[davelj]

I actually read Graeber’s book – “Debt: The first 5,000 years” – recently. I enjoyed it. Very well-researched and some interesting, counterintuitive insights. (Favorite chapter title: “Honor and Degradation: Or, on the Foundations of Contemporary Civilization”) Having said that, among other issues, two things that nagged at me after reading it were:

(1) Graeber makes no attempt to come up with an alternative to the financial system we have now. Basically, he points out the problems with debt and our financial system but offers no suggestions on how to improve things. I read an interview with him and this criticism came up and he said, in so many words, “That wasn’t the purpose of the book. I’m an anthropologist, not an economist.” Fair enough, but… when one criticizes something, isn’t it fair to ask what that person’s alternative would look like? In Graeber’s eyes, clearly it’s not.

(2) Debt jubilees – which Graeber is clearly fond of – already exist, in effect, at the individual, corporate and government levels. It’s called bankruptcy in the first two instances, and default in the last. We don’t have debtors prisons so when someone declares bankruptcy it results in, essentially, a “personal debt jubilee.” The debt disappears (for the most part) and the main penalty is that that person has difficulty obtaining more debt in the future (and might lose some of the goods accumulated through the use of the debt). But this shouldn’t be an issue in Graeber’s eyes because, well… debt, as we have come to define it, is bad. Likewise, if an African nation that has borrowed too much wants to default, it can. The only penalty will be that no one’s going to lend it more money for quite some time. But, again, that should be fine with Graeber – the debt was bad in the first place so we shouldn’t be loading them down with more of it. My point is that we already have a very fair and humane way of dealing with people who accumulate too much debt, so this notion of a wide-scale debt jubilee seems unnecessary. After all, the vast majority of people out there have no problems either financially or morally with paying back what they owe.

So, while I enjoyed Graeber’s book, it was kind of a head scratcher in a few ways. Other than showing how our notions of money, debt, and trade have changed over time – and disproving some long-held beliefs – it offered little in the way of enlightenment regarding how we should be dealing with things differently going forward. Of course, perhaps one shouldn’t expect much in this regard from a self-described anarchist. But it is a pretty good book.

[davelj]

Related, but off topic, “Asian Hooker” by (80s hair metal parody band) Steel Panther:

(Warning: extreme language and misogynistic lyrics… generally offensive)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqngrRBIpkw

These are the same guys that were in the Danger Kitty Discover Card commercial from many years back:

This is probably where I get banned from Piggington for extremely poor taste…

[davelj]

[quote=harvey]

Not just me – our society and every society that has evolved out of the dark ages, see sex as something “sacred.” That’s why rape and child pornography are treated as the most egregious crimes in our society. That’s why sex offenders are treated as a special class of criminals. That’s why there is so much debate about how and when we teach our children about sex.

Anything that involves the most intimate parts of a person’s body and that is hard-wired to our emotional state deserves special treatment. If we don’t consider sex to be “sacred,” then there would be no reason to consider rape as more serious than financial fraud or even burglary.

And these are the reasons why any attempt to equate sex as “just another recreational activity” or prostitution “as just another business activity” is completely flawed. Sex is different.[/quote]

I should have said just an activity “between adults” – my mistake for omitting that distinction. And recall… these are my opinions (as I’ve made clear). I realize that much of the rest of society won’t agree with me here and I’m perfectly ok with that.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]More statistics regarding fatherless homes:

The following statistics indicate how important it is for fathers to be an active participant in their children’s lives.

Fatherless children are 100-200% more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems according to the National Center on Health Statistics.
Fatherless sons are 300% more likely to be incarcerated in state juvenile institutions.
Fatherless daughters are 164% more likely to give birth to an illegitimate child.
71% of pregnant teens are from fatherless homes.
Fatherless daughters are 92% more likely to fail in their own marriages.
Fatherless men are 35% more likely to experience marital failure.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers are from fatherless homes.
Children from father absent homes make up 63% of youth suicides.
85% of children who exhibit anti-social behavior disorders are from fatherless homes.
72% of adolescent murderers grew up in fatherless homes.
Fatherless sons are more than twice as likely to engage in some kind of criminal activity.
Fatherless daughters are 53% more likely to get married in their teenage years.
Fatherless young adults are twice as likely to need psychological help.
More than 70% of all juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes.

http://jeffco.us/cse/cse_T86_R33.htm%5B/quote%5D

I wonder how much of this is about “not having a father around” and how much of it is “socioeconomic issues” that tend to arise when the father’s not around. In other words, I think that if you separate the “father” issue from the “economic” issue a reasonable portion – but not all – of these negative effects disappear. To be clear, I think that having both parents around is going to be better the vast majority of the time. But, I do think these stats are misleading without an overlay of economic issues.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey]Perhaps a more precise way to say it would be that you can’t “equate” them. [/quote]

Agreed, and then I un-equated (perhaps not a word) them to some extent with, “I agree with you that there are differences… just not as much as would appear on the surface.”

[quote=harvey]

Which you tried to do but didn’t make a compelling case. [/quote]

Perhaps an “in my opinion” or “in my view” should be added here? I assume you don’t feel you’re the last word on Everything.

[quote=harvey]
Your model for “Profile 1” one is absurdly oversimplified. [/quote]

You just described 99% of all internet posts in which a complex topic is being discussed. I apologize for not having the time to post a dissertation.

[quote=harvey]
The “we are all prostitutes” generalization is trite. Superficially it sorta makes sense but it’s pretty shallow and intellectually lazy.[/quote]

Yes, “in your opinion” (again)… I was unaware that you were the Arbiter of Shallow and Intellectual Laziness on the Internet. But your opinion is duly noted.

[quote=harvey]
A key word when discussing prostitution is “dignity” – sure it’s a subjective word, but it does have meaning and it does have value.

Although some jobs and roles in life have less dignity than others, it is universally accepted that prostitution is at the bottom of the scale – low enough that no one should have to do it simply because they have no alternative. We all do things we don’t like to make a living, but there is an ethical threshold that society must recognize. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but I know prostitution is on the other side of it. It certainly is not just another job.

We should not outlaw prostitution or condemn prostitutes, but we should strive for a world where nobody has to be a prostitute unless it is truly what they want to be.

Because being a prostitute is a helluva lot different than being a consultant, or a dishwasher, or a woman in a marriage that has grown apart after a decade or so.[/quote]

From what I can gather – if the internet is right on this statistic – prostitutes average about $45K-$50K annually in earnings. Obviously, there’s a wide variation – I’m sure there are some who make several hundred thousand dollars annually and others (the “crack whores” noted above) that make considerably less. That pay range happens to be about in the middle of all pay for all jobs in the US. So, clearly if one was willing to earn less at another job, one could do so. But most prostitutes (that aren’t trafficked slaves) apparently want to make more money (than the lower-paying job for which they’re qualified). Let me be clear – prostitution has gotta be pretty low on the “desirability” job scale – I won’t argue otherwise. But clearly for a lot of women the trade-off is more than worth it.

You speak of “dignity” and “universally accepted” notions of such. I don’t pay much attention to what’s “universally accepted” which is I think at the root of our differences. “Dignity” is what you make of it. Furthermore, in many ancient cultures prostitutes were held in high regard from a social standpoint (the so-called “sacred prostitute”). Clearly, religion and the passage of time have had their effect on such notions.

The root of the issue here is that lots of folks see “sex” as something “sacred” – even many of those folks who would support legalizing prostitution. I don’t. In my view, it’s just an activity that can be used for procreation, enjoyment, compensation, in combination with “love”, or whatever… nothing more. Which is why we’ll likely never see eye-to-eye on this issue. Which is ok.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey][quote=davelj]What’s the difference, really? [/quote]

Well, I’m sure there’s probably a lot more sex in profile #2.

But kidding aside, there’s some big holes in your example:

Woman #1 did love her husband once, enough to marry him and have children, even if the flame has gone out and they no longer “love” each other, there is still common goal of caring for the children.

Keeping the family together means a little more than just scraping up enough money to pay the grocery bills. If the relationship is still civil it could be much better for the kids well-being if the parents stay together. The “weekend dad” thing has its own host of problems.

Even though both women have “practical” motives, you really can’t compare a relationship between two people that once cared enough about each other to have a family together – even if they’ve grown apart – vs. hundreds of impersonal “relationships” that last less than an hour and are purely for the money.[/quote]

I can and did compare them. I agree with you that there are differences… just not as much as would appear on the surface.

My larger point is that we’re (almost) all “prostitutes” in the larger sense of the word. That is, 99% of us do (certain) things that we’d prefer not to do in exchange for “resources”. Prostitutes, business people, etc. etc… there’s always some aspect of exchanging labor we’d rather not do for resource. We all lie along a spectrum… and the positional difference between Profile 1 and 2 above isn’t that enormous in my book.

Personally, one of the main reasons that I work for myself is that I like to minimize the prostitution factor in my everyday life – but even in my situation it can’t be eliminated entirely.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey][quote=davelj]You use the word “definitely” and I’m not sure where your proof lies. This might be the case. And it might not. Frankly, I would like to think that it is. I just haven’t seen much evidence of it.[/quote]

You’re say you’re not sure there is evidence of correlation between parenting and a woman’s choices in relationships…

…on a thread about prostitution?

Let’s take a trip to the Bunny Ranch and chat with some of the gals. If you can find one girl who had a father even half as committed as flu, I’ll buy you an hour with her.[/quote]

I’m not sure that prostitution is more about socioeconomic background than anything else. (Although one could argue that not having a father around can lead to a bad socioeconomic situation… and then we’d be getting into issues of correlation versus causation.)

Allow me to make a crass comparison to raise a point.

Profile 1: Upper-middle class wife (whose parents remained married) who remains married to her husband (and the father of her children) – whom she doesn’t really like much anymore – only “to keep the family together” and maintain material comforts.

Profile 2: Woman from lower socioeconomic stratum (whose parents divorced) who has sex with men in exchange for the money she needs to live and take care of her kids.

What’s the difference, really? They’re both having sex with men they don’t love to maintain a standard of living for them and their kids. The first is legal; the second one’s not.

I’m just sayin’…

(I’ll pass on the Bunny Ranch but I appreciate the offer.)

[davelj]

[quote=Dr. Paul][quote=squat250]But that’s why marriage exists. To bind people together during years they don’t like each other.

I really wouldve thought sex robots wouldve been further along by now.[/quote]

I don’t know. have kids?

davelj…

[/quote]

I don’t know. I don’t know a lot about the history of marriage although there are some interesting theories on why polygny died out in certain parts of the world.

But I’d imagine kids is the best answer. Raising kids is undeniably easier with two folks involved (unless they’ve grown to truly dislike each other, that is). And the presence of kids certainly makes it much harder to leave a marriage if things aren’t going well otherwise.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey][quote=davelj]There are innumerable books and articles on the subject – “Why Women like Bad Boys,” etc etc etc. [/quote]

Yes, that is very strong evidence. There are a lot of books on the subject, so it must be true. There are also a lot of books about vampires these days.

Please re-read my posts and note that I haven’t attempted to define “dumbass guys” anywhere.

I’m really just not following your point, or understanding what prompted such harsh – and almost personal – words directed at flu.

It’s pretty clear that all flu was saying that if you raise your daughter with certain values they will have more wisdom in their choice of men. Of course he wasn’t claiming that there are absolute guarantees when it comes to raising children.
[/quote]
Allow me to quote flu’s post:

“It all has to do with self-esteem and self-respect. As my sibling put it, she didn’t need to hang out with ‘dumb people’.” (“dumbass guys” was referenced elsewhere.)

That message seems pretty absolute to me. But perhaps use of the word “all” was an oversimplification on his part.

[quote=harvey]

There is definitely a correlation between good/bad parenting and women who find themselves in good/bad relationships. Not a perfect correlation, but a strong one. You seem to be arguing fairly passionately – and cynically to the point of bitterness – that there is not.[/quote]

You use the word “definitely” and I’m not sure where your proof lies. This might be the case. And it might not. Frankly, I would like to think that it is. I just haven’t seen much evidence of it. I think “attraction” to a large extent lies outside of good/bad parenting. (But I’m happy to be proven wrong here – I have no children and no dog in this fight.)

This is slightly off-topic, but related. My understanding is that if one spouse comes from parents who divorced, the couple is twice as likely to divorce than if both spouses came from in-tact households. So, one could argue that parenting (and remaining married) impacts divorce statistics. But… how do we know that these people staying married are any happier than those that got divorced? Maybe they’re just staying together because of “parenting” and the notion that they’re “supposed” to stay together.

Again, perhaps parenting does positively impact “affairs of the heart”. I just haven’t seen much evidence of it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not the case.

But I don’t think that using words like “definitely” and “all” bolster anyone’s case without proof to back up use of these absolutes.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey]I won’t bother commenting on your attitude towards women and parenting.

I think your words say it all already.
[/quote]

That’s a cop out. Tell me what my “attitude” is towards women. All I’ve said is that a lot of women are attracted to what FLU (and apparently YOU) define as “dumbass guys”. There are innumerable books and articles on the subject – “Why Women like Bad Boys,” etc etc etc. So, I’m curious as to what providing a blinding glimpse of the obvious says about my “attitude” towards women. So, go ask the (largely female) authors of all of those articles and books what their “attitude” is towards women and then get back to me.

[quote=harvey]
You do have an interesting definition of “dirtbag” though.

Bill Clinton?[/quote]

Again, “dirtbag”, “dumbass”, etc… these are apparently how you define a certain group of men. Personally, I don’t define “dirtbags” in terms of how they might treat women (exception noted below) – different strokes for different folks, and all – but rather how they perform in a business context. But that’s just me.

Although, an exception. DSK is a dirtbag from what I can tell. If you’re forcing yourself on women or harming them physically – I don’t care if you’re paying them – you are a dirtbag, plain and simple.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey]

Wow.

Please tell me that you don’t have children.

[/quote]

You got that right. And the vasclip should keep things that way.

[quote=harvey]

So a few weak examples proves that parents can have no influence on the outcome of their children’s lives?
[/quote]

Although these examples are “few” (sorry I didn’t have time to list into the hundreds), I’ll assume you deem them “weak” because they conflict with how you want the world to work.

This is not to suggest that “parents can have no influence on the outcome of their children’s lives.” That’s a straw man argument – you said it, not me.

[quote=harvey]
I’ll bet I could find a few examples of people that received incompetent medical care in Mexico. More than a few.[/quote]

I’m sure you could. And I’m equally sure it would have no bearing on the prior point I made.

Think about things in two different ways. First, think of all of the “dumbass guys” out there (to use flu’s words) and the women that are attracted to them. Are they all women that didn’t come from a background surrounded by high achievers, etc etc? Of course not. Second, look at these “high achieving” women and the guys they date and marry. Face it… a lot of them are “dumbass guys” (as described).

This notion that, “If I raise my daughter ‘correctly’ and she’s a high achiever then she won’t end up with a ‘dumbass guy'” defies real world observation. That doesn’t, however, mean that one shouldn’t strive to raise one’s daughter “correctly” (whatever that means). Just don’t get your hopes too high when it comes to their choosing mates.

[davelj]

[quote=flu]

My sibling is a well decorated financial exec. Her husband is a great man. She never fell for a dumbass guy.
[/quote]

There are no great men; only great reputations waiting to be tarnished. The evidence is voluminous.

[quote=flu]

Growing up, it had a lot to do with the peers and surroundings…Needless to say, being surrounded by high achieving people had a lot to do with it. It all has to do with self-esteem and self-respect. As my sibling put it, she didn’t need to hang out with “dumb people”.

My observation was the girls/women that ended up being screwed up and looking to marry dirtbags early were the ones that were missing a father figures, had serious trama somepoint in their life with a male figure, or ones that were alone with no siblings, and or were living in a unbearable-ultimately repressive/strict environment (ones with a lot of rules, formalities,etc)……Those girls/women had serious self-esteem/emotional issues…Easy prey for piggish men. But that how this world works…In just about everything….So, make sure don’t fvckup your daugther’s life.
[/quote]

This is magical thinking of the highest order.

Did the following women grow up with a lack of high achievers in their midst (or self-esteem issues):

Maria Shriver
Hillary Clinton
Ann Sinclair (DSK’s wife)
Silda Wall (Spitzer’s wife)
And so on and so on…

You seem to believe that you can create an environment in which your daughter will be unlikely to hook up with “dirtbags”… and this environment doesn’t exist. You’re suffering from endowment effect… you think your daughter’s life will be “special” because she’s your daughter, but the reality is… that women – of all walks of life and backgrounds – like dirtbags. Your attempt to convince yourself otherwise is nothing more than a coping mechanism.

[davelj]

[quote=flu]You know. People like to focus on on the success stories. But reality is we never hear about the countless failures. Because, well they failed.[/quote]

This is what all of these real estate investment program scams are built on. They cherry pick the winners as examples of what everyone should be doing when, in fact, these are the handful of successful folks following their program. The “countless failures” remain conveniently outside of the camera’s view.

Likewise, it’s why everyone should be very suspicious of books by successful people who basically say, “This is how I did it – You can too!” They’ve bought into their own success story, after all. Most would be better off reading a book called, “The 100 Ways I Failed” and learning from that before accelerating off into the sunset looking for “success”.

[davelj]

Possibly dumb question: What about Kindle (or other e-reader) purchases? Are they being taxed at all? Will they be subject to state taxes based on the registered residence of the user? We’re not paying taxes on i-tune downloads, right?

It seems like anything that can be downloaded to a device online – music, books, films, etc. – are going to be very hard to tax at the state level, or maybe I’m missing something.

[davelj]

[quote=pri_dk]

[quote=davelj]it’s pretty clear to me (at least) that our system is rigged to perpetuate the ultra-wealthy[/quote]

Although I agree it would seem this way lately, there is some pretty basic evidence to the contrary:

Look at the list of the 20 or so richest people in the US and notice most of them are first-generation wealth. And most of the rest are second-generation.[/quote]

Yes, but I virtually guarantee you that the families of “this top 20” or so will remain in that top 1% – if not near the very top of the pyramid – for many generations.

For example, none of the Rockefellers are in the top few-hundred richest folks in the U.S. anymore, but hundreds of them have net worths north of $10 million and thus remain among the ranks of the quite wealthy (in relative terms). (A friend of mine is a multi-generation removed heir to the Vanderbilt/Whitney fortune – he’s quite wealthy despite not having accomplished a great deal commercially, although he’s a very smart, personable guy.)

Whether you have $20 billion or $20 million you remain in rarefied air from a socioeconomic standpoint.

[Author]

Posts