?

        “What I do understand, is that reducing discrimination (whether against gays, blacks, or others) will make my neighborhood safer in the long term, and my–white, privileged, cis-gendered–kids more likely to have a happy life. Empirical research tells me this.”

        You “understand” this how? What empirical research? Example: Detroit. School busing in Boston. Segregated neighborhoods. Anyone with the means to do so happily discriminates when it comes to choosing where their kids live and go to school. The only thing that has changed is that segregated, all-white neighborhoods are no longer affordable for the white middle class.

        The 1950’s Alabama lifestyle is only affordable for the TOOS, who then lecture us about diversity.

        map

        March 24, 2017 at 3:54 am

  8. they want lower taxes, or freedom from regulation because their money comes from industries that Democrats hate, oil and gas being most notable

    They want favorable regulations not “freedom”. And the biggest beneficiary of favorable regulations is the health care industry, with total US spending amounting to over two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000.00) more a year than the OECD per capita average. And while it’s true that Obamacare didn’t really fix that problem that’s largely because of having to work with republicans and conservative democrats.

    Magnavox

    March 21, 2017 at 3:20 pm

  9. ah, but it’s not enough that THEIR taxes are raised; the other guy’s taxes have to raised as well. what about rich NYers who don’t want to virtue signal via the tax code? I guess they’re out of luck.

    Brendan

    March 21, 2017 at 4:04 pm

  10. #2 are the types that reside in Manhattan, especially on the Upper East Side. Many of them could be neighbors of one of the Koch Bros.

    Wealthy White frat boys never associate themselves with racial minorities, unless it’s in the Hamptons or some other high hog gathering. They remind you of Donald Trump Jr or his brother Eric.

    JS

    March 21, 2017 at 4:11 pm

  11. I’m wealthy and neither of those categories remotely reflects me. I don’t support the desire to destroy civilization like the left does.

    However, except for a couple of my most intelligent friends, everyone else I know is a lefty drone, busy status whoring. A few of my guy friends have to hide their political views from their wives because, although they also support destroying western civilization, they lack the enthusiasm of their spouses. Some part deep down must be flashing a warning sign.

    gs

    March 21, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    • “I’m wealthy and neither of those categories remotely reflects me.”

      You read my blog, so of course you don’t fit into one of those common categories.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 21, 2017 at 5:22 pm

      • Leftism is primarily Bolshevism. Bolshevism is the application of Marxism to the political, economic, and cultural spheres. The methods are lies and violence.

        Marxism is the destruction of a civilization from within, built around revenge for perceived slights. Karl Marx was poor but intelligent and married to an heiress with title but no money. His poverty caused the death of two of his children.

        For that transgression between his abilities and his circumstances, he penned a screed against humanity that we are still paying for.

        map

        March 21, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      • American leftists are complete corporatists. So called cultural marxism has almost nothing to do with policies the soviet union. What are you even talking about?

        Magnavox

        March 21, 2017 at 8:07 pm

      • Magnavox,

        “Corporatism” doesn’t mean anything. As long the the corporate entity is under ideological control of Marxism, it will not matter what form it takes.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    • It’s not just the left, but also the right. The right believes in cheap labor via 3rd world immigration and retrogressive policies for proles (what we call cuckism). Their ideologies created a cesspool of what readers here rant about, illegals and moronic proles. The right takes on a symbiotic role with the left, whose agenda is to push for more welfare for NAMs and create more value transference at the expense of prole serfs.

      JS

      March 21, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    • You read my blog, so of course you don’t fit into one of those common categories.

      Those are the only good rich people?

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 21, 2017 at 6:09 pm

  12. The middle-class & UMC members of my family (engineers, accountants, middle managers) want lower taxes on the rich because these family members think they are someday going to be rich and will someday benefit. Oddly, even the long-retired members think this. Well, that and they’re convinced that government is largely wasteful and government employees are overpaid; despite the fact that over the past fifty years, 50% of my family has had their bread put on their tables by working at government defense contractors.

    The “rich” members of my family (say, $5mm+ net worth) want lower taxes on themselves because they want to keep more of what they (believe) they worked overly-hard for. Well, that and the belief that government is wasteful and that poor people are lazy and don’t deserve more than token government assistance.

    E. Rekshun

    March 21, 2017 at 5:55 pm

    • They might want lower taxes on higher earners for moral reasons, but it’s worth bearing in mind the common bait & switch here by rich lefties:

      Higher income taxes aren’t going to have much of an impact on lefties who make most of their money as owners of capital. I’ll believe the rich want higher taxes on themselves when they start advocating a wealth tax.

      Dave Pinsen

      March 21, 2017 at 6:45 pm

      • As lion has pointed out, they do: property taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes and EITC (both in a roundabout way). It’s republicans that block those things and most republican voters are stupid suckers on economic issues.

        Magnavox

        March 21, 2017 at 8:11 pm

      • I’ll believe the rich want higher taxes on themselves when they start advocating a wealth tax.

        It’s their monopolies that are sacrosanct. I’ll believe the rich when they advocate to break up their own monopolies.

        As lion has pointed out, they do:

        Actually, re. monopolies, it’s crickets from the rich.

        Andrew E.

        March 22, 2017 at 11:46 am

      • Property taxes and inheritance taxes are all easily avoided through non-profits and charitable trusts.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 4:45 pm

      • As lion has pointed out, they do: property taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes and EITC (both in a roundabout way).

        Please. The top income tax rate is 39.6%. The top capital gains rate is 24% for those in that bracket. I haven’t seen any rich people advocate raising the capital gains tax rate to 39.6%. There’s no reason the top rate should be different for both. Reagan’s ’86 tax reform set them both at 28%.

        Dave Pinsen

        March 22, 2017 at 6:03 pm

      • “The top capital gains rate is 24% for those in that bracket. I haven’t seen any rich people advocate raising the capital gains tax rate to 39.6%.”

        Warren Buffett wants to raise it to 30% (halfway there) Obama supported it. Additionally, the Buffett Rule would have closed other loopholes. Republicans in Congress blocked it. With a filibuster no less.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 6:22 pm

      • Lion,

        Buffet pushed the “Buffet Rule” to increase the returns to private equity businesses.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 9:13 pm

      • Remember that Buffett gave all his money away to Bill Gate’s foundation and is hardly leaving anything for his descendants. And he’s an old man. It’s not a scam, he really thinks his taxes are too low.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 11:02 pm

      • Lion,

        “Remember that Buffett gave all his money away to Bill Gate’s foundation and is hardly leaving anything for his descendants. And he’s an old man. It’s not a scam, he really thinks his taxes are too low.”

        These pledges to give away money means nothing. It’s another virtue-signaling scam, only in the pursuit of entrenched power instead of money.

        There is a lot Buffet could do to benefit this country: Fight mass immigration; Prevent offshore-outsourcing; reduce unnecessary regulations; maybe a smart tax-reform.

        map

        March 23, 2017 at 5:35 am

      • “There is a lot Buffet could do to benefit this country: Fight mass immigration; Prevent offshore-outsourcing; reduce unnecessary regulations; maybe a smart tax-reform.”

        Buffet is a liberal who doesn’t believe in that stuff. Except for taxes, he did support closing loopholes that allow rich people to get away with paying a lower tax rate than middle class people.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 23, 2017 at 8:50 am

  13. 2. Rich people who have the same worldview as the first type of rich people, but nevertheless they hold their noses (to avoid the stench of prole anti-gay anti-abortion anti-environment anti-immigration anti-affirmative-action stuff) and vote Republican because they want financial benefits from Republicans. Either they want lower taxes, or freedom from regulation because their money comes from industries that Democrats hate, oil and gas being most notable, but including other non-urban-based industries such as agriculture, mining, chemicals, transportation, and certain types of manufacturing.

    Or, #3, Very wealthy Republicans may not believe in social Liberalism but they don’t have the energy to fight it because it would involve losing social status with their Liberal friends if they do more than occasionally object at dinner parties.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm

  14. Your image of very wealthy conservatives is basically Mr Burns from “The Simpsons.” Wealthy patriotic conservatives seek policies which they think will benefit the US of freakin’ A. They see industrial development, exploitation of natural resources, free markets, and entrepreneurship as keys to economic growth. They see regulation and high corporate taxes as impediments to growth. The Kochs are among them.

    Liberals surely dominate the ultra-wealthy. You’ll find more Republicans among successful small business owners. They are rich compared to the average American, and feel that they have gotten that way by busting their asses and taking financial risks while getting their business off the ground. They see government as making it much more difficult to build a successful business. They are bitter when they see politicians, many of whom have never really had even a “real job” (Obama, Clintons…) placing more and more burdens on business without having the slightest idea of what that really means.

    steve@steve.com

    March 21, 2017 at 6:18 pm

  15. The #2 type of rich people who vote Republican are NOT to be admired in any way. Since they agree with the worldview of #1 type rich people, they are only voting Republican because they are greedy. When they vote Republican they are thinking “I agree with everything the Democrats say, but screw that, I want to make more money!”

    Yes, I’m glad to see you observe this. It fits with what I’ve been thinking for years now regarding people who call themselves “socially liberal but fiscally conservative”.

    “Socially liberal but fiscally conservative” is the most maddening worldview that there is. It’s not quite as actively wicked and hateful as pure liberalism, but it drives one to frustration. “Socially liberal but fiscally conservative” people are either:

    -able to understand why fiscal liberalism is unsustainable, yet not able to grasp that social liberalism is likewise unsustainable; or

    -greedy, as you say.

    Either way, very frustrating.

    SJ, Esquire (formerly Samson J).

    March 21, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    • I agree with you, but Lion thinks fiscal liberalism is sustainable. He’s in favor of it. He has frequently advocated a much more steeply progressive tax system and massive governmental social welfare programs.

      Hermes

      March 21, 2017 at 11:57 pm

      • You’re mind is stuck in the economy of the 19th century. Think post-scarcity.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 12:17 am

      • “Think post-scarcity.”

        Which is a hypothetical economy dreamed up by “futurists” and science fiction writers. We can’t base real-world policy of today on it.

        Hermes

        March 22, 2017 at 6:42 am

      • Also, how is not believing in a post-scarcity economy being stuck in the 19th century? The 20th century came and went without a post-scarcity economy.

        Hermes

        March 22, 2017 at 9:04 am

  16. Trap n Skeet says: “From a personal perspective, if individual freedom is a value that one considers important, then the government has no business dictating where one should go to the restroom, especially since there are no studies that indicates that it is a good thing for society to have gender segregated restrooms.”

    This is some sperged out, SJW nonsense. It doesn’t take a scientific study to understand the natural need for gender segregated restrooms. Only common sense. Individual freedom also means the right to privacy for women and small children to be free from freaks and sexual deviants.

    B.T.D.T.

    March 21, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    • B.T.D.T.,

      What “natural need” is there to have gender segregated restrooms? Do you have segregated bathrooms in your own home? Are restaurants with unisex restrooms “unnatural”?

      If privacy is what you care about, then use a stall. If you are worried about your (imaginary?) kids’s privacy, tell them to use a stall. You realize that women’s restrooms have only stalls, and nobody watches each other doing their business, do you?

      I am not a SWJ. In fact, most of my personal politics are closer to the traditional conservative posture. However, I do like to base my opinions on science, not on “common sense.”

      trap-n-skeet

      March 22, 2017 at 12:02 am

      • This comment leaves me speechless.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        March 22, 2017 at 1:36 am

      • Of course I don’t have segregated bathrooms in my house because I can trust my friends and family. A large desegregated public restroom in a poor or higher crime area is a whole other story. Again, this is why rich liberals can approve of transgender bathrooms because this is a threat that they and their own loved ones won’t have to deal with.

        B.T.D.T.

        March 22, 2017 at 7:24 am

      • Umm, who allows random strangers with no foreknowledge of their personal cadences to use a home’s personal and privately possessed restroom? Does reading economic texts really make one that myopic?

        This isn’t a matter of “science”. The fact you can’t discern the unfalsifiability of the valuation of, say, preventing male heterosexual primary and physical urges from being provoked in close and private quarters with females (do I have to draw the conclusion for you?), or to eliminate the air of uncomfortableness when shitting in the same grounds with a potential sexual mate, etc. demonstrates you don’t understand the ground you are trying to stand on.

        Go back to imagining what you can design.

        A Dilettante

        March 22, 2017 at 9:45 am

      • A Dilletante:

        “The fact you can’t discern the unfalsifiability of the valuation of, say, preventing male heterosexual primary and physical urges from being provoked in close and private quarters with females (do I have to draw the conclusion for you?),”

        This is the type of statements that SJW’s relish upon. What you say implies that male heterosexuals don’t have the mental capacity to curb their “primary and physical urges” enough to avoid assaulting females. Don’t make things so easy for them!

        By making this kind of arguments you make it easy for SWJs to portray us all as caveman, not capable of debate or reasoning. You are doing a disservice to the conservative agenda.

        trap-n-skeet

        March 22, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      • Trap,

        “This is the type of statements that SJW’s relish upon. What you say implies that male heterosexuals don’t have the mental capacity to curb their “primary and physical urges” enough to avoid assaulting females. Don’t make things so easy for them!”

        This is exactly what you are not getting. The direction of trannyism is always about pushing men pretending to be women into a woman’s space. That is the point. You will never have women-pretending to be men pushing into a man’s space. IOW, it is men in women’s lockers and bathrooms; never the reverse.

        Again, this is all part of the anti-White agenda of the establishment: threatening white women and white children in spaces where they are supposed to feel safe.

        Furthermore, you don’t need “urges.” All you need is calculated malice and the willingness and ability to act on that calculated malice. Women and children are helpless and easily victimized. Neither should have to rely on the self-restraint of someone nosing around their properly segregated domains.

        It’s the logic of sexual dimorphism and physical under-development.

        map

        March 22, 2017 at 10:03 pm

      • “You will never have women-pretending to be men pushing into a man’s space.”

        Men don’t feel threatened if some weirdo is using the same bathroom.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 11:08 pm

      • Map, Lion,

        I am sorry, Lion, I think you are a very smart guy, but you and Map are getting all wrong here. Women are fine about transgenders in their bathrooms. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/03/americans-are-divided-over-which-public-bathrooms-transgender-people-should-use/)

        Nobody–outside of religious nuts and a tiny minority of this blog’s readers–feels threatened by transsexuals in women’s bathrooms!

        Why spend so much effort creating a fantasy narrative that can be easily dismissed with data?

        trap-n-skeet

        March 23, 2017 at 1:35 am

      • Trap,

        Pew is dispositive to you?

        The media bombards the people with the message that being against trannies is prejudicial and you think they are going to admit to a public survey provider what their views really are?

        map

        March 24, 2017 at 4:02 am

  17. ” Steven Bannon is rich (although only decamillionaire rich and not billionaire rich)”

    “The “rich” members of my family (say, $5mm+ net worth)”

    I’ve got news for you all. 5 million, or even 10 million, really isn’t that much money.

    I’m going to give you all the opportunity to do some math for yourselves, and prove to yourselves that I am right.

    A ‘safe’ return on investment is 4%. You may very well do better than this (I happen to be, at the moment), but if your future depended on it, 4% is ‘safe.’

    What is 4% of 5 million dollars?
    $200,000.

    $200,000 isn’t rich. You have enough money to not work, and live like a pharmacist married to a secretary.

    What is 4% of 10 million dollars?
    $400,000.

    $400,000 isn’t rich. You have enough income to live like a medical specialist (say, Ear nose and throat). Frankly, a bit below that.

    It would be a nice life. You wouldn’t have to work. You can vacation to Hawaii and ski in Colorado every winter. You can drive an expensive car.

    But 10 million dollars isn’t rich.

    At this scale of money, you can live upper middle class without working-which, again, is very nice. But it isn’t rich. Your doctor lives that way. Your accountant may very well live that way. The guy that owns the Chevrolet dealership where you bought a Corsica lives better than that. Admittedly, they all have to spend 40-60 hours a week working to live that way. But they aren’t living a different life experience than you do.
    Their house is slightly larger, their car is top end rather than middle end, they just buy stuff they need (tires? ok, guess I’ll get em’) rather than sweat it. Not that big of a difference.

    anonymousse

    anonymousse

    March 21, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    • Nothing personal, but your reasoning is messed up. “Rich” doesn’t mean TOOS. Most people would be thrilled to have $200k in passive income, with a fully paid off house. As it happens I know a guy who fits your numbers – he recently told me he’s worth about 10 million. Small restaurant owner, lives in expensive blue county. Has a commercial rental, a Maui condo where he goes twice a year, a Ferrari he bought for cash, and recently purchased 20 acres which he’s leasing to a marijuana grower. Any way you slice it he’s rich.

      Mel Belli

      March 21, 2017 at 10:06 pm

      • Mel Belli – “he is rich” but he had to work for it, so by age 40 he had probably put about 60 years of normal wear and tear on himself. A 40 year old guy with 60 years of work behind him is not going to be all that happy that he is “rich”, unless he has a really really nice wife or something like that. anonymous – I get what you are saying, but if you have a fun personality and 2 million in the bank you can pretty much hang out with whoever you want wherever you want whenever you want – but, even if you have that same fun personality, if you only have half a million in the bank you better show up to work every day unless you want to spend your last few decades poor. Those are two totally different life styles, and In that sense 2 million is rich, whereas half a million is not. If you are at heart an ordinary media-fooled schlub like most people (the sort of person who thinks the Simpsons is genius and that there has never been a better band than the Beatles and that Kennedy and Gandhi and Mandela were all wonderful people and the NBA is not rigged) 2 million may or may not be enough to be rich, it depends on who is around you to keep you from ruining your advantages. We all should read the Book of Proverbs unless we are too wise to need to, and almost none of us are.

        howitzer daniel

        March 22, 2017 at 12:16 am

      • I don’t know what ‘TOOS’ means, but of course most people would be thrilled to have $200k in passive income. That would be an annual income of, $200K, without having to work. Or, as I said, the income of a family with a pharmacist and a secretary (or, two civil servants). Those families aren’t ‘rich’. Most of us are in that ballpark, and have neighbors just like that. They aren’t ‘rich.’

        anonymousse

        March 22, 2017 at 2:27 am

    • Keep in mind that investment income is taxed much more favorably and not subject to withholdings like earned income. With 5m in net worth you can buy everything in cash including your house so no mortgage payments or consumer debt. All things considered, the value is considerably higher than the withdrawal rate salary of 200k. Having high net worth gives you leverage that a mere high income can’t compete with.

      B.T.D.T.

      March 21, 2017 at 10:16 pm

      • Being able to pay in cash, or not having to pay earned income, isn’t that big of a deal. Instead of having $5 Mil, with an annual income of $200K, you have a house (say $300k) and $4.7 mil, with an annual income of $188K.

        anonymousse

        March 22, 2017 at 2:32 am

    • $200,000 allows me to buy the 1st edition of Descartes’ Discours de la méthode, printed in 1637.

      JS

      March 21, 2017 at 10:59 pm

    • Your doctor, unless he is from a wealthy family, does not live “that way”. Doctors do not start earning 400k as new attending physicians. Making 400k at age 40 after 8 years of university, 6 years of residency, and a few years in practice is qualitatively and quantitatively much different than being granted a trust fund worth 400k per year at age 21 or 25.

      PoorGradStudent

      March 21, 2017 at 11:33 pm

      • Plenty of doctors earn that kind of money as new attending physicians. I specifically said specialists (like ENT). I didnt’ say internists, oncologists, or pediatricians, or family practice. Surgeons, ENT, radiologists, perhaps plastic surgeons, all make 400K their first year. Several others-you can google it.
        So what is the first year? 8 years university, plus 5 years residency (your 6 years is a bit long-it applies to only a few specialties), is 13 years. Start at age 18, end at 31.

        So what is the qualitative and quantitative difference between earning 400K at age 31, and earning 400K at age 25?

        As I said: its nice to not have to work for your money. If you are defining ‘rich’ as ‘not having to work,’ then yes, making 400K on investment income is ‘rich.’

        But most of us think ‘rich’ means something different, and I’m saying 400K isn’t enough income to be ‘rich’ in the way we think.

        When we hear $10 million in assets, we are all thinking ‘hires a butler,’ or ‘uses money to influence elections’, or ‘owns a personal jet’ or ‘buys insane stuff like a basketball team’ and so on. Bannon has $10 mil-so he must be able to talk to Congressmen and have some inside influence! He can personally call up the editors of National Review and get write the column he wants to influence the Republican platform!

        $10 mil doesn’t do any of those things. $10 mil allows you to buy the high end Honda van (the one with a good VCR) rather than the low end Dodge minivan. $10 mil allows you to fly to Hawaii for a week rather than drive to Myrtle Beach for a week, and ski in Vail rather than some local ski resort in Pennsylvania every year. Your house has nice fixtures instead of cheap contractor faucets in the bathroom. And, as I said, you don’t worry about stuff. New tires? just buy them. Water leak in the house? get it fixed. See a book you want? buy it-don’t wait for the paperback, or go to the library. And so on.

        As I said: you all know people with $10 million, or an annual income = to 10 million in assets. You bump into them every day. Doctors, small businessmen, and so on.

        If you know two engineers married to each other, or two lawyers, or, as I mentioned, a successful upper middle class guy married to a middling income wife: you know couples/families who make 200K. Heck, my boss in government service was in charge of 3 people: he was a GS-14 and made around 110K. His wife had the same job elsewhere. Together, they made 220K= to 5.5 million in assets. Utterly mundane middle class people (not merely in habits, but in spending ability)-that type of income is available to engineers at the Corps of engineers, to middling managers at the IRS, to the manager of the Lowes down the street, to the principal of the local high school. 200K would require both spouses to be professionals, or one to be a bit successful (i.e. successful lawyer makes 140K and dental tech makes 60K, rather than two middling lawyers at 100K each), but it is utterly commonplace. And 200K is the equivalent of 5 million in assets. And its not ‘rich’

        anon

        anonymousse

        March 22, 2017 at 3:13 am

      • It’s unrealistic to compare idle trust fund babies with the extreme striver middle class. Most people from wealthy families work. I know several poor people now doing residencies, and a couple rich people in residency. The difference is that the rich people lived in very nice condos purchased by their parents during medical school, took 2 or 3 elaborate vacations per year, and drive new (not fancy, but reliable) cars. They will emerge from their training completely debt free, and will be able to take large interest-free loans from their parents someday if they want to start their own medical practices. The poor people lived in crappy apartments during medical school and will pay back student loans until they are 40 years old.

        What does this amount to? The doctors with familial wealth cushions of several million dollars are best described as “upper class”, while the doctors from middle class families with student loans will forever be “upper middle class”, even if their annual income is the same throughout their careers. The former will send their kids to elite private primary and secondary schools, while the latter will try to move somewhere with decent public schools.

        Most wealthy people aren’t fabulously rich in the MTV cribs, private airplane sense, but there are huge differences between upper middle class people and upper class people. The ability to comfortably off of accumulated wealth is the definition of “wealthy” or even “rich”.

        PoorGradStudnet

        March 22, 2017 at 6:33 pm

      • What does this amount to? The doctors with familial wealth cushions of several million dollars are best described as “upper class”, while the doctors from middle class families with student loans will forever be “upper middle class”, even if their annual income is the same throughout their careers. The former will send their kids to elite private primary and secondary schools, while the latter will try to move somewhere with decent public schools.

        PoorGradStudnet, your comment brings back memories. I’ll never forget the Indian chick first year of medical school who rolled up, freshly graduated from college, in a brand-new Infiniti. I, who had been working for several years after college by then, was driving my 6-year-old Volkswagen, which I would wind up keeping for 6 more years. You’ve pretty well described the difference between me, a carpenter’s son, and a friend of mine who is a doctor’s son. He’d gone to private schools, his parents had totally paid for undergrad and med school, and bought him a condo for residency (technically they made the down payment for him, he did make payments, but it was 10 times nicer than anything a resident could have afforded on his own.) Meanwhile, in med school and residency I was living in rentals with sagging floor joists and peeling paint. He’s remarked that he would never send his kids to public schools. And yes, he finished totally debt-free, while I finished with a debt that’s equivalent to a mortgage on a decent house in many areas.

        I think it was through some of the people I med in medical school that I finally learned that an inheritance is a real thing. When I was growing up, an inheritance was something you read about in fairy tales.

        Hermes

        March 22, 2017 at 9:37 pm

    • @anonymousse: I’ve got news for you all. 5 million, or even 10 million, really isn’t that much money.

      I was expecting this comment, that’s why I put rich in comments, but I’m 100% certain that $5mm net worth is more than $4mm greater than your’s and $4mm greater than 99% of the esteemed readers of this blog.

      E. Rekshun

      March 22, 2017 at 12:21 pm

      • That’s still not rich. See my discussion, above. $5 million gives you the annual income of a pharmacist and his dental hygienist wife.

        Nobody seems to understand that $5 million is a one-time deal. You buy X for $5 million, and you have nothing else-and have to go back to work to pay for life for the next 30-50 years (I’ll spend 200k on an original Descartes book! I’ll have 4.8 million left, still rich!!!).

        Furthermore, people are forgetting that you get other income/ benefits from your job than just salary, that someone with a bunch of cash, who is unemployed, doesn’t get. The obvious one is retirement. You all probably live off of around 100K a year, give or take (80-140K, say). You can live off that, you put some into retirement, you pay for your house, you pay for vacations, etc. Retirement is off in the future. You don’t worry, and don’t have to worry, because social security and employer matching funds are building it for you.

        For the unemployed guy living off assets, there is no matching fund by the employer. There is no ‘retirement fund’ external to his available spending money. That is why I presumed a conservative 4% investment rate (as virtually all retirement funds do). That money has to last (for a 30 year old) about 50 years. He’s not working: he’s not getting retirement from his employer, or social security from the government. That 4% to live off of (200K). But if he spends it, he will be living off of 200K in the year 2067. If he doesn’t spend all of it, and saves more for investment for the year 2060, he’s living off of less than 200K a year today.
        He pays for all of his own health insurance. No employer matching benefit. And he will his entire life.

        So go back to that hypothetical pharmacist and dental assistant that live down the street. They live decent lives-nice cars, nice vacations. Maybe a ski boat, or something similar. But its nothing special. Now presume they get no retirement, no health benefits, and no social security. That all has to come out of their income (200K). Are they rich?

        My sense is that you are all young, haven’t managed a household budget for very long, and don’t understand the time value of money.

        The fact that I don’t have X dollars doesn’t mean X dollars = rich.

        anon

        anonymousse

        March 22, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    • @anonymousse:

      I just found this amazing graph by a website called “Don’t quit your day job”: The correlation of wealth and income in the US is only 0.57 and, judging by the graph, there is very little correlation for incomes between 10,000$ to 100,000$. Income from wealth seems to kick off at about one million.

      Income is Not Net Worth: The Raw Data

      Also, most lottery winners quickly lose their money:
      Why do 70 percent of lottery winners end up bankrupt?

      My hunch is that stingy savers don’t have much political influence. They are wealthy simply because of not spending much. They probably don’t spend their money on politics either.

      The rich, as a political class, start at about 10 million. These are people who actively generate income from their wealth. Being rich and staying rich is their primary occupation. I believe that these are the people that Lion was thinking of.

      And then you have income rich types, like actors, athletes, authors, most or whom, like lottery winners, lose all of their money when their time is up. Ben Affleck has the same politics as the other 99% of actors who don’t make much money.

      Contrarian

      March 22, 2017 at 2:14 pm

  18. Speaking of wealthy politicians: NYS’ congressmen are poorer than their counterparts of greater America. Is it because NY is an expensive place? The real irony to this is that experience is more significant than the accumulation of money. Why do you think many wealthy youths want to live in Manhattan?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/millionaires-dominate-congress-new-yorkers-worse-article-1.1571655

    I guess it’s better to make your money elsewhere and buy a Manhattan apartment from your riches. America is a strange place, indeed.

    JS

    March 21, 2017 at 8:47 pm

  19. Thomas Frank’s description of Mission Hills, KS (full of these Bush 00-HRC voters) is a good guide to #2. Mission Hills went over 70% for Bush 00 and every precinct in it went for HRC.

    There are still lots of rich people who don’t fit into these two categories (e.g., in Livingston County, MI). As a rule, education is correlated with liberalism, and income with conservatism.

    pithom

    March 21, 2017 at 9:09 pm

  20. Amazing how the Koch brothers, despite being Liberal on almost everything, were for the last few years THE epitome of evil accd to the Left. That stupid woman at The New Yorker made a career out of slandering them. You couldn’t browse the internet for ten minutes without coming across hysterically anti Koch mania.

    But now, since they are anti-Trump, you never seem to hear a word about them.

    I think they were fake opposition all along.

    Peterike

    March 21, 2017 at 9:26 pm

    • David Koch lives on billionaire’s lane in Midtown Manhattan, and his philanthropic endeavors go to institutions that cater to SWPL snobs.

      With his money, you wouldn’t believe in left-right identity politics, only a personal agenda.

      Liberal Lunatics are part of the ying yang, black n white cookie of the Kooky Cucks.

      JS

      March 22, 2017 at 12:20 am

  21. I think you need some actual evidence. You repeatedly state this about rich people, but don’t explain who counts as rich and ignore counter examples.

    Where does Donald’s Trump fit in?
    Where does Betsy DeVos fit?
    How about Andy Puzder?

    There are tons of additional examples who don’t fit into your characterization.

    RSF

    March 21, 2017 at 9:37 pm

  22. Lion, you analyze normie basic conservatives and liberals, but you never analyze your readership or alt righters.

    This would be interesting.

    Jjbees

    March 21, 2017 at 11:09 pm

  23. The rich are socially liberal because devout social conservatives who play by the rules and obey the laws would get in the way of any corrupt business deals the rich use to get rich. Somehow economic conservatism is supposed to mean anyone can make any amount of money they want in absurdly little time, and no one is supposed to question why and how this fortune was really made.

    Rich men also love to make cucks out of retarded strivers who think fancy degrees will make them rich. The rich hate monogamy and attack social conservatism whenever they see an opening, and the healthy rearing of children never crosses their minds. Every Western country ruled by this kind of elite is in a demographic death spiral and being replaced by more violent peoples who aren’t interested in participating in a rigged economy.

    The rich haven’t been made to be fearful of the consequences of their adultery and degeneracy. Low status Islamic males, especially the genuine nerds with real talent dispossessed of social climbing opportunities, are going to make revolution against this order within this century. There can’t be any stability in a nation where a third of the native population base vanishes with every generation.

    scald85

    March 22, 2017 at 12:02 am

  24. But WHY do the ultra-rich support taxing their class? Simply because they’ve been inured to that worldview?

    Is there an element of guilt?

    One partial explanation is that when you’re THAT rich, you’re competing mostly for positional goods, so it wouldn’t really matter if everyone in your class was affected.

    Another explanation is that it’s the right thing to do. Then, of course, there’s virtue signaling.

    Vince

    March 22, 2017 at 3:38 am

    • Vince,

      That is never the way to bet. Making bets on selfish motivations almost always wins.

      The reason why the rich push for taxation on their own class is twofold:

      1) They know they won’t pay it.

      2) Every tax that migrates downward always starts as a small tax on the rich. This game has been played for hundreds of years.

      There is a further reason why you do not allow the rich to pay these tax games: they would like nothing better than for people like you to be pushed to the grindstone. When you are working two or three jobs just to make food and rent, you will have no time to pay attention to what the powerful and wealthy are doing. This makes democracy impossible.

      map

      March 22, 2017 at 5:23 pm

  25. #2 similar to libertarians and minarchists…they just want to keep more of what they earn, and don’t care much about the social issues

    grey enlightenment

    March 22, 2017 at 3:03 pm

  26. Somewhat on topic: What to invest in to grow 1 million dollars into say, 1.3-2 million over time, the time being about a decade?

    Maryk

    March 22, 2017 at 7:23 pm

    • You’re screwed. Interest rates are close to zero percent, and the stock market is an overpriced bubble.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm

      • Thanks for the vote of confidence, Lion. This is just like the time I emailed you asking for career advice and you basically told me I was too old to get hired for just about anything. .But I’ve always had an “internet crush” on you. I’m too hooked on your blog to leave your readership. So you’re stuck with me.

        On a less self-pitying note, Yes, I know the market is pretty bad right now. But I’m just looking to grow some money, not necessarily become wealthy. What about municipal bonds? Don’t they pay about 3%? Someone just recommended them to me.

        Incidentally, coming into some money doesn’t mean I’m going to suddenly start wasting it like a typical lottery winner. I still watch my pennies and use coupons. Just a prole girl at heart! I know the men on this blog will have a hard time believing it – but there are some women who don’t especially like shopping, even when they can afford to buy things. My “fix” is intellectual exploration, which in the internet age is essentially free.

        Maryk

        March 22, 2017 at 8:43 pm

      • Interest rates are very low. That means you get very little on bond, and even worse, if interest rates rise then bonds can actually go down in value.

        Anyway, my investment advice has been more wrong than right, so maybe if you do the opposite of whatever I say you’ll make money.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 22, 2017 at 10:58 pm

      • Invest in Manhattan’s real estate or real estate in Montréal for those, who do not have a million dollars.

        Why about gold or rare books?

        JS

        March 22, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    • Options?

      map

      March 22, 2017 at 10:03 pm

      • What I meant was stock options on large, blue-chip companies as a way of generating income, preferably, covered calls. Some of these pay out 2-3% a month.

        map

        March 23, 2017 at 5:48 am

    • What to invest in to grow 1 million dollars into say, 1.3-2 million over time, the time being about a decade?

      There’s a big difference between $1.3mm and $2mm. LotB is right that interest rates are still laughably low on fixed investments and the stock market might be overpriced right now, you need to earn an annualized rate of 7.2% to turn your $1mm into $2mm in ten years. That’s doable w/ a well-balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds – buy and hold low-cost Vanguard balanced mutual funds and reinvest the dividends.

      Today, Fidelity is offering just 3% on ten-year CDs, that’s not going to help you double your money. But, I’m earning 7.5%+ on deeply-discounted BBB oil & gas energy-sector related bonds purchased over a year ago, but you can’t get that today.

      My equity in my real estate investments has doubled in five years, but it’s required a not-insignificant amount of hands on labor. At this point, the foreclosure deals are all gone and real estate is also possibly over-priced and reaching a peak.

      Your only choice is the Vanguard mutual funds, as well increase your income and boost your savings rate. I’m trying to double my net worth over the next five years, and last week boosted my 401K contribution to the $23K maximum allowed by law for workers over 50 y/o.

      E. Rekshun

      March 23, 2017 at 7:12 pm

    • Not sure if you’re following comments, but if you are, here’s my response:
      (1) re: career, get some advice from older women/women/old folks who’ve BDTD – they might offer some advice for what you want. I’ve seen some unconventional and good advice for older women wanting to enter a career
      (2) investing: learn basic finance principles and risk/reward. At your age (I’m assuming based on comments below that you’re old) you want low risk. There’s some good advice out there and some newsletters who will categorize specific investments based on your risk/reward.

      onepercgrl

      March 23, 2017 at 10:51 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: