Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1876.6 | 4.2 | 0.22% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 3140.8 | 4.9 | 0.15% |
| Oil (WTI) | 101 | -0.5 | -0.45% |
| LIBOR | 0.235 | 0.001 | 0.30% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 79.87 | -0.244 | -0.30% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.73% | 0.03% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 105.7 | -0.1 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 104.4 | -0.1 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 200.7 | -0.2 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 4.33 |
Slow news day. Markets are higher this morning on a mixed bag of economic data. Bonds and MBS are down.
A few economic data points this morning: Challenger and Gray announced job cuts fell 24%, productivity was revised downward from 2.2% to 1.8% and initial jobless claims fell to 323k. Unit Labor costs were revised to -.1% from -.5%. Given what we saw in the personal income numbers – that pretty much all of the increases in income were due to increased transfer payments – it looks like costs are increasing without any corresponding increase in output – a recipe for stagnant wages.
Junk Bond King Michael Milken has a good editorial about the unintended consequences of government meddling in the housing market, the biggest one was the housing bubble.
Speaking of unintended consequences, the unpopularity of obamacare is proving to be a big one for Democrats. The Administration has decided to delay rules prohibiting high deductible insurance plans until after the midterm elections and through 2015. Of course this will ensure that obamacare will remain a battleground issue for 2016.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Quick–FRIST!
LikeLike
That was fast….
LikeLike
Third.
Or should I say . . . Thrid!
Since there isn’t someone named Thrid that I know of, it’s just not quite the same.
LikeLike
Kevin:
King Richard?
LikeLike
A non-bank anti-trust settlement that shouldn’t have been allowed either without an admission of wrongdoing.
LikeLike
jnc:
A non-bank anti-trust settlement that shouldn’t have been allowed either without an admission of wrongdoing.
Silicon Valley is a criminal enterprise?
More seriously, I do wonder why you think an admission of wrongdoing should be required. Unless you think criminal charges should be pursued against individuals (and perhaps you do), what value does a forced admission have, and to whom is this value owed?
With regards to the specifics of the case, I tend to be pretty libertarian about it. Employers ought to be able to decide for themselves which is more valuable to them as employers, the ability to poach from other employers at the risk of having one’s own employees poached, or an agreement not to poach from other employers in order to be able to more easily retain existing employees. Plus I think both sides of a negotiation should be equal under the law. If employees can join together in order to get a better deal for themselves (and they certainly can), then employers ought to be able to do the same.
Anti-trust law is generally anathema to libertarian values.
LikeLike
An Op-ed piece on why being able to choose your doctor is overrated, that then proceeds to give an example on exactly why it’s not.
Not being able to pick your doctor in the PPACA should work well for the Republicans.
LikeLike
Look, the good doctors are needed in Washington!
Whatya want, kids dying in the street from Polio? Cause that’s what happened before Obamacare!
LikeLike
@Michgoose
King Richard (The Thrid?)? As in, King Dick? I dunno, I feel like, for me, the double entendres would be too tempting.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on March 6, 2014 at 10:20 am said:
jnc:
A non-bank anti-trust settlement that shouldn’t have been allowed either without an admission of wrongdoing.
Silicon Valley is a criminal enterprise?”
No, but the behavior is criminal. And without an admission of wrongdoing, I view these settlements as useless as deterrents to future lawbreaking.
“Anti-trust law is generally anathema to libertarian values.”
I disagree. The entire premise of efficient markets requires choices for consumers. Monopolies preclude that.
“If employees can join together in order to get a better deal for themselves (and they certainly can), then employers ought to be able to do the same.”
If it’s a right to work state and employment is at will, then that doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
jnc:
And without an admission of wrongdoing, I view these settlements as useless as deterrents to future lawbreaking.
Perhaps, but I don’t see why an admission would be any more of a deterrent. Words are even easier to issue than settlement money. Again, if you want criminal charges against individuals, that is something different. But as discussed in the past, if the government is going to pursue criminal charges, then there is no reason for it to be collecting money as a settlement in the first place.
Monopolies preclude that.
We’ve been through this before, but only coercive monopolies preclude that, and only the government can create a coercive monopoly.
If it’s a right to work state and employment is at will, then that doesn’t apply.
I agree that if there are legal restrictions on the types of deals that employees can make with each other and employers, then equity requires restrictions on the types of deals employers can make as well. But the libertarian in me thinks that such restrictions are bad either way.
LikeLike
That Zeke Emmanuel OpEd is really impressive. Luckily his recommendations won’t raise prices.
LikeLike
@jnc4p: “I disagree. The entire premise of efficient markets requires choices for consumers. Monopolies preclude that.”
Most true monopolies require government collision to keep competitors out of the market or provide exclusive access to some resource, such a right-of-ways (thus the many regional cable monopolies in the 80s).
Past that, only an ability to saturate a market at a competitive price creates a monopoly, which generally is not horrible (if not ideal) for the consumer. Because at a certain point, a monopoly that makes their pricing confiscatory invites lower-priced competition.
Sirius XM has a monopoly in satellite radio. Because there’s no money in anybody else launching satellites and trying to market satellite radio. There are some places where additional consumer choices simply aren’t supportable.
LikeLike
Is this a winner for D’s?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/us/politics/new-democratic-strategy-goes-after-koch-brothers.html?hp&_r=0&referrer=
LikeLike
@Troll: It will shake money out of stingy progressives. It will get donations coming in. I think that’s probably the goal: get the base to pony up more cash to fight the evil Koch brothers. This sort of stuff is never aimed at moderates or the other side or independent voters.
LikeLike
That Hillary is a smooth one.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-im-not-comparing-putin-to-hitler-im-just-say
No worries, though. I’m sure Russians will shrug off comparisons to Hitler. It’s not like he ever did anything to them.
Edit: the same woman, of course, who fatuously presented the reset button.
LikeLike
Sirius XM has a monopoly in satellite radio. Because there’s no money in anybody else launching satellites and trying to market satellite radio. There are some places where additional consumer choices simply aren’t supportable.
While this may or may not be true for sat radio at present, antitrust law and economics have to account for the idea of relevant market and subsititutions. Whether or not it pays for someone else to launch another satellite business, alternative technologies and business models might effectively compete as well. People can stream Spotify and Pandora from their phones through their car stereos now. (Although those might be last month’s hot apps by now.)
Monopolies not attained and maintained by force are largely mythical as people usually think of them. If you have a monopoly that isn’t maintained by force, it is probably because you are providing maximal value, and active competition wouldn’t achieve any greater consumer value.
LikeLike
“who fatuously presented the reset button.”
Maybe the reset was to August 1942.
LikeLike
Brent:
The Administration has decided to delay rules prohibiting high deductible insurance plans until after the midterm elections and through 2015. Of course this will ensure that obamacare will remain a battleground issue for 2016.
The move is obviously intended to help the D’s in the midterms, and it may well do so. But consider the implications of this cyincal politics. Obama obviously believes that there are a significant number of voters who will vote against the D’s if this D-sponsored policy gets implemented, but will vote for the D’s as long as this D-sponsored policy remians unimplemented. And, depressingly, he is probably right.
A lot of voters are seriously f-ed up.
LikeLike
@qb: ” you have a monopoly that isn’t maintained by force, it is probably because you are providing maximal value, and active competition wouldn’t achieve any greater consumer value.”
My point. Without an ability to illegally strong arm your competitors (in which case you become criminal, although this can potentially be done to smaller competitors with lawsuits or pricing your product below cost in order to bankrupt your competitors with smaller coffers) there generally aren’t monopolies. Certainly, there aren’t permanent monopolies. as by the time the anti-trust case against IBM had wound it’s way through the courts, IBM was not a monopoly in computing any more.
Generally, monopolies, like AT&Ts monopoly, are a product of government collusion. When Pan American wanted to become an airline monopoly, it didn’t do it by buying all the airports or buying all the available plane building talent or securing 100 year contracts with all pilots or anything like that. It tried to become a monopoly by convincing the congress to pass a law declaring Pan American a legal monopoly for the good of the nation.
I think sometimes people confuse monopolies with larger competitors driving smaller, more expensive competitors out of business. Wal-Mart is not a monopoly, but it’s hard for a mom-and-pop general store selling less of the same sorts of things at higher prices to stay in business with a Wal-Mart comes to town. But that does not make Wal-Mart a monopoly.
LikeLike
Well, is price the only determiner of value? Mom and pop offer service, credit, convenience.
Many had a monopoly before WalMart and are only now facing competition.
Hell, IBM was, for all intents and purposes, was a monopoly for years. Look what happened to them.
LikeLike
I’m in love.
Suddenly I want to move to Canada.
LikeLike
The move is obviously intended to help the D’s in the midterms, and it may well do so. But consider the implications of this cyincal politics. Obama obviously believes that there are a significant number of voters who will vote against the D’s if this D-sponsored policy gets implemented, but will vote for the D’s as long as this D-sponsored policy remians unimplemented. And, depressingly, he is probably right.
Because good intentions matter than good results for many, many people. And the left has been very successful in framing the argument as either (a) you support obamacare or (b) you support granny being denied her cancer treatments.
By the way, the replacement insurance to my “Cadillac” prior policy (really more like a Toyota policy) absolutely blows. And it costs as much as the old policy. My kid can’t get the ADD drugs he prefers, but hey, at least Julia has got her free birth control…
LikeLike
Brent:
Because good intentions matter than good results for many, many people.
Like I said, a lot of voters are seriously f-ed up.
LikeLike
The insurance industry is getting very nervous. Now, I don’t care, this is the POS they designed. It’s funny to watch the blame game.
Even if the administration gets 20%, or 25%, or 30% of the eligible group signed-up by March 31, that is nowhere near enough to create a sustainable pool. The long-time underwriting rule calls for at least 70% of an eligible group to participate in order to get enough healthy people to pay for the sick who will always show up first for coverage.
Supporters will cite the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections saying a third of the eventual participants will sign up each of the first three years. Why would they? If Obamacare, with all of the attention and promotion it is getting, is not attractive the first year, particularly because of its steep deductibles compared to the after-subsidy premium people must pay, then why would it be attractive in the third year?
Maybe because it’s NOT better then the status quo.
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2014/03/extending-obamacare-cancelled-policy.html?m=1
LikeLike
Brent, Julia is refusing to sign up!
LikeLike
(b) you support granny being denied her cancer treatments.
she had a good run.
LikeLike
“But that does not make Wal-Mart a monopoly.”
I agree and also with regards to Sirius/XM it depends on what you are comparing it to, i.e. just other satellite radio or other sources of in car entertainment.
Kevin, do you consider Apple, Google, et al’s collusion on employees to be something that should be criminal? How about other cases of price fixing to the consumer?
LikeLike
jnc:
Kevin, do you consider Apple, Google, et al’s collusion on employees to be something that should be criminal?
Is it criminal? I mean, could the justice department have tried, convicted, and imprisoned Steve Jobs (assuming he was still with us) for making that agreement?
LikeLike
I’m not sure which is scarier, that the think they found the guy who created Bitcoin or how they found him:
LikeLike
Worth a note:
“Unions can’t get an Obamacare win, but insurers are getting help
By Jason Millman
March 6 at 11:21 am”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/06/unions-cant-get-an-obamacare-win-but-insurers-are-getting-help/
“The unions say they’re being unfairly forced to pay into a program that their members will never benefit from.”
Boo fucking hoo. Welcome to the club.
LikeLike
Looks like Sherman Act is criminal and Clayton is civil. Sherman covers collusion between competitors.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/about/antitrust-laws.html
LikeLike
jnc:
Looks like Sherman Act is criminal and Clayton is civil.
What exactly would you have charged Jobs with? And what do you think are the chances that Jobs (or George Lucas) could have been convicted in a trial?
LikeLike
Apparently he’s a Ukrainian Constitutional law scholar too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/crimea-sets-referendum-on-joining-russia/2014/03/06/d06d8a46-a520-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?hpid=z1
LikeLike
The best part about the union thing and the ACA is that he’s exempting/delaying everyone else.
http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/
LikeLike
CMS’ Cohen*, asked how many uninsured signing up for ACA: “That’s not a data point we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way”
*in charge of exchanges at CMS. leaving at the end of the month.
LikeLike
@jnc4p: “Kevin, do you consider Apple, Google, et al’s collusion on employees to be something that should be criminal? How about other cases of price fixing to the consumer?”
I think the devil would be in the details. The problem with price fixing, especially these days, is that it would allow competitors to underprice the oligopoly either competing directly or more abstractly (you don’t need cable, just get Hulu sort of thing). So it’s a problem that will usually solve itself. Unless we’re talking a set of products protected by patents so nobody else can enter the market. There might be a role for trust-busting there.
I definitely think companies ought to be able to sign non-poaching agreements, with disclosure, so employees that agree to go work at Apple know that they just can’t go interview at Google at get a job there whenever they want.
LikeLike
For those not in Virginia, a couple of amusing developments.
1. There’s a big fight over whether or not McAuliffe will force a government shutdown by vetoing any budget that doesn’t have Medicaid expansion. This is amusing given that he had a fair amount of campaign rhetoric over not holding the Federal budget hostage to a fight over health care when the Republicans tried to tie various PPACA provisions to the CR back in October/November 2013.
2. Big fight over whether the popular African American Democratic mayor of Richmond, Dwight Jones, will get to head the Virginia Democratic party after push back from gay and lesbian Democrats over his opposition to same sex marriage. Mayor Jones is also a pastor of an African American church in Richmond.
http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/gay-democrats-rise-up-against-dwight-jones/Content?oid=2040359
LikeLike
“with disclosure”
Which of course wasn’t done. It was all secret.
LikeLike
jnc:
Which of course wasn’t done. It was all secret.
Is that really true? It may not have been a formally documented policy, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known.
LikeLike
@Troll: Tim Moen, candidate for Canada’s Parliament: I want gay people to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns
I think that’s a candidate we can all get behind. I wish he was running for president in the United States.
LikeLike
” I wish he was running for president in the United States.”
Pot Through Superior Firepower.
LikeLike
@jnv4p: “Which of course wasn’t done. It was all secret.”
So then I would think there’s at least a civil case to be made there. You can, say, assume that you’re going to be asked to work long hours and weekends if you take a job at Apple, so you can’t later complain: and they expect me to stay and work until the project is done. But before finding out, it’s not reasonable to expect that if you take a job at Apple, you’re limiting your job opportunities with other hot tech companies. You would naturally assume the opposite.
Should that be criminal? I dunno. But they shouldn’t be doing it, and employees should be informed.
LikeLike
@ScottC: “What exactly would you have charged Jobs with? And what do you think are the chances that Jobs (or George Lucas) could have been convicted in a trial?”
If George Lucas was on trial for the mess he made of the prequels and Indy IV, then I think it’s a pretty good bet he would have been convicted. Laws be damned!
LikeLike
Big fight over whether the popular African American Democratic mayor of Richmond, Dwight Jones, will get to head the Virginia Democratic party after push back from gay and lesbian Democrats over his opposition to same sex marriage.
Opposition to same sex marriage (and especially opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle, period) is going to quickly become a political career killer, akin to being an open racist.
LikeLike
Scott, looks like violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act,15 U.S.C. § 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15.
Click to access high-tech-antitrust-class-certification-order.pdf
Basically whatever they agreed to settle without admitting wrongdoing. And I think that there’s sufficient evidence that Jobs masterminded the whole thing, especially vis-a-vis Palm.
Edit: Original DoJ complaint.
Click to access 262654.pdf
LikeLike
jnc:
One thing I find interesting about this is the notion that anti-trust laws can be a restriction on the actions of consumers as well as producers. Anti-trust law exist ostensibly to protect consumers. But in regards to the labor market, employers are the consumers while employees are the producers. So using anti-trust laws to restrict the actions of employers with regard to labor is really flipping the purpose of anti-trust laws on its head. It can only serve to drive prices – both of labor and of the goods it produces – higher, which is the exact opposite of the ostensible intent of anti-trust laws.
edit: To help make the point, this is the DOJ from jnc’s link promoting its enforcement of anti-trust laws:
Many consumers have never heard of antitrust laws, but enforcement of these laws saves consumers millions and even billions of dollars a year. The federal government enforces three major federal antitrust laws, and most states also have their own. Essentially, these laws prohibit business practices that unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition, resulting in higher prices for products and services.
LikeLike
Fascinating piece on the possible founder ofBitCoin. Whether he is or not, it does illustrate how fascinating and weird we all are.
http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html
LikeLike
“Kevin S. Willis, on March 6, 2014 at 2:23 pm said:
@jnv4p: “Which of course wasn’t done. It was all secret.”
So then I would think there’s at least a civil case to be made there. You can, say, assume that you’re going to be asked to work long hours and weekends if you take a job at Apple, so you can’t later complain: and they expect me to stay and work until the project is done. But before finding out, it’s not reasonable to expect that if you take a job at Apple, you’re limiting your job opportunities with other hot tech companies. You would naturally assume the opposite.
Should that be criminal? I dunno. But they shouldn’t be doing it, and employees should be informed.”
There’s a distinction between signing a non-compete with your employer presumably in exchange for something as part of the overall hiring package and your employer colluding with a third party to disadvantage you.
LikeLike
@Troll: “He is very wary of government interference in general,” she says. “When I was little, there was a game we used to play. He would say, ‘Pretend the government agencies are coming after you.’ And I would hide in the closet.”
Now, that’s a fun dad!
Seriously. It’s amazing how thin the line seems to be between a Ted Kaczynski and a Satoshi Nakamoto. One starts the world’s first true virtual currency and the other one drops of the grid and sends out letter bombs. But both guys are very smart and very paranoid.
LikeLike
Corked by Michi!
LikeLike
Opposition to same sex marriage (and especially opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle, period) is going to quickly become a political career killer, akin to being an open racist.
If so, that will be one great tragedy, and you can mark the demise of our society and country by it. We might continue to stumble on like a zombie for quite a long time, but no society permanently afflicted with that level of depravity will live.
But I think there’s a good chance it won’t happen. A pendulum swing that fast is not going to swing back the other way. I’ve recently been in several long-running Facebook debates about it, and I can tell you that lots and lots of people let me know that I am speaking for them even though they don’t feel sufficiently brave or equipped to push back against the nihilists. I can also tell you that so many of the flippant and cocky gay rights advocates can’t begin to defend their positions with reason, and some of them, when confronted with logic, start to realize they have a problem.
Ultimately, homosexuality isn’t race, and that that comparison can’t stand the test of time.
LikeLike
Fascinating piece on the possible founder of BitCoin
What–my link wasn’t good enough to click on?
EDIT: Corked by Michi!
Should have read the whole string before making my snarky comment. Forgive me?
LikeLike
@quarterback: “Ultimately, homosexuality isn’t race, and that that comparison can’t stand the test of time.”
It is not, I agree, I just see support for the homosexual lifestyle becoming the new PC litmus test, and if you aren’t down with gay marriage your the modern equivalent of a Klan member. Not because sexual preference and race are interchangeable, but the need for victim groups and a way to discriminate between the good “enlightened” and the bad “benighted” needs to be ongoing, and there simply aren’t enough folks out there saying things that can realistically be interpreted as racist, anymore. So how are you going to establish that you are a superior human being?
I don’t think the normalization of homosexuality will mark the demise of our society, personally, but it will also not presage an inevitable liberal utopia, either. 😉
Check with me in 10 years. You may be right, but I’m guessing that in 10 years, there’s going to be a lot more stigma attached to being opposed to homosexual marriage (which, by that time, will be the same as being opposed to homosexual getting medical treatment or eating at the same lunch counter as straights—not that sexual preference and race are interchangeable, but I think that’s going to be the prevailing view).
If I’m wrong, civilization is saved and I owe you a Coke.
LikeLike
I didn’t see it Michi. I stumbled on the link independently and then commented on it. Only after that did I read the thread and saw yours.
My apologies.
LikeLike
My apologies.
I edited my comment. . . go look. 🙂
LikeLike
Brent [and Scott], see this and tell us if it makes sense, please.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/the-reality-behind-the-stock-picking-skills-of-s-e-c-employees/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=edit_dlbkpm_20140306&nl=business&nlid=55859017&_r=0
LikeLike
A good third of the country at least will never buy it, KW. Ever. And at least half really don’t now. The radicals might win legal battles with radical, lawless judges doing their bidding, but they won’t ever push the needle as far as you think. Not ever going to happen. It is more likely to swing back the other way.
Most people are sheep. For a few years they’ve been screamed at that they’re bigots, propagandized 24/7 to the point where you’d think from pop culture that half the country is gay, and misled by a devious and dishonest President who lied to get elected and then “evolved” to get what he wanted. The forces of truth, justice, and the American way just need a few leaders with guts and ability to stand up and bring common sense back into fashion.
And a lot of these kids who think they know everything because they are 25 are going to be 40 soon and realize they didn’t.
LikeLike
A good third of the country at least will never buy it, KW. Ever.
This could be correct.
And at least half really don’t now.
I don’t think this is, though.
And a lot of these kids who think they know everything because they are 25 are going to be 40 soon and realize they didn’t.
This, however, will always be true!
LikeLike
No problem Michi, I missed your edit.
It’s an interesting article obviously if two geniuses like ourselves Reccommended it!😄
LikeLike
Scott, courts and regulators still look at the situation in terms of its effect on consumers, i.e., people buying tech products, which are, so it is claimed, more expensive, not as good, etc., because of collusion in employment of skilled people. I have not read the high-tech class cert order, but I assume that is the gist of the antitrust theory.
Lieff Cabraser are pirates, btw. High-class, sophisticated pirates, but pirates nonetheless. They cost you all a lot more money than they save you.
LikeLike
QB:
Scott, courts and regulators still look at the situation in terms of its effect on consumers, i.e., people buying tech products, which are, so it is claimed, more expensive, not as good, etc., because of collusion in employment of skilled people.
That may be the argument, but it is almost certainly untrue. If you increase the wages of labor, which is what bidding wars do, the cost of the sold product goes up. It is notable that the civil suit that has been filed in this case has been filed on behalf of employees, not consumers of tech products.
LikeLike
God, Issa is one rude asshole!
LikeLike
@quarterback: “but they won’t ever push the needle as far as you think.”
I might be wrong, or I just may have too many progressive friends, but my sense is the needle will push that far over time. Positive propaganda is strong and ongoing, younger kids just don’t get what the big deal is, on the whole, and the negatives need to be obviously correlative for people to become and remain stridently opposed.
LikeLike
Guys Finding Women Attractive and Wanting to Have Sex Is Sexist . . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-miles/hollywood-sexism-oscars_b_4899104.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
In which case, biology is sexist.
The worst part: no one said anything, including us. We sat quietly in terror, hands folded over our laps, staring at the screen. The misogynists were only a few men, among numerous progressive men and women, but they were the ones who were heard.
Guys watching TV said they would have sex with the attractive women on the TV. And others sat in terror.
Women got only 28 percent of speaking roles — often hypersexualized roles — in the 100 top-grossing fictional films from 2012. About 32 percent of female characters wore “sexy” clothing, compared to 7 percent of male characters, and 31 percent of these women were shown partially nude, compared to 9 percent of men.
Not mentioned: audience members are men and women and they respond differently to different things because they are different.
And guys like partially clothed women. For some reason.
Anyhoo, if we define male sexual posturing as inherently sexist, then I’m just going to have to be a sexist.
LikeLike
Kevin:
It was another silly article. But the ones along the sidebar of your link are hilarious! The author of your linked piece must be quite annoyed at Jamie Feldman and his drooling (assuming he’s a he).
LikeLike
McWing:
Looking like, for the second day in a row, no immigration reform post for you!!
LikeLike
Brent:
What in the world is a “secular bear”? An unchurched grizzly?
LikeLike
@Mark, I am astounded that the SEC would make people sell stock before an investigation. Anywhere else, you would be considered restricted and simply unable to trade that stock at all.
LikeLike
That seems reasonable, Brent, but it also seems reasonable for a watchdog agency to say it doesn’t want its investigators invested in its subjects.
I think your position makes more sense but that the agency thinks its position looks better to Congress or the public.
LikeLike
Brent/Mark:
@Mark, I am astounded that the SEC would make people sell stock before an investigation. Anywhere else, you would be considered restricted and simply unable to trade that stock at all.
I actually think it makes some sense. If their position is merely frozen once an investigation starts, they still have a conflict of interest which might influence the direction of the investigation. Forcing the sale prior to the investigation makes it less open to question if it results in no sanctions.
However, I still think it is a form of insider trading. If one assumes (reasonably, I think, since investigations are not random) that an investigation is more likely than not to result in damaging information that will negatively effect the stock price, then it will generally be in the investor’s best interest to launch the shares before the investigation. The fact that they are forced by policy to do what they should want to do in any event doesn’t change the effect.
But as long as the SEC allows employees to hold any stocks at all it is a bit of a catch-22. If you freeze accounts prior to an investigation, the integrity of the investigation becomes suspect, but if you force a sale prior to the investigation, you are essentially mandating trading on inside information. The only way around the dilemma is to not allow employees to hold any stock in the first place.
LikeLike
Scott, I was thinking along those lines, as well. What if, like elected pols, SEC investigators had to put their own investments in blind trusts upon entering employment?
LikeLike
Mark:
What if, like elected pols, SEC investigators had to put their own investments in blind trusts upon entering employment?
That would make sense to me.
BTW, I remember reading a book back in the late 80’s (I think it was Den of Thieves by James Stewart) about the whole Ivan Boesky/Michael Milken affair, and while I can’t exactly remember the timeline, Stewart pointed out that, in order that Boesky would be able to pay the government the massive fines they were imposing on him, they had him liquidate his holdings over several days before it was announced that he was cooperating and giving evidence against Milken, knowing that upon the announcement, both stocks and especially the junk bond markets would fall. Making the SEC one of the biggest inside traders of all time.
LikeLike
Interesting article from the WSJ today (unfortunately behind the firewall) debunking the notion that wages have stagnated even as production has increased.
There is no great decoupling of worker pay from productivity. Nor have workers’ incomes stagnated over the past four decades.
The illusion is the result of two mistakes that are routinely made when pay is compared with productivity. First, the value of fringe benefits—such as health insurance and pension contributions—is often excluded from calculations of worker pay. Because fringe benefits today make up a larger share of the typical employee’s pay than they did 40 years ago (about 19% today compared with 10% back then), excluding them fosters the illusion that the workers’ slice of the (bigger) pie is shrinking.
The second mistake is to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust workers’ pay for inflation while using a different measure—for example the GDP deflator, which converts the current prices of all domestically produced final goods and services into constant dollars—to adjust the value of economic output for inflation. But as Harvard’s Martin Feldstein noted in a National Bureau of Economic Research paper in 2008, it is misleading to use different deflators.
Different inflation adjustments give conflicting estimates of just how much the dollar’s purchasing power has fallen. So to accurately compare the real (that is, inflation-adjusted) value of output to the real value of worker pay requires that these values both be calculated using the same price index.
This, I thought, was particularly interesting, and counter to the common media and left-wing narrative we so often hear:
The claim that ordinary Americans are stagnating economically while only “the rich” are gaining is also incorrect. True enough, membership in the middle class seems to be declining—but this is because more American households are moving up.
The Census Bureau in 2012 compiled data on the percentage of U.S. households earning annual incomes, measured in 2009 dollars, in different income categories (for example, annual incomes between $25,000 and $35,000). These data reveal that between 1975 and 2009, the percentage of households in the low- and middle-income categories fell. The only two categories that saw an increase were households earning between $75,000 and $100,000 annually, and households earning more than $100,000 annually. Remarkably, the share of American households earning annual incomes in excess of $100,000 went to 20.1% in 2009 from 8.4% in 1975. Over these same years, households earning annual incomes of $50,000 or less fell to 50.1% from 58.4%.
LikeLike
I had no idea…the Dalai Lama is literally a marxist.
“I think the Marxist economics is right. But gradually Lenin, [though he was] supposed to apply that concept, he sacrificed individual rights, individual freedom.”
Wow.
It is odd that he is a marxist, however, given that he recognizes the central insight about human nature that drives capitalism:
“We are selfish. It’s important for our survival,” he said. “But because things are interdependent, it’s in your own interest to take care of others. It should be wise selfish, not foolish selfish. If you take care of others, you get more benefit.”
Someone needs to explain to him that it is precisely this insight that makes capitalism, not marxism, not only the most moral but also the most productive economic system.
LikeLike
Boo fucking hoo. Welcome to the club.
*snort*
I like this version better than the PL one. 🙂
LikeLike
@Michi,
Secular (as opposed to cyclical) bull and bear markets last over long periods of time.
A cyclical bull market may last several years. The last secular bull market lasted from 1982 or so till 2000. IMO, we have been in a secular bear since then, with periodic rallies and then sell-offs. Given the last secular bear market (1965 – 1982) lasted 17 years, this one is getting long in the tooth as well. That is why I don’t buy any of the “stocks are in a bubble” arguments.. If anything I think we may have one more leg down in the market as interest rates begin to rise and then we will be off to the races.
Big, big caveat; This assumes the Fed sticks the landing with QE and ultra-low interest rates. If they can simply reduce their footprint and gradually fade into the background, then I think we could get bullish long term. If it all blows up, then all bets are off. Impossible to tell at this point, because they have only started.
LikeLike
Hack Sargent has some explaining to do! He’s got readers to bore!
LikeLike
Secular (as opposed to cyclical) bull and bear markets last over long periods of time.
Thanks! And thanks for the great expansion on that answer.
LikeLike
Forget SSM–it’s really going to be women using contraceptives that is going to be the downfall of America.
This is just goofy.
LikeLike
“But because things are interdependent, it’s in your own interest to take care of others. It should be wise selfish, not foolish selfish. If you take care of others, you get more benefit.”
No top hat for him, though!
LikeLike
Mich:
No top hat for him, though!
What does that mean?
LikeLike
Ah, I get it now. You think that because he advocates for taking care of others, he’s not a libertarian. Actually, no, he is not a libertarian because he is a marxist. Caring or not caring for other people has literally nothing whatsoever to do with libertariansim.
I’ll never understand what produces the blinded view held by so many people on the left that caring for other people requires one to advocate for coercive government policies on behalf of those people.
LikeLike
“Kevin S. Willis, on March 6, 2014 at 4:50 pm said:
Guys Finding Women Attractive and Wanting to Have Sex Is Sexist . . .
…
Anyhoo, if we define male sexual posturing as inherently sexist, then I’m just going to have to be a sexist.”
Sexy is often confused with sexist.
LikeLike
Fascinating about the Dalai Lama. I wonder if he thinks it can be imposed w/out genocide?
LikeLike
Reminds me of PL’s resident Marxist, Aletheia.
LikeLike
jnc:
I’m curious about your take on my point yesterday that using anti-trust laws to regulate consumers in a particular market is counter to the ostensible purpose of anti-trust laws.
LikeLike
@Michigoose: “This is just goofy.”
Contraception is damaging to women! Contraception has turned women into instruments for a man’s sexual gratification. Because, you know, men didn’t want to gratify themselves sexually before contraception.
Yeah, I’m sure having only the rhythm method to rely on so women feeling financially burdened by the children they had never wanted to have sex with their husbands for fear of pregnancy, etc., etc . . . that would be so great for women! And families! And children.
Hormonal birth control is not without consequence to mood and health of the ladies, but the idea that women were happier and more self-actualized and fulfilled when they had no control, and no options for control, of pregnancy (except for never having sex, something that I’m sure would go over well with their husbands). It’s not just goofy, it’s nuts, and God loves little children, drunks, and morons, and will help protect the world such people live in by making sure they don’t get what they wish for.
A contraception free world. How awesome that would be. What about getting your tubes tied? Is that okay? That has none of the health impact of hormonal birth control. Sheesh.
LikeLike
Kevin:
Because, you know, men didn’t want to gratify themselves sexually before contraception.
I think the point isn’t that they didn’t want to prior to widespread contraception, but that it was much more difficult for them to do so. Which is surely true. The introduction of the pill has almost certainly made sex only for the sake of sex, ie outside of any serious or committed relationship, much more available to men (and women) than it was prior. Maybe you think that is a good thing, or maybe you think it is a bad thing that is nonetheless outweighed by other benefits (which is what I think), but it isn’t crazy to point out that it is true and may not be a positive development.
LikeLike
But because things are interdependent, it’s in your own interest to take care of others. It should be wise selfish, not foolish selfish. If you take care of others, you get more benefit.
I think this is generally understood, and it is often misunderstood that people who do not embrace Marxism or socialism also understand it. There’s a sense when people are saying that that there’s all these people who have no idea of what enlightened self interest is, but I think it’s more accurate to say people disagree on what “wise selfish” looks like.
That is, we disagree on the best way to take care of others, and about the idea that the best way to take care of others necessarily involves simply doing for others what is difficult for them to do for themselves. The “give a man a fish” vs “teach a man to fish” orientation.
Supporting a centralized government that redistributes wealth to certain preferred groups is not necessarily the best way to practice enlightened self-interest. The abolition of private property by the state is definitely not a way to practice enlightened self-interest.
LikeLike
Kevin:
That is, we disagree on the best way to take care of others, and about the idea that the best way to take care of others necessarily involves simply doing for others what is difficult for them to do for themselves. The “give a man a fish” vs “teach a man to fish” orientation.
I think the real source of conflict lies not is disagreement over “give a man a fish” and “teach a man to fish”, but rather in disagreement between “give a man a fish” and “give a man someone else’s fish”. You don’t need government for the former, but it is essential for the latter.
LikeLike
The abolition of private property by the state is definitely not a way to practice enlightened self-interest.
You haven’t met Aletheia, have you? 🙂
jnc, think we could link to some of her greatest hits?
LikeLike
“ScottC, on March 7, 2014 at 9:35 am said:
jnc:
I’m curious about your take on my point yesterday that using anti-trust laws to regulate consumers in a particular market is counter to the ostensible purpose of anti-trust laws.”
I owe you a couple of in depth responses which I’ll try and get done this weekend. Tied up with accounting today.
LikeLike
LikeLike
nova:
That’s one of his best.
BTW, how did you fix it so that it fit in the window? I have had that problem before, not being able to fit an image in a comment, and couldn’t figure out how to fix it.
LikeLike
I just went back to google images and found a smaller one.
there’s probably a technical way to fix it, but i don’t’ know what it is.
LikeLike
Contraception is damaging to women! Contraception has turned women into instruments for a man’s sexual gratification. Because, you know, men didn’t want to gratify themselves sexually before contraception.
Stop with the straw men! There is a wealth of hard and soft social science data out there showing that women on the whole are less happy in important respects as a result of the era of free sex. There is no law against your saying “So what?!” or that the joys of free sex outweigh the miseries the libertine/slut culture has introduced, but they exist. Glenn Reynolds links new findings and reports in this area all the time, everything from the women who are nonplussed and disappointed in the death of chivalry (unexpectedly!) to women disillusioned by free sex and its emotional and other consequences. Look for his “21st Century Relationships” links especially. I don’t know of anyone but traditional Catholics who oppose all contraception, but in an age when our federal overlords are in thrall to the ideology that contraception must be “free” in abundance to all women and girls, that’s not really the issue, now is it?
LikeLike
Aletheia is a he, not a she, or so s/he claims.
Everyone seems to think s/he is a she, though. S/he claims it is an assumption about the name, but my belief that he was a she was based on his writing style. I’m not sure I could describe why, but I am curious whether others had the same impression.
LikeLike
I thought “she” as well. tone and style. basically, she wrote like a mother who was teaching her 4 year old. which is how she sees the rest of us.
LikeLike
“oh, don’t you see how wonderful it will be when the people* are in charge. now sleep tight and don’t worry about it.”
*somehow “the people” in her stories always end up wearing olive drab, red stars, and carry knock off AKs.
LikeLike
Aletheia is a he, not a she, or so s/he claims.
Yeah, jnc told me that a while ago. I can’t even remember what it was now, but s/he made a statement at one point on PL that implied female. . . the rest of my impression, like yours, is based on writing style.
LikeLike
@quarterback: “Stop with the straw men!”
Why not just ask me to stop breathing?
There is a wealth of hard and soft social science data out there showing that women on the whole are less happy in important respects as a result of the era of free sex.
A result? I’d be interested in how that causal case is made. I’m not sure a good causal case is there. A lot has changed beside BC.
http://freakonomics.com/2007/10/01/why-are-women-so-unhappy/
Completely anecdotal, but when you go through historical photos of folks, pre-BC, living their hardscrabble lives on the plains with 14 kids, they all look miserably. Well, all the adults, anyway.
“or that the joys of free sex outweigh the miseries the libertine/slut culture has introduced, but they exist”
This is not caused by birth control, any more than guns cause murders.
Glenn Reynolds links new findings and reports in this area all the time, everything from the women who are nonplussed and disappointed in the death of chivalry (unexpectedly!) to women disillusioned by free sex and its emotional and other consequences.
None of which is caused be birth control. Even if BC largely makes some of it possible (I think there is no link between BC and chivalry; feminism is the culprit there, and thought feminism may have championed reproductive choice, they aren’t the same thing).
“but in an age when our federal overlords are in thrall to the ideology that contraception must be “free” in abundance to all women and girls, that’s not really the issue, now is it?”
That’s a whole ‘nuther question. And we, as a culture, may be a little overzealous in prescribing mood and physiology altering hormones. Never said we weren’t.
LikeLike
Kevin:
This is not caused by birth control, any more than guns cause murders.
Correlation, of course, is not causation, but it strains credulity to think that the introduction of the pill and the subsequent increase in sexual activity 1) at younger ages, 2) with more partners, and 3) with increasing casualness was simply a coincidence.
Sure, easier access to more reliable birth control didn’t cause people to want to have more sex with more people more often. It just made doing so a lot less risky, and hence enabled the behavior.
LikeLike
@ScottC: “I think the real source of conflict lies not is disagreement over “give a man a fish” and “teach a man to fish”, but rather in disagreement between “give a man a fish” and “give a man someone else’s fish”. You don’t need government for the former, but it is essential for the latter.”
… which leads to actions pursued out of envy and resentment, not out of helping anybody, that are supposed to, somehow, be beneficial. The handwriting over the gap between rich and poor and how much wealth is concentrated in a few hands . . . well, there are lots of way to make rich people poorer, most of them fraught with unintended consequences, and why in the world should that be an end goal, anyway?
One can argue that giving somebody another person’s fish is helping somebody. But how is structuring things in order to prevent the rich from getting richer going to help anybody? Why is it bad for me if I’m only a little bit richer and you are a whole hell of a lot richer than either of us was 10 years ago? Why would it be preferably that we both be poorer, as long as the gap between my wealth and your wealth as smaller?
LikeLike
Of course IRT Aletheia,
LikeLike
“quarterback, on March 7, 2014 at 11:10 am said:
Aletheia is a he, not a she, or so s/he claims.
Everyone seems to think s/he is a she, though. S/he claims it is an assumption about the name, but my belief that he was a she was based on his writing style. I’m not sure I could describe why, but I am curious whether others had the same impression.”
I did as well due to the whole Kumbaya tone of the proposed solutions to capitalism.
LikeLike
Re: Birth control and happiness
Given all these changes, the evidence presented by Stevenson and Wolfers is striking: women report being less happy today than they were 35 years ago, especially relative to the corresponding happiness rates for men. This is true of working women and stay-at-home moms, married women and those that are single, the highly educated and the less educated. It is worse for older women; those aged 18-29 don’t seem to be doing too badly. Women with kids have fared worse than women without kids.
Lots of factors in play. And women with kids fare worse than women without kids in terms of self-reported happiness levels. If anything, BC would be mitigating rather than causative, if that’s true. Which I suspect it is, especially for working mothers.
LikeLike
So others had the same impression of Aletheia as I did, for the similar (although not identical) reasons, from which I conclude either that I am not as sexist as some might say, or others including Michi are more sexist that some might say. Heh.
For me, though, it is something more about Aletheia’s tone that says “woman” to me. I wish I knew here how to type Hochstadter’s “Very inter-resting.”
LikeLike
That’s a pretty funny cartoon.
Why not just ask me to stop breathing?
And that made me laugh out loud, too. I must be in a terrific mood.
LikeLike
These are the sorts of tidbits that I always find interesting from you QB.
“Lieff Cabraser are pirates, btw. High-class, sophisticated pirates, but pirates nonetheless.”
LikeLike
These are the sorts of tidbits that I always find interesting from you QB.
We all have something to contribute; trivia in my case.
I know them fairly well, have litigated against them, and know some of them personally. They aren’t your bottom-of-the-barrel unethical scum, but they impose a tax on all of us under the guise of righting wrongs against us, though securities, consumer, and antitrust class actions. They are the people bringing us the now-infamous “moldy washer” cases: the federal government mandated water-usage standards for washing machines. Now a few people claim their machines don’t self-clean well enough and smell moldy. Way over 90% of people have no complaints. But an entire group of class actions trying to extract huge amounts from the manufacturers is going through the courts. SCOTUS reversed certification of several classes last year, but they got recertified, and SCOTUS just shocked everyone last week by denying cert (interlocutory) this time. So the cost of your appliances likely is going up a little more, again, thanks to the pirates of the plaintiffs’ bar. All for your own good, you understand.
LikeLike
@ScottC: “I think the point isn’t that they didn’t want to prior to widespread contraception, but that it was much more difficult for them to do so. “
I’m not sure how much that is attributable to contraception. Much, no doubt, but over time a lot is attributable to antibiotics as well. Very different things when syphilis meant madness, then death . . . and now it means a course of antibiotics.
“but it isn’t crazy to point out that it is true”
Well, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, is kind of my point. Birth control doesn’t make guys want to have sex with women and, at the end of the day, women don’t have to take it, married or unmarried, but they choose to.
And this: “widespread use of contraceptives has indeed harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually”
… I tend to think is kind of crazy-ish. There are folks on birth control who have only had sex with their husbands. Their are folks on birth control who have only had sex with a few guys and then their husbands. BC does not produce sluts, and does not make women immoral. At worst, it allows sexually licentious people to have copious amounts of sex where, in the past, they would have had less sex, but I don’t think the lower availability of sex would have necessarily lessened their desires or improved their morality. I think it’s a case where the benefits far outweigh the deficits.
And birth control has also helped women physically, whether it’s preventing unwanted, potentially dangerous pregnancies while allowing them to have a sexual relationship with their husbands, or used simply to manage severe menstrual cycles. And I question the causality of “emotionally, morally, spiritually”. There are many other things to look at, such as movements to label gender differences as artificial constructs (and thus remove them), changing gender roles and career options for women (women self-report lower levels of happiness than they self-reported 20 or 30 years ago, but it’s not likely because of birth control).
We have a cultural that normalizes and enshrines what I refer to as woman-porn, or nesting-porn, so that women are constantly shown other women with bigger and better nests and more and fancier plumage, and I think that is a cultural and entertainment trent that fosters dissatisfaction with life as it is. I think that has done more damage to women in a general sense than oral contraception can ever do.
… this apparently didn’t get posted for a long time because I forgot what I was doing. But here it is, late.
LikeLike
Kevin:
Birth control doesn’t make guys want to have sex with women and, at the end of the day, women don’t have to take it, married or unmarried, but they choose to.
And one of the primary reasons they choose to much more often today than in, say, the 1940s is because of more readily available and reliable contraception. I really can’t see how this is at all disputable. The “guns don’t kill people” analogy isn’t apt. The contention isn’t that contraception makes guys want to have sex with women (hence qb’s reference to a straw man) but that contraception makes women more willing to have sex with them.
I tend to think is kind of crazy-ish.
Like i said earlier, I think the benefits definitely outweigh the costs, but I also don’t think it makes sense to deny that there have been deleterious effects.
LikeLike
contraception makes women more willing to have sex
[“with other people”, as Steve Martin would suggest].
Anecdotally I count this as a great benefit. Who amongst us is willing to call this a “deleterious effect?”
LikeLike
mark:
This Court’s holdings begin on page 107 of the opinion.
Thanks, I will read it.
Who amongst us is willing to call this a “deleterious effect?”
I am. Especially after hearing some of the horror stories my daughter’s been telling me about what’s going on on campus, and the tragic consequences for some of the girls. For a 20 year old guy looking for something new every weekend, there may not be a lot of downside to a campus full of women unafraid of getting pregnant, but that doesn’t mean there’s no downside to the women. In some ways the fact that there is no downside for the guy is exactly the downside for the women. The psychology of sex is different for women than for men.
LikeLike
“Now a few people claim their machines don’t self-clean well enough and smell moldy.”
I wonder how much of that “moldyness” has resulted from the new regulations limiting how much water and power the appliances can use.
LikeLike
We have a cultural that normalizes and enshrines what I refer to as woman-porn, or nesting-porn, so that women are constantly shown other women with bigger and better nests and more and fancier plumage, and I think that is a cultural and entertainment trent that fosters dissatisfaction with life as it is. I think that has done more damage to women in a general sense than oral contraception can ever do.
Bravo.
LikeLike
The psychology of sex is different for women than for men.
Different in degree, not in kind. Males and females both like sex. Both can become very excited by sexual acts. Both can feel a bond, through sex. Both tend to be attracted to fit partners and not to unfit ones. Warmth of an affectionate personality is a sexual lure for both, as is trustworthiness over the long run.
OTOH:
Young males, especially, are horny all the time, while young women are far less likely to be. It is easier by far to hook young males on porn than young females – hook them in a way that the actual sex act becomes less attractive than the fantasy for them.
According to a book I read there are common neurotic misconceptions about sex.
There is the confusion of sex with affection. “S/he won’t have sex with me so s/he must not like me.”
There is the confusion of sex with power: “I have her/him wrapped around my finger/pussy whipped”.
There is the confusion of sex with romance: “S/he loves oral sex with me. That proves s/he loves me.”
Sex is just sex. It is good. It is far less compelling a desire with age, but it is still comfortably exciting. Men and women who do not confuse it with something else will both agree on the latter.
For both men and women, when a sexually exclusive relationship is declared, it presents both a comfort and a challenge. It is a comfort to have a home and a partner and a challenge to keep it affirming and interesting. Failure to keep to the arrangement could be due to a character issue, or to laziness on the part of one or both, or to one of the common neurotic misconceptions, but the one who has not cheated feels betrayed.
This is so universal for men and women it appears in the literature written and directed by or to both and is commonly understood by both.
We have women here. If it is not uncomfortable for them, I would like to know if the horseshoe I threw was a ringer, a leaner, or a miss, according to any of their lights.
LikeLike
Mark:
Different in degree, not in kind.
I’m not at all sure that is true.
A recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships found that both men and women judge promiscuous women—and that even promiscuous women judge other promiscuous women. Again: Girls get pounded. Boys do the pounding.
Sex is just sex. It is good.
If you can get away with that one with the wife, you have a rare relationship. “It didn’t mean anything, honey. It was just sex…and therefore good.”
LikeLike
Who wants to argue about sex? That being said, the view that sex is just sex is close to 180 degrees incorrect. I think it more true that when it is “confused” with romance, love, control, etc., it is because it is in fact deeply connected to those things and more. Although the population is nearly 50/50, generally speaking, men want “it” and women control access to “it.” For women, sex involves potential pregnancy. Contraception can alter that calculus, but does not alter underlying physiology, neurology, and psychology. There is a wealth of data showing that the free-sex culture of the Pill Age has negative consequences for emotional and psychological welfare (among other things). Any realistic evaluation of its benefits and detriments has to account for them.
LikeLike
I think it is very difficult to determine sexual attitudes based upon the availability, or not, of contraceptives. It’s not as if men and women weren’t having sex outside of marriage prior to the Pill. It’s also not as if some women don’t withhold sex now, even though the threat of pregnancy is not as much of a factor.
Sexual attitudes have as much to do with self image and worth for women as they do consequences of sex.
I think for most men it is a simpler act more in tune with their nature and for women, while it can be the same, there are more complicated emotions involved much of the time.
I also agree that women suffer more backlash for promiscuity but think both boys and girls suffer many of the same peer pressures to engage in sex at an early age.
From my own personal perspective as a young unmarried female and the one as a mother of three girls I’m extremely grateful for the easy availability of the pill. It was actually a little more difficult certainty-wise with the boys.
And QB, what do you mean by “future daughter in law”, isn’t your son about 19 or 20?
LikeLike
I probably don’t differ too greatly with you as to most of what you said, lms. I do think promiscuity affects both boys and girls, men and women.
As to my son, your memory is keen. There is a little speculation in my characterization, but this relationship seems to be really serious and pretty sound. Nothing could have surprised me more, believe me. They are in college and planning their future together. Not everyone is just hooking up and shacking up in college! As shocked as I was, it has done wonders for him. He suddenly grew up, became serious, focused, considerate (like the kid we raised). I can’t argue with the results.
LikeLike
I can’t argue with the results.
Ahhhhh, the influence of a good woman (girl). I know those young romances work out sometimes, I just don’t personally know of any, but I’m not trying to be too negative about it. Just be prepared for the unexpected turn of events.
Except for my niece, none of my kids did an exceptional amount of “hooking up” in college, but all had relationships that were of a steady sort. The kids were all serious students and while they enjoyed a good party they managed to remain focused on their futures. We were very open with all the kids about sex, birth control, drugs, all of it, and I think it worked out pretty well. No unplanned pregnancies, no promiscuity, no druggies etc., just one DUI and that was after college. My niece was boy crazy from the age of 12 when she moved in with us and by the time she was 15 had a steady boyfriend she wanted to sleep with……off to the doctor we went. I wasn’t thrilled with it but it seemed to make the most sense at the time to get her on BC. Once she graduated she dumped him like a hot potato……LOL. To my knowledge she was never promiscuous though, just always in a relationship, most of which lasted for years.
Our son married at 31, my nephew at 40, and the girls, (32 & 34) have found their soul mates (I think) but aren’t married yet. I expect the youngest one to decide in the next year of so. They were moving in that the direction when she had a skiing accident and is focused on surgery next month and a long recovery. She’s measuring his commitment to her during this ordeal I think, although she won’t quite admit it. The oldest is committed to her relationship but sees no particular rush to the altar as she won’t be having children. He’s gently pushing her in the direction of a wedding but she’s still not sure it’s really necessary.
I think sex is just easier now with the advent of BC pills but I don’t really see that as a bad thing. As with anything else though, there are always detrimental affects on some. I think the pressure in both high school and college to conform to the latest trend, whether it’s drugs, sex or even worse has grown over time but I wouldn’t quite know where to put the blame. If I were Scott, I’d just go ahead and blame liberals though. 😉
LikeLike
lms:
If I were Scott, I’d just go ahead and blame liberals though.
Liberals do tend to dominate the institutions that create popular culture.
LikeLike
I hear you. We already went through serious relationship No. 1 and its aftermath, which I wasn’t sure any of us would survive. That one had lots of flash and excitement but also huge warning signs.
As of last summer, I was certain it would be many years before he found anyone else, and I said many times it would and could never happen at college (not the one he is at). So, I could look at this as God’s having a chuckle at my expense. I am very much a realist about these things, especially after Freshman year, which I thought none of us would get through in the wake of the Big Breakup. But I have a strange feeling this one is for real. Luckily, we think this girl is wonderful.
Who knows. Being a parent is all about finding out you knew nothing, while your kids find out you were right about pretty much everything. Funny how that works.
Edit: and for the crowning touch on Dad’s humiliating failure of judgment, they were introduced by frat and sorority friends who thought they were made for each other. So much for my wisdom. For these and other reasons, I’ve spent much more time during the past 6-8 months keeping my mouth shut.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that your kids apparently have the approach of waiting to marry until they are established, etc., which I think is the prevailing ethos, or has been for 10-20 years. Our lovebirds seem to have come to the view that you get together, get married, and grow and establish yourselves together, which I am happy about, if they indeed stay on that track. When my wife and I married, we thought we were smart for waiting to have kids until I finished school and got settled in. In hindsight, it probably was not so smart.
LikeLike
But Scott, if we’re talking primarily about what you perceive as the deleterious effects of easy and accessible contraception even you seem to think the benefits outweigh the costs.
When I think of creating popular culture I tend to think more in term of media and entertainment and institutions as where it’s acted out.
LikeLike
lms:
But Scott, if we’re talking primarily about what you perceive as the deleterious effects of easy and accessible contraception even you seem to think the benefits outweigh the costs.
I thought you were talking about the fact that “the pressure in both high school and college to conform to the latest trend, whether it’s drugs, sex or even worse has grown over time.” With regard to birth control, I think I have been very clear that it is a net positive.
When I think of creating popular culture I tend to think more in term of media and entertainment and institutions as where it’s acted out.
So do I. And the media/entertainment industries are dominated by liberals.
LikeLike
Sugar and refined starch and monosodium glutamate and high fructose corn syrup are the real dangers to the masses. Instant gratification leading to addiction and death. Popular culture created by Coca Cola and the advertising industry.
Scott, I wrote that betrayal of a sexually exclusive relationship is bad. The goodness of sex is not an excuse for betrayal.
LikeLike
Mark:
Sugar and refined starch and monosodium glutamate and high fructose corn syrup are the real dangers to the masses.
I think the masses face a lot of dangers.
Scott, I wrote that betrayal of a sexually exclusive relationship is bad. The goodness of sex is not an excuse for betrayal.
If sex was just sex, no one would want or require a sexually exclusive relationship. Of all the things we do with our significant others, only one is expected to be done with just them, to the exclusion of all others. There is a reason for that: sex isn’t just sex.
LikeLike
Scott
Actually, I was referring to your conversation with Mark when he asked who amongst us thought contraception has had a “deleterious effect”?
You answered
I am. Especially after hearing some of the horror stories my daughter’s been telling me about what’s going on on campus, and the tragic consequences for some of the girls. For a 20 year old guy looking for something new every weekend, there may not be a lot of downside to a campus full of women unafraid of getting pregnant, but that doesn’t mean there’s no downside to the women. In some ways the fact that there is no downside for the guy is exactly the downside for the women. The psychology of sex is different for women than for men.
I already acknowledged you believed there was a net benefit.
I also assumed you were referring to colleges as the institutions creating the popular culture. Not only are media/entertainment industries dominated by liberals but so is science. However, the advertising industry could be said to be dominated by conservatives and as Mark pointed out they have an influence on popular culture as well.
In a lot of ways we could say that one of the most significant waves of popular culture began as a backlash against the war in Vietnam. Who’s to blame for that? Liberals? It actually began in the 50’s under Truman and Eisenhower but of course was escalated by Kennedy and then Johnson. I don’t think popular culture is easily credited to either liberals or conservatives.
I’ve said numerous times here that I believe there is still a balancing act going on in this country between liberals and conservatives and that I believe it’s still a necessary component of politics. Generally what seems to happen is when one ideology oversteps the boundaries of common sense or sustainability, the backlash swings in the opposite direction.
Most of you guys, with the exception of possibly Mark and Kevin, seem to think we’re doomed because liberals appear to be in charge of the Federal government now. I remember feeling like that when Bush was President.
And with that I’m off to the gym. My chlorine fix awaits me!
LikeLike
lms:
Actually, I was referring to your conversation with Mark when he asked who amongst us thought contraception has had a “deleterious effect”?
Again, when I mentioned liberal dominance of pop cultural institutions, I was responding specifically to your (surely correct) claim that “the pressure in both high school and college to conform to the latest trend, whether it’s drugs, sex or even worse has grown over time,” and your suggestion that I should blame liberals for that fact.
I also assumed you were referring to colleges as the institutions creating the popular culture. Not only are media/entertainment industries dominated by liberals but so is science.
If by “science” you mean academia, yes you are correct.
However, the advertising industry could be said to be dominated by conservatives…
How so? I’m not aware of any indication that the advertising industry is particularly conservative.
Generally what seems to happen is when one ideology oversteps the boundaries of common sense or sustainability, the backlash swings in the opposite direction.
Only in a very narrow, political party sense. Republicans rise and fall, as do Democrats, yes. But as I have said in the past, I think if you look at the long arc of cultural movement over the last century, the trend has been pretty clearly and consistently towards the left. I think in terms of economics the nation may be said to have moved to the right, i.e. towards free markets more generally, but even in that I suspect the real trend is a bit hidden. I think there was a period of time, during Reagan and Clinton, when the nation moved sharply towards the right in terms of economics, but both before and since I think we have generally trended towards more, not less, government control of the economy.
Most of you guys, with the exception of possibly Mark and Kevin, seem to think we’re doomed because liberals appear to be in charge of the Federal government now.
No, I think we’re doomed because whether or not liberals are in the charge at any given moment, liberals have been in charge for enough of the past to set us on an irreversibly disastrous course.
LikeLike
lms:
I forgot to answer your question:
In a lot of ways we could say that one of the most significant waves of popular culture began as a backlash against the war in Vietnam. Who’s to blame for that? Liberals?
I think opposition to the Vietnam War was a function of many different forces, but the rise of the new left was certainly one of them.
LikeLike
I think we’re doomed because of the idea that spending can occur independently of tax receipts. That is a problem independent of ideology.
LikeLike
McWing:
I think we’re doomed because of the idea that spending can occur independently of tax receipts. That is a problem independent of ideology.
Do you think this desire to spend independently of tax receipts would exist in the absence of the massive wealth distribution programs that we have? I don’t think it is mere coincidence that, in the 30 years between 1900 and 1930 we had 21 years of surplus, and in the 80+ years since we’ve had only 12. I think it is very much related to the rise of leftist ideology in the US government.
LikeLike
BTW…out for most of the rest of the day.
LikeLike
Well, I think it has to do with a desire to stay in power and exercise said power over people. It’s much easier to do when you wrap it up in a idealogy of helping people. It takes some of the sting out of it. At heart though is a desire to control people. I guess, to me, that is the sickness. Or at least something that is incomprehensible. I do not understand the desire to control others.
LikeLike
Not all birth control is hormonal. Just putting that out there.
Fertility should be opt-in, not opt-out. I’ve said before to the outrage of many woman that all girls should be given a Norplant at the age of 14. Or at least the option of one. And while lots of young women avow not to have unprotected sex, the teenage mind is nothing if not capricious.
I know of a great deal of parents who have their daughters on HBC for control of acne or some other fig leaf of rationalization.
Tom Wolfe got a lot of mileage over the hook-up culture in I Am Charlotte Simmons where SPOILER ALERT the heroine gets brutally date raped. Being a full generation removed from college I get most of my current information from parents and the children of friends. I just don’t see serial monogamy however it is practiced as going away any time soon as the predominant social institution.
In her memoir, Sarah Silverman confesses to an extremely promiscuous period in her early 20s which she seems to have recovered from. Much like the Lesbian Until Graduation phenomenon it just seems to be a phase some women go through.
And if one really believes women were happier in the days of random pregnancy, just read some Thomas Hardy or Emile Zola.
LikeLike
We have women here. If it is not uncomfortable for them, I would like to know if the horseshoe I threw was a ringer, a leaner, or a miss, according to any of their lights.
Ringer.
Now to go back to your comment and read others–but I wanted to be on record.
LikeLike
I’ve said before to the outrage of many woman that all girls should be given a Norplant at the age of 14.
I thought I had the copyright on this. Good to know that somebody else thinks the same thing.
LikeLike