Type this guy

[Aleksei]

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/search.php?author_id=14308&sr=posts

Friend of mine from another forum. I have some ideas about his type, but I wanna hear yours.

 

[Aleksei]

My apologies. In the past the search function used to show every post by a member to non logged-in people so long as you linked directly to it; except for forums not viewable to non-members. Apparently it doesn't do that anymore. I'll just quote his last 20 or so posts here.

I couldn't be arsed to actually read this thread, but I can guess what people answered (as they answered in the last ten thousand threads on the subject), so I don't think I need to.

To the rightards here (OP included):

Higher education being subsidized by private loans depends on the credit of the borrower, so if you can't find somebody in your family with good credit willing to put it on the line for your education (as is somewhat frequently the case of poor families), you're fucked. I actually have one of those loans to my name -- I'm guessing you don't.

To the leftards here (post right under the OP included):

Higher education is, as presently constituted, really an awfully fucking large drain on the economy and society at large. This is an institution teaching useless skills to people not smart enough to grasp them (the median IQ of college students has dropped from 120 to 108 in the last 30 years), removing them from the workplace for their most productive years, and charging them six-figure bills for it -- and you can't get a half-decent job anymore without going through it (believe me, I've tried). It desperately needs reform.

Wolfman wrote:
I saw Doctor House was posting in this thread and my mind instantly went a moment in an Anime that went something like this: YouTube - Zaraki Emerges!

Nice to see you too, Wolfy.

quote:
Evidence? Also, is this just within the college bound population, or does it extend to the general country?

No source off-hand (it's from Charles Murray though -- I'll see if I can look it up for you). And no, the general population is much dumber than that.

OP: Brilliant.

Half the posts following: WAAAAAAH RACISM

Grow up guys.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:
but at least we have a great contribution from you house

In any case, cheescake and others have been far too patient trying to be reasonable against this ignorant rubbish. Then Kman comes right out with a blatantly racist comment that if reported will definitely get deleted and the poster warned. But he's actually only articulating more openly what eugenecop had been subtly hinting at.

So who should "Grow up" again?

In order: 1) I largely have no interest in participating in the discussion -- hence why I didn't post anything of substance. 2) I actually amended to "half" from "all" the posters in this thread, because I do agree Cheesecake made some posts of great substance (as opposed to Mr. Bill, who was as usual posting rubbish leftarded sloganeering and calling the OP bullshit with no real backing). And 3) Pretty much everyone, including yourself, seems content to call anything race-related that isn't tabula rasa crap "morally reprehensible" and save yourself the trouble of handling those pesky "facts." Kman's no better, but that doesn't excuse anyone else here.

Captain Sam wrote:
If you're going to hunt, it should be for food, not fun. Killing an animal just for entertainment is so disrespectful.

I'll wait until bears hold a "we're for food, not show" rally to form an opinion on that.

Meanwhile, Captain Sam is looking mighty tasty...

Captain Sam wrote:
I had no idea that you were gay.

In the literal sense.

QatzelOk wrote:
HARD

..

EASY

BORING

..
FUN

Fixed it for ya.

[On a poll on what China should do about Taiwan]

I say nuke 'em just so I can watch shit blow up.

[On a thread on the recent British squatting scandal]

I'd tap that.

Cartertonian wrote:
Hi House...

Where've ya been?

Non-existent forums, class, bar fights, the works.

How's it going?

[third post or so after a month-long absence, in a thread that's essentially the Pofo equivalent of the Chatbox] So, did ya'll miss me too much?

Don't all come running at once.

Arie wrote:
So? How does that prevent us from looking at a manufactured good as a service provided by the manufacturer, the service of manufacturing and providing the good?

Technically the manufacturer is providing a service, but the good itself isn't a service... It is a good, which is a rather relevant fact as, well... the economy needs goods to function.

Arie wrote:
Also, how does that make a service based economy less sustainable than a manufacturing based one? (that's the OP question), if that's what you're implying.

1) Because manufactured goods are, on average, one hundred times more capital intensive than services, and capital intensity is the core driver of living standards. The more is produced per head, the more every person involved in the production process gets remunerated, and the more people make on average.
2) Because nearly all services are meant as support for the supply chain of goods, and those that aren't use goods in their execution. Try cutting hair without scissors.
3) Because a properly functioning economy uses the whole range of goods and services available worldwide, which must be either produced or imported. In order to import goods, something must be exported to balance it out, and there are very, very few services that produce enough export receipts to make the imbalance whole.
4) While this doesn't speak much to the sustainability of it, a service-based economy breeds inequality, because payscales are much steeper in white-collar industries as opposed to blue-collar ones.

EDIT- this is my answer to the OP, as well.

sans-culotte wrote:
I would like to see this evidence please.

How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing
Rent Control in America: Politics and Unintended Consequences

[on a thread about Turkey, the country]

QatzelOk wrote:
Let's talk Turkey

Delicious.

[on a poll about whether Stalin was a good communist]
Other: He was no communist. He was, however, the most successful fascist leader in history.


The Immortal Goon wrote:
Trotsky > Stalin.

Trotsky = Stalin; Stalin's program heavily borrowed from Trotsky's ideas. If Trotsky had gained power instead, the only discernible difference would have been a more hawkish and more potentially destabilizing foreign policy.

 

[Savage Idealist]

My initial gut feeling on this guy is xNTx, probably an ENTJ or INTJ.

 

[Idontcare]

Im thinking INTP maybe ENTP. my guess.

 

[Torai]

Yeah, I would guess some sort XNTJ. It's hard to tell introversion from extroversion on a forum, though. For some reason, I've got some sort of Te vibe from this guy.

He also uses numbered lists and proper grammar, I have noticed... Somewhat J-like, but P's can do this, too.

 

[Aleksei]

For some reason, I've got some sort of Te vibe from this guy.

From the live new posts page, the following sentence went like "Probably because he thinks he's smarter..." What was the end of that sentence? Don't worry, my friend's got a thick skin, he can handle it.

And, where are you getting an Ni vibe from?

 

[Savage Idealist]

May I ask what his username is and how often he posts? I was browsing those forums and there seemed to a lot of interesting discussion and what not, and I was hoping to perhpas read even more posts by him in order to gain a clearer possibility of his type.

 

[Aleksei]

Dr House. He used to post extremely often (was infamous for it -- his posts actually took up something like 10% of thread space in the forum), but he's stopped posting lately.

You'll see his name right away if you go into the memberlist though. He's a top-ten poster.

 

[Aleksei]

Been looking through some of his old posts. He showed a helluva lot more F tendencies back in the day than he does now... I think he used that forum as a sounding board to become more T.

What do you guys think?

Meistro1, Keyensian Economics was the only way to encourage some form of stability within Capitalism by shipping the production process abroad. Eliminating itself is brining about a death sentence to Western society. Capitalism itself has shown to be incapable of sustaining itself without having to be regulated. As we have seen, without some form of state intervention and welfare policies, capitalism encourages the development of poverty throughout the world, not development.

Maybe you should pay Hong Kong a little visit. Hong Kong is the only existing example of pure laissez-faire capitalism, and the people are doing fine.

Well, first is the fact that monopolies end up resulting from unregulated capitalism.

Firstly, they just don't. Capitalism is everybody grabbing at the best they can get, so any monopolistic company faces the impending threat of somebody challenging their rule. Competition is fierce, and the only way to stave it off is through coercive measures. Like government intervention. Secondly i've yet to see evidence that trusts (which arise through cooperation and are, unlike monopolies, sustainable) are a bad thing. Japan is the wealthiest, most egalitarian economy in the World. The poorest employed people in the land make about half the national average; unheard of anywhere else except France. Yet its economy is divided up into six MASSIVE trusts, called Keiretsus.

The problem with the American system is not the privatised healthcare system. It's the skyrocketing costs, brought about by the lack of genuine free-market competition in the healthcare industry.

Well, we got a crapload of financial aid options, I don't think that's really much of an issue.

Quote:
They use to.

They only stopped because the government regulated them.

Yes. That's because the government made the completely arbitrary decision to ban cocaine, along with all drugs. They wouldn't have stopped without the Harrison Act not because people couldn't stop them, but because people didn't WANT THEM TO. Millions of consumers liked having drugs in their system, and millions still do. Meanwhile, the government spends BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to fight a war it cannot win, because the People, in their wisdom, decided with their wallets it shouldn't, and millions of people get chucked into overcrowded prisons for engaging in activities that souldn't have been illegal in the 1st place.

The 18th Amendment was repealed. Now it's time to repeal the Harrison Act, along with that idiotic trans-fat ban. People have a right to harm themselves, if they want to, and if they don't harm anyone else. If you don't believe that then you don't believe in liberty and you have no right to call yourself a liberal.

BTW... the problem comes not from companies doing these things, but from them hiding it from consumers. I say force companies to disclose everything they put in their products and letting customers decide for themselves. As for industries that would by their nature be monopolistic (examples of this are much rarer than most people think, but utilities are one of them), where people could not just go to the competition, we should nationalize them rather than slapping oversight and restrictions on them as private entities.

Quote:
This is similar to the West throwing out all social programs now because the Soviet Union is defunct (thanks to our aggressive attacks against it).

The Soviet Union didn't collapse because of our attacks against it. It collapsed because it stagnated economically, because a nation that operates as a single economic entity (central planning) can only grow so much. That forced the government to grow so much to keep pace it collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy.

Quote:
But this had a very high cost of social harmony and the destruction of the family.

The Westerner has no social support except the government, no civil life except voting, and no fun except TV and shopping.

Also, we have incredibly weak social skills, and we are almost ready to kill every last living creature on the planet in order to keep entertaining ourselves with our toys.

Europe needed Islam a thousand years ago. But instead, chose materialism and superstition.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. There are countless homeless shelters, voluntary free clinics, community service centers... you name it. As for fun, we got parties, music, concerts, exercise, mind-altering substances... whatever floats your boat, baby.

As for the erosion of the nuclear family, it's not necessary anymore and I'm quite happy to see it go. I was raised by a single lesbian mom and I'm quite well-adjusted, thank you very much.

Yes, it does.

Quote:
The media covers car bombs and suicide bombings, even though many more people get killed in car accidents every day.



For the media, three dead people in a car bombing in Haifa gets 1000 times more coverage than a car accident in Flint Michigan that kills the same number of people. This means that, in the public mind, it "feels" like that car bomber is a thousand times as deadly as driving a car.

Since 1 death = 1 death, we can ascertain that the media repeats images of certain deaths in order to manipulate our instincts and distort our perspective. And to make money, of course, but that money-making objective of media also determines which groups get tarred, and which get spared

The media is looking for a sound bite, ratings. An explosion is way cooler/more tragic than a car accident, because an accident is just that: An accident. Whereas a suicide bombing is an intentional act of murder done in the name of someone's God. Isn't it interesting how true believers and high body counts go hand in hand?

Quote:
I wonder if capitalism will collapse under the dead weight of the "financial services" sector of "the economy.

It won't.

The financial services sector is a private sector, distributed among many different companies which can grow to be just the right size and scope, and leave the market to grow by another firm taking up the slack. Same goes with any market under a capitalist system, or any system operating with a non-centrally planned economy. The Soviet government collapsed because since it was effectively operating the economy as a single, gigantic corporation, it eventually simply grew too big, its economy too complex to handle, and after failed attempts to grow even further the behemoth crumbled.

If you want more info on why this happens, I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on diseconomies of scale.

by the way, the financial services sector is not useless. It coordinates the allocation of monetary resources, which increases efficiency in an economy. And it it provides a vehicle for people to actually live beyond their paychecks without actually becoming a burden to society (as with welfare or social security).

Quote:
That's because there are countless homeless people.

Showing off your pill collection isn't the best way to show how healthy you are.

you're getting off-topic here. You asserted that "we have no social support except for the Government". I'm saying that there are forms of private charity. Thus we have social support beyond what the Government provides, therefore your statement is false.

Agree on the complex regulations part. Not so much on the financial formulas. I like financial formulas. They're not making me a millionaire, but at least I'll be able to retire at 45.

Can you say the same thing?

I'll probably spend my days surfing the web, attending random events and parties around town, and getting laid. Same as I do now when I'm not working.

I don't like working. I do it because I have to, and I would support the European welfare state model were I not painfully aware it is unsustainable and does more harm than good.

By the way, you're right. Let me rephrase: can you *honestly* say the same thing?

It's not retirement at 45 that's not sustainable.
It's policies that encourage people not to work, or maybe to work 30 of 35 hours a week, as well as scare off those who coordinate an economy and make it run smoothly (thus forcing the government to go into ever more debt, and crowding out even the few that would be willing to work) that's not sustainable.

Most people in America do not work 70 hours a week. The great majority of people actually work about 40 to 50 hours a week. In any case, anyone working 70 hours a week and not making a damn fine living is doing so because they made the stupid decision to have kids. Kids are expensive and unnecessary, which is why I decided long ago not to have any.

And no, our current economic model is based on mutually beneficial free exchanges. If I sell you a remote control for $15, then you value my remote more than your $15, and I value your $15 more than my remote. Otherwise the exchange will not take place. That, or you're just retarded.

The system can sustain everyone retiring at 30, as long as they save up and live off their own money afterwards, as opposed to social security, where they would live off somebody else's.

Capitalism is based on two principles that I subscribe to. One is that people would not work if they didn't have to, or at least not in amounts that would make their own lifestyle sustainable. The other is that people need to be rewarded for being smart, hard-working and successful, because the alternative is rewarding them for being dumb and lazy, by shielding from the consequences of it.

Senior executives are people who usually spent ten years of their life in college (which is expensive and no fun) and work 75 hours a week on average. In their shoulders falls the responsibility for the actions of the hundreds of people they command, and if they mess up they catch hell from the board of directors or their shareholders (an increasing number of which are hedge fund managers holding retirement funds for average-joe americans). They earn their keep. They don't steal it. People on welfare can't say the same thing. They sit at home and expect the taxpayer to reward them for their utter failure to make something of themselves. They're not in that position because society has failed them, but because they have failed society.

Retirement means "not working."

Having retirement at 45 encourages people not to work.

No, it means that you busted your arse the first 45 years of your life to earn what you need not to work. For me that means working 55 hours a week and investing about a third of my income, wich for your edification, means I'm consuming only two-thirds of what I produce. I'm not "not working". I'm piling up my free time on the latter half of my life, so I can enjoy it uninterrupted, and live a life of luxury while I'm still (relatively) young to enjoy it.

And I'm not "having retirement at 45". I'm designing my own life so that MY retirement can happen at 45. It can be done, but it requires work, sound planning and frugality. Stripping away those requirements is what "not working" is.

Well, I can't tolerate not having a life. It is quite possible to both work and still have one. I'm good at that.

You took your sweet time to respond, by the way. I wrote this shit 3 months ago.

My life goals have slightly changed since then, though. My plan back then was to become a truck driver, live on my truck for around 15-20 years (with month-long vacations in the Caribbean and elsewhere in Latin America) and invest the enormous amount of disposable income I'd have, and then retire. I now have the plan of going back to college, getting my degree in economics and finance, probably with a minor in political science, and going into Puerto Rican politics with the endgame of fixing the economy.

Quote:
What needs to be fixed?

It's been stagnating for the past 20 years (It dipped into recession this year), it's been suffering long-term inflation for the past ten, it's got the lowest labour participation rate in the World, and a third of the population live on American welfare (which prevents people from even considering independence, lest they lose it). I wanna fix that, and I think I know how.

Quote:
Maybe if you used the Quran as your central text...


No, thanks.

I was thinking more along the lines of the participation rate in modern day America. Nothing too extreme, just get people up off their asses.

Liberalism is the love of liberty. The term has been butchered in America by "positive liberalists" who think that individual liberty should be surrendered for equality for all. They're not liberalist. They are progressive and secularist, but not liberal. Real liberals (classical liberals) like me know that individual liberty should have priority in policy decisions. We do not see government action as inherently evil, but we still think it should be strictly limited to providing security and public goods.

Quote:
How can you group Sweden and France in with any third world middle-eastern country? That only gives me reason to believe that you've never actually been to Europe, and don't actually know anything about living conditions in other parts of the world.

America is indeed the best country in the world to live if you can afford all of the luxuries of living there. However, for the average low/middle-class worker, you would live a much more peaceful, happy, safe and healthy existence somewhere else like Sweden, Canada, France, Norway, or Australia to name a few. The low and middle-class American is far worse off than their counterparts in many other developed countries

I have never argued the quality of life in European social democracies is any worse than it is over here. It's just unsustainable. Those countries are drowning in debt, even as they drown their people in taxes. The sovereign debt in France is 250% of GDP, even though they tax an average of 35% of people's incomes (even more, considering the embedded costs of Value Added and corporate taxes). Similarly, Italy's debt is 105% of GDP. The US, on the other hand, has a debt of about 75% of GDP, and that's because tax rates, at about 25% of income on average, are not enough to cover government expenses. Also, their economy is growing at a VERY sluggish rate, and has failed to create net gains in jobs, so the growing labour force has been crowded out. The result is the government will have to borrow and tax more to sustain the increasingly inert populace, until they will not be able to afford anything other than paying interest on that debt. America is on the same path, but not through a slowdown in economic activity, but a refusal to tax it.

Quote:
I kind of agree. If you regard 'women's work' in just monatary value, in some ways, you're really missing the bigger picture of the work that women do where they aren't paid. I think Maxim makes an excellent point when he uses the example of babysitting or opair (sic) duties. You're forgetting the bigger picture of the mother and the role they are taking in raising their children to be thoughtful, moral, productive, and positive members of our society.


I think the problem with valuing the work the woman does around the house is that nobody seems to acknowledge the differences between men and women that allow women to be the household managers on top of being whatever they may be in the workplace. Also, stay-at-home mothers are the household managers, so either way, women, traditionally, seem to take on different responsiblities than men do in a family setting.

It's ultimately their choice.If they want to take the weight of the world on their shoulders, then I say we let em. If they're pressured by society into one role or another, well... that's just wrong.

What are 'traditional gender roles' if not an example of gender though? Women don't 'take the world on their shoulders' out of nowhere - everyone tends to do things because of social norms, community expectations, pressures...

I absolutely agree, which is why I stressed it's THEIR choice. Not society's.

To talk about 'choice' though too often implies 'free choice' or 'an unencumbered/uninfluenced ability to choose'.

What I'm saying is that the choices that women and men make are highly constricted. So it's THEIR choice what they'll do in the same way it's YOUR choice whether the next time you go into the city you wear men's clothes or women's clothes.

I'm not denying your ability to wear women's clothes around the place, but I'm strongly suspecting that community expectations, social norms and pressures are going to mean that you won't. So it's no sort of particularly FREE choice - because there are strong pressures at play.

It's called bounded rationality. However, you're still free to ignore what society wants of you, as I did when I dropped out of college and decided that I'm not ever getting married or having children. Society wants me to, but I don't like the idea, so I won't.

It's not bounded rationality, but there's really no point getting into different models of behavioural economics.

What it is is very real pressure that changes propensities to perform certain actions, actions that don't easily slot into the model of being rational/non-rational either. This is not to say it absolutely *forces* certain decisions out of people, but the whole idea of choice is simply not a binary function as you want to maintain. It's an analog process.

The simple fact that one person in one hundred won't respond positively to a certain force should not be used as an excuse to pretend there's a 'real choice'. What there is instead is real pressure.

In which case, saying 'if they want to, then let them' is about as convincing as saying to slaves 'if they want to be slaves, then let them' on the basis that 1 in a 100 might try rebelling at some point and that rebellion is therefore technically a choice.

Good point. However, my idea of bounded rationality assumes that physical force, or some equivalent psychological pressure will not be used to coerce women to conform to certain roles. Which is why I qualified that actually forcing them into a role is just wrong. Involuntary enslavement is unjustifiable under any circumstances, but simply having traditional roles, that people can conform to or rebel from, might be acceptable. I personally would like to see all forms of societal norms disappear, and the World become a non-stop party, but I think free will is more important.

Quote:

Nah, This is definitely relevant to the my OP! I've also heard that classical liberalism is closer to convservatism in some ways, so maybe it's a matter of the lines being blurred, and they're becoming one and the same?


It might be, but I am loathe to give it that association, because I style myrelf as a classical liberal, and being an atheist and a die-hard civil libertarian and secularist, I refuse to share a label with a bunch of bible-thumping zealots. I also don't want to use the libertarian label because libertarians are no less extremist. They basically believe that the government is by its very nature evil, a view that I do not share.

I own my life, and I happen to like buying stuff. If anyone doesn't want to do it, we should not impede them, but there is no reason to adopt that as a societal standard. We should not accept ANYTHING as a societal standard. Collectivism sucks balls.

baby polar bears are dying because of me...

Millions of animal species became extinct long before humanity came to be and millions more will become extinct long after we're gone. The world adapts, thrives. It's the way evolution works. Environmentalists who think Mother Nature is nurturing, caring, and loving are deluding themselves.

BTW, I wasn't aiming to be politically correct.

Quote:
The well-being of the poor is more important


I have noticed that when people make that argument they generally don't stop to consider why poor people are poor. Is it maybe because they didn't bust their ass in college, find a good job and made something of their lives like the rest of us? If they can't do that it's our duty to help them, through grants, worker re-training, etc. but it is NEVER our duty to gratuitously shield them from being poor. It's up to them to decide whether they want to be useful to society or suffer the consequences of not doing so.

By the way, kids should not be a part of the equation except to the extent we benefit them directly, and not their parents. It is their damn choice to have kids and we should not mitigate the consequences of personal choices.

"May we live long and die out"-VHEMT motto

 

[Chloe]

i I am very bad typist but he screams Te

NTJ

 

[Thalassa]

He could be STJ as easily as NTJ. I don't see proof of Ni, but I do see a TJ temperament.

 

[Aleksei]

He could be STJ as easily as NTJ. I don't see proof of Ni, but I do see a TJ temperament.

Okay, now I can officially gloat.

That's MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I wanted to see if you guys would type me a Te type if you didn't know it was me.

I can't believe you don't see any Fi though... I'm actually very embarrassed about all the natural rights tripe I spewed forth when I first started posting there.

 

[Thalassa]

You win.

Fucking ESTJ.

 

[Chloe]

I told you right away i know its you... I mean interwebz is full of cockiness but The Cock - i think there is only one. I hope you wont take this as compliment, damn. Jk

 

[Aleksei]

I hope you wont take this as compliment

You still don't know me very well do you?

Heh, just joshing. Still love ya babe.