A common criticism gainst economics is that it uses incomprehensible math language to describe itself, as if that’s the true reason a bunch o’ rich academics prefer philosophies that benefit rich academics. ‘Cause we know from the Tea Party Movement that plain ( AKA sloppy ) language ne’er leads to sloppy economics ( i.e. economics I don’t believe in ).

Mo’ wary economists acknowledge that math language isn’t necessary for economics, but has 2 benefits:

• It’s mo’ rigorous than plain language, & thus harder to make invalid statements ( though it’s still possible — not to mention that this does nothing to protect gainst inaccuracy ).

• Economists being, well, economists, can understand it better than your human language with all its gooey emotions.

There’s something to say ’bout the 1st point. Austrian-schoolers famously claim that math language isn’t necessary ( though can’t argue why it’s necessary not to have it ), & then hurt their cause by having a much sloppier logical system¹ with vague language, logical jumps, & outright inaccuracies ( despite Mises’s claim that praxeology only makes abstract logical statements )².

So I’m recommending a different solution: replace math language with programming language. Economists can’t claim the 1st point gainst this solution: the fact that computers can run off programming language is proof that it’s mathematically rigorous. But I’d also argue that it’s much mo’ readable than math language, if done right.

Indeed, unlike math, programmers take the readability o’ code very seriously. This is ’cause o’ a fact ’bout programming that most people probably don’t realize: that it’s aimed @ writing for humans, not computers. This makes sense: programmers rather quickly realized that they can create computer programs — “compilers” or “interpreters”, depending on how it’s used — that can translate text into machine code.

Now, this obviously has limits.³ ‘Cause human languages are vague, plain English can’t be used; but different languages heavily inspired by English can be used, albeit with much stricter grammar & diction rules than human languages.

Keynes.js

I’ll use Keynes’s General Theory as an example, since ’twas what 1st inspired this view. Keynes, like any economist, loves incoherent math formulae. I’ll go through its primary flaw: wording.

Calculus has this odd pattern o’ using single letters, or e’en Greek letters, to represent concepts & values & a letter plus a letter in parentheses afterward to represent functions. This has greater advantages than being incomprehensible to anyone who doesn’t memorize them: they’re also super hard to position & configure on computers. ¿Isn’t smothering characters in some big E with angled ends — called “Sigma E” — much mo’ elegant than boring ol’ “function SumOFunctionOutputsFromInputInterval( first_number, last_number, function )”.⁴

It’d be nonsense to argue that economists can’t use words ’cause they’re too vague, but that they can use just letters & symbols, which are e’en less meaningful. The fact that computers can run logically-consistent programs with words proves that economics can, too, so long as it uses these words as precisely & consistently as programs.

The trick is to set off variable names ( function names should already be easy to distinguish from plain English ), — maybe bold them — define them precisely when 1st using them ( in programming, we call this “initialization” ), & ne’er use them for anything else. Don’t use them in the description text @ all; treat doing so as trying to create ‘nother variable with the same name, which would create a compilation error.⁵

To give an example, let’s take the formula from the beginning o’ Book III o’ General Theory:

C_w = χ(Y_w) or C = W * χ(Y_w)

I want to point out that this formatting in my copy is so bad that I’m not e’en sure if I got this formula accurate. I’m not sure if that asterisk is s’posed to be there or if it’s some obscure math meaning ( using the same symbol for different functions is less common in math than one might expect from such a rigorous science ) or if it’s just a printer smudge. It’s slightly off-center, which is suspicious. Also, Keynes just mashes “I can’t believe it’s not χ” & the parenthetic expression next to it to form multiplication earlier, ¿so why not just mash W & χ together?

Basically, I’m going to want to append this image next to Keynes’s formula:

Yeah, this is called a “coding horror”. If you click that link you may see an article that proves that, though economists should talk like programmers, programmers probably shouldn’t talk ’bout politics, ’cause they might look silly ( yes, I could totally imagine a programmer with no experience in politics winning a local election based purely on his disgust with the current president — as if that’s a rare commodity — & his inability to tell that election system from Stack Overflow )⁶. Anyway, this icon is actually from a book called Code Complete, by some other guy & is used to set out particular awful pieces o’ coding, much as blogs set out particularly awful wording with bold. I’d recommend reading that book, since it talks ’bout the comprehensibility issues I’m talking ’bout in greater depth. I’d recommend Clean Code & Cleaner Code e’en mo’.

Anyway, let’s make this fomula not suck:

Let’s start by noticing that these 2 formulae are probably the same, ‘cept spelled-out in needlessly opaque ways. C_w is “consumption based on `wage units'” Let’s ignore that the “propensity for consumption” is apparently based mainly on lowly wages & just focus on translating. C is just “consumption”, & is = to the same thing, but multiplied by uppercase W. If one reads “The Choice of Units”, which I don’t recommend, one will learn that W is — surprise — “wage units”, which I believe is the average wage money per worker. ( I just know it’s some form o’ “wages” / some # o’ workers. Keynes is terrible @ specifying domains, but common sense tells me he’s talking ’bout a country’s economy. Since none o’ this is backed by any evidence or data, it doesn’t matter anyway. It could apply to the Gusty Glade Galaxy for all we care. ) So… basic math tells us that C_w = C/W. So, C_w must be average consumption per average wage.

Thus we have our 2 functions:

function AverageConsumptionPerAverageWages( χ, Yw )

function TotalConsumption( average_wage, χ, Yw )

Already, things are looking much mo’ coherent.

Thankfully, these 2 functions share the same 2 variables. As it turns out, I realized that these weren’t 2 variables being multipled together, but 1 other function with Y_w as an argument. These are the kind o’ parsing errors you still have to look out for in programming. For instance, in C++, it’s still possible for a compiler to mistake the initialization o’ a variable through parentheses with the initialization o’ a function.

So… ¿I guess C_w & C are variables to functions? Good thing that works perfectly for JavaScript:

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( Y_w ) {};

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, Y_w ) {};

Let’s just appreciate how much easier it is to understand the word “function” o’er a cheap knock-off version o’ the letter “χ”.

Now we just need to figure out Y_w. I’ve figured it out: it’s “income in terms o’ wage units”, which is a weird way o’ saying “income per wage unit”, which is a weird way o’ saying “income per average wage”.

Thus, now we have:

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( income_per_average_wage ) {};

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, income_per_average_wage ) {};

Note that average_wage & income_per_average_wage could be described as functions, too:

var AverageWage = function( total_wages, total_number_of_employees) {};

var IncomePerAverageWage = function( total_income, AverageWage ) {};

Now, we still need to define the implementation o’ these functions. We already know AverageWage & can easily discern IncomePerAverageWage through that:

var AverageWage = function( total_wages, total_number_of_employees )
{
    return total_wages / total_number_of_employees;
};

var IncomePerAverageWage = function( total_income, average_wage )
{
    return total_income / average_wage;
};

Thus, we’d call IncomePerAverageWage thus:

var income_per_average_wage = IncomePerAverageWage( total_income, AverageWage( total_wages, total_number_of_employees ) );

In contradiction to my core claim in this article, there’s a difference ‘tween total_income in this function call & in the function definition earlier. In programming, this is known as “scope” ( sort o’ like my namespace point made in a footnote down below ). The total_income in the function definition only exists for the duration o’ that function call & is set to whatever is pushed to it through this call. This call, meanwhile, references a specific variable whose scope we’ll deal with later.

Anyway, we have 2 mo’ functions to define:

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( income_per_average_wage )
{
    return income_per_average_wage;
};

‘Course, this 1 is pointlessly redundant ( & a wrong assumption ).

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, income_per_average_wage )
{
    return average_wage * income_per_average_wage;
};

Interestingly, we could redefine AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage in a ( slightly ) mo’ meaningful way.

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( total_consumption, average_wage )
{
    return total_consumption / average_wage;
};

‘Course, comparing these 2 functions & understanding basic math will allow one to see that total_consumption / average_wage will inevitably = income_per_average_wage — which is, ‘course, the whole point ( mo’ on this later ). That average_consumption isn’t a particularly meaningful value — better median_consumption — is beyond our scope.

Here we can see all the pieces together:

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, income_per_average_wage )
{
    return average_wage * income_per_average_wage;
};

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( total_consumption, average_wage )
{
    return total_consumption / average_wage;
};

var AverageWage = function( total_wages, total_number_of_employees )
{
    return total_wages / total_number_of_employees;
};

var IncomePerAverageWage = function( total_income, average_wage )
{
    return total_income / average_wage;
};

var total_income = 16770; // In billions. // These 2 must be
var total_wages = 157.5; // In billions. // in the same unit.
var total_number_of_employees; = 124.73    // In millions.

var average_wage = AverageWage( total_wages, total_number_of_employees );
var income_per_average_wage = IncomePerAverageWage( total_income, average_wage );

var total_consumption = TotalConsumption( average_wage, income_per_average_wage );

console.log( total_consumption ); // Prints 16770 to browser debug console.

Mo’ Fun

You’ve probably noticed by reading the comment after the final statement or running this code yourself ( you can make the debug console pop up in most browsers by pressing F12 ) that total_consumption = total_income. While just following the logic o’ the functions & understanding basic math shows this, familiarity with economics & basic pattern-recognition was mo’ an asset.

But with programming languages, we have 1 tool we can use to test this a lot: conditionals.

To simplify, let’s wrap up the code outside o’ functions in the previous program into 1 big function & have it return a value:

var TotalConsumptionFromIncomeWagesAndEmployees = function( total_income, total_wages, total_number_of_employees )
{
    var average_wage = AverageWage( total_wages, total_number_of_employees );
    var income_per_average_wage = IncomePerAverageWage( total_income, average_wage );

    return TotalConsumption( average_wage, income_per_average_wage );
};

This’ll abstract ‘way all these connections so we don’t have to go through them ‘gain.

Let’s add 2 mo’ functions. The 1st is a simple helper function:

var RandomNumber = function()
{
    var MAX = 99999999999999;
    return ( Math.random() * MAX );
};

JavaScript’s built-in random function is odd: it returns a random # ‘tween 0 & 1. This function increases that to 99.9… trillion.

The next function is the main focus o’ this program:

var TestThatConsumptionEqualsIncome = function( iterations )
{
    var total_income;
    var total_wages;
    var total_number_of_employees;
    var total_consumption;
    
    var consistent = true;

    if ( isNaN( iterations ) ) // isNaN: Not a #
    {
        iterations = 999; // Default
    }
    
for ( var i = 0; i < iterations; i++ )
{
    total_income = RandomNumber();
    total_wages = RandomNumber();
    total_number_of_employees = RandomNumber();
    
    total_consumption = TotalConsumptionFromIncomeWagesAndEmployees
    (
        total_income,
        total_wages,
        total_number_of_employees
    );
        
    if ( total_consumption != total_income )
    {
        consistent = false;
    }
}
    if ( consistent )
    {
        console.log( “¡Our math formulae are pure!” );
    }
    else
    {
        console.log( “¡Economics is a failure! ¡Abort!” );
        SmashCapitalism();
    }
};

1 major flaw o’ JavaScript is its lack o’ argument defaults ( values that the argument becomes if nothing is sent to the function in its place ). This is bewildering, since just ’bout every language has them, including the languages that were JavaScript’s main inspiration.

In this case, the need to manually check for a given argument isn’t too bad, since we need to ensure that it’s a #, anyway — which can’t be done automatically without static typing.

Anyway, now we just need 1 statement @ the end:

TestThatConsumptionEqualsIncome();

Run & let’s see the magic:

…

…

Math is a lie.

( Also, Firefox shows a hilarious depth o’ social knowledge with that line, “ReferenceError: SmashCapitalism is not defined”. )

All right, calm down. I tested this program a bit & realized that a’least 1 kind o’ math is a lie: floating-point #s. Try to ne’er use floating-point #s if you can; they can’t seem to understand such obscure, arcane concepts o’ equality. Looking @ the values gotten, total_consumption & total_income vary by .00000000001 or so. But e’en if they didn’t, they could fail equality, ’cause floating-point #s. This is the case wherein JavaScript’s loose typing is a pain — just like how I have to be careful doing math in Python so it doesn’t try to trick me into thinking 8 / 5 = 1. In C++ or Java I wouldn’t have this problem, ’cause they demand you specify the type. Then ‘gain, C++ also automatically converts types without you knowing, so it kind o’ sucks, too.

The problem is, trying to fix this is mo’ complicated than just wrapping Math.round() round every division. In my tests, ’twas strikingly common for these divisions to give 0 values ( which makes sense, since it’ll be common for the values to be close ‘nough that division would give some value below .5 ) & when a # was divided by 0, which every mathematician knows is kosher, it gives “Infinity”. & when that’s multiplied, we get “NaN”. In that case, we’re guaranteed to get an economic disaster, since NaN isn’t equal to anything — e’en itself. Now, this is what I call a well-designed programming language.

Obviously I can’t just do bounds-fixing for 0, since that would change data, which could cause values to go out o’ sync & cause the same capitalism-destroying problem. Also, fixing our “model” by just “fixing” the data is both hilariously wrong & yet hilariously right for an economist.

Thankfully, I have a much mo’ elegant way to move the goalposts — 1 that’s, if I say so myself, much saner: we’ll just change the definition o’ “=”:

var AbsoluteDifference = function( one, two )
{
    return Math.abs( one – two );
};

var CloseNough = function( one, two )
{
    // I said, “¡Hey! ¿Are we doing government work here?”
    return AbsoluteDifference( one, two ) < 1;
};

By the way, if you e’er hope to get a job programming, I highly recommend you fill your functions with silly comments that reference songs & memes & stuff. I can guarantee your boss’ll think you have the utmost professionalism.

Interestingly, the new ES6 standard apparently has some Number.EPSILON variable that is s’posed to be used for comparing floating-points, rather than using a better # system. ‘Cept, that # doesn’t seem to work with my program ( probably ’cause o’ all the divisions that lead to further impurities ).

& now we change change the conditional statement:

if ( !CloseNough( total_income, total_consumption ) )
{
    consistent = false;
}

Let’s see how it works now:

( Holds breath ).

¡Capitalism is saved!

¿Why’d I waste my time on this horse-piss ‘gain?

It’s ironic that Our Grand Lord Keynes has the gall ( & silliness ) to rave ’bout the “the horde of deranged, lying liberal and leftist media” like the conspiracy theorist he is when he himself is conspicuously silent ’bout Hairpiece’s proposal to increase military spending, despite LK praising Hairpiece for being s’posedly anti-militaristic, unlike the vile harpy Clinton, nor any talk o’ Hairpiece dismantling Obamacare & making it harder for poorer people to afford health care, despite his praise for Hairpiece s’posedly once supporting single-payer health care. Indeed, e’en in that article where he talks ’bout the mo’ pressing issue o’ the brown peoples raping our precious white women, he ignores Sweden’s point ’bout Florida being much mo’ violent than Sweden.

Then ‘gain, we could chock all o’ this inconvenient evidence as just being a conspiracy o’ the “lying leftist” media. ¡How much mo’ convenient it is to be sure o’ one’s arbitrary beliefs when one can just unconditionally cut out evidence that doesn’t fit our conclusions just by labeling it “leftist” & calling it “lies,” without any evidence.

Also, a digression, but I’m getting kind o’ annoyed @ the double standard people apply to the lord & savior o’ milquetoast liberals who want to fashion themselves as “rebellious” by tipping their tobacco pipes toward obscure econonobabble that nobody cares ’bout, Steve Keen. Everyone praises him for predicting the 2008 economic collapse, despite everyone who wasn’t in denial being able to, but don’t mention him being consistently wrong ’bout some imagined upcoming collapse. ¿Remember when he said economic collapse was coming in 2016? Well, it didn’t come close, but it’s totally gonna happen, just wait. ( Then ‘gain, considering the clod we have as president now, maybe that’ll be true in the US. ) ¿Isn’t this what people mock crazy Marxists for? They constantly predict that capitalism will collapse, ¡& then 1 day out o’ thousands something disastrous happens! ¡That’s proof that it’s inevitable! It seems that Keen can “win” simply by always predicting trouble & then point @ the rare times he’s right as evidence, conveniently ignoring all the times he’s wrong.

But, see, his are based on made-up assumptions that Keynes made, rather than made-up assumptions that Marx or Friedman, so it’s OK. Ne’er mind the ridiculous assumptions Keynes made. For instance, in General Theory, Keynes bizarrely argues that higher unemployment leads to higher real wages ’cause o’ “the increasing marginal return to a given capital equipment when output is diminished” [ p. 10 ], which is technobabble for “let’s assume that greater efficiency leads to lower prices ’cause o’ simplistic supply-&-demand that doesn’t apply to the real world.

Hilariously, just before this, Keynes writes, “It would be interesting to see the results of a statistical enquiry into the actual relationship between changes in money-wages and changes in real wages.” Yes, ‘twould be interesting to see someone back up their bizarrely counter-intuitive assumptions on actual data. Maybe next century.

Now, see, if Keynes were a “neoclassical”, we would rightfully criticize him for his simplistic assumptions & silly simple math games to prove arbitrary, tautological points. But Keynes is a “genius”, so it’s OK for him to be tautological & apply made-up assumptions.

But a’least Grampa Keen wore his best Hell’s Angels leather jacket for his patreon video. I hear if you donate a’least $50 Australian you get access to a video o’ him holding up “the horns”, as they call it in the down under the sickness, & croon out a wicked rendition o’ “Welcome to the Jungle.”

Also, ¿why still no mention o’ Keen’s best theory: the “Solar Theory o’ Value”?

Out o’ all the superstitious political ideas that still have power, probably the only 1 dumber than laissez-faire is nationalism, ’specially “left-wing” nationalism. Thus it’s with deep misgivings that I see inane laissy libertarianism be surpassed by an e’en dumber ideology. That this ideology’s primary defense is simply to assert that it’s the only thing that’s “practical,” despite no evidence, other than simply arguing that it’s starting to happen now, which is simply appeal to the status-quo, as if we should just blindly accept any patterns that are happening now, as well as making the guilty-by-association argument that anyone who dares to be skeptical o’ a “pro-working-class” ideology that claims to benefit 17% o’ the working-class by screwing o’er the world majority o’ working-class people are just like laissez-faire libertarianism only reveals the intellectual bankruptcy o’ such “nationalist socialism.”

There’s nothing mo’ hypocritical than people who claim to support egalitarianism—so long as it applies to one’s narrow country—but reject international egalitarianism based on arguments logically equivalent to those used by economic elites to defend inequality. There’s nothing mo’ hypocritical than working-class people who criticize the 1% for monopolizing the means o’ production & pushing them out while trying to monopolize the means o’ production for their nation ’way from working-class people o’ other countries. Such people are not trying to make the world mo’ “fair”; they’re simply trying to join in on the corruption themselves by finding an e’en lower class to exploit. It’s not an attack gainst neoliberalism @ all, but simply a further extension o’ its race to the bottom.

There’s a reason ol’ socialists opposed nationalism: “nations” are a concept logically equivalent to private property. Indeed, they are literally private property, held privately by a narrow group based on a convoluted mess o’ inconsistent rationales mostly influenced by tradition. Tripe like “Europe for Europeans,” based on the argument that they are the “rightful” owners, due purely to tradition, is as irrational as the idea that someone is objectively the rightful owner o’ whatever they own, simply ’cause they already have it, without any question o’ the historical complications that led such a distribution to happen. It’s self-perpetuating circular logic, & therefore irrational.

In essence, it is aristocracy. Natural-born citizens o’ a nation are said to deserve their wealth simply ’cause they’re born inheritors, regardless o’ what they themselves have done themselves. Indeed, if anything, it’s mo’ likely that immigrants are deserving than natural-born: to immigrate into the US either requires that the official immigration rules determined one to be competitively skilled gainst the other immigrants trying to come in or that one is skillful @ sneaking past national boundaries, which certainly requires some craftiness. Natural-born Americans could be the laziest, most useless waste o’ oxygen in the world & still be given what immigrants actually have to earn, much as those born rich can be lazy wastes o’ oxygen to earn what those born poor must earn.

Which is, to say, that “natioanlist socialism” is simply capitalism: it’s the use o’ political power to keep property in the hands o’ the few based purely on tradition & the status-quo.

Similarly, the concept o’ “national democracy” is hypocritical. “Democracy ’mong a certain select elite” is typically considered oligarchy when it happens within a nation; ¿why should that be different when treating the world as a whole? Europe & North America (excluding Mexico—though I could include them & the point would still keep) only make up ’bout 17% o’ the population—not quite “the 1%,” but still a considerable minority. To argue that they should determine the power & economic distribution o’ the world—e’en if that’s just to perpetuate arbitrary tradition—is international oligarchy; & anyone who supports this but pretends to support democracy should be laughed right into their inane faces. Thus, logically, the only coherent form o’ “democracy” that could exist would be an international one. Otherwise, we’d have to count tiny oligarchies—that, nonetheless, are democratic within their tiny group—controlling others to be “democratic.”

Economically, nationalism falls under the same problem as “laissez-faire”: before you can leave people to control their own things themselves, you have to determine who has the right to control what, a social issue that could include any sapient human—since any human or combination o’ humans could or could not be a candidate for control. To argue that “Europeans” should decide “Europe’s” economics relies on a nonarbitrary (thus, nontraditional) means o’ determining who counts as “European” & who not & what property belongs within “Europe” & which doesn’t; & anyone who thinks that means that have currently decided that were rational is clearly irrational. E’en “culture,” which is nothing mo’ than a collection o’ traditions, falls under the same—as if some omniscient deity decided that the Latin language should split into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, & French the way it did.

(To be fair, this applies in the other direction, too: it’s irrational to argue, for instance, that a “Middle-Eastern” man has mo’ right to say what a “Middle-Eastern” woman can or cannot do simply ’cause they reside in the same historically-decided—& largely European-decided, to boot—plot o’ land & ’cause there happen to be some specific traditions historically associated with those lands.)

The rhetoric o’ class conflict used by “nationalist socialists” is also hypocritical, & ironically similar to the narrow economic-only definition Feminists & Friends™ criticized Marxists for, despite “nationalist socialists” usually being anti-Marxist. They, rightfully, treat the conflict caused by economic equality as something that realistically must be dealt with & can’t be ignored, but act as if the immigration issue can just be brushed out o’ the west. They argue that right-wing violence in the west is caused by economic resentment, & thus that further stepping down on poor Westerners will only cause them to become e’en mo’ extreme, but don’t see the connection ’tween economic problems in the Middle East & Islamic Fundamentalism. There’s something arbitrary ’bout humanizing right-wing Westerners with giving them the sympathetic portrayal o’ psychological problems caused by economic hardship, but portraying Islamic Fundamentalists as just brain-dead robots who are hypnotized by the words o’ the Quran. (The blatant hypocrisy o’ these Fundamentalists’ most famous leaders doesn’t make them question this. ¿Remember that supposedly raving hater o’ the west Osama Bin Laden’s love o’ Pepsi? ¿Remember how ridiculously rich he was & how he lived in a huge mansion? Now, I wonder why such a rich person would’ve wanted the poor mass public to focus on religion & being gainst the west & not focusing on other reasons for their poverty… Hmm…)

’Course, pointing out this peculiar inconsistency gets one labeled a “SJW” or “politically correct,” which… doesn’t mean anything. “¡O, no! ¡They have our true name! ¡According to Ursula K. Le Guin, (who knows a lot ’bout ‘political correctness’) that means they can control us!” Furthermo’, arguing that economic issues might influence Islamic Fundamentalism is apparently paramount to arguing that Islam has no affect on Middle Eastern right-wing extremism, which is insane, ’cause… ’cause some people just say it is, that’s why. Either way, both can’t be key influences, or the economic influence can’t just be greater, not the whole, ’cause, duh, nuance doesn’t exist.

From an intellectual point, I’m less disheartened by some o’ the people who fall into this, since there’s always been that ignorant & assholish faction. I’m mo’ embarrassed by the rise o’ hipster “very serious” pundits who fall into this in the name o’ “practicality.” ’Cause nothing’s mo’ practical than electing a 4-times business failure who had to whore himself out as a living cartoon like Paris Hilton¹ to enrich himself & has no political experience @ all. Watching these pundits is like watching someone talk seriously ’bout their imagined acumen while shitting their pants—it’s just comical.

TLDR: 2017 headline: The Western World: O, How the Mighty Have Fallen.

&, yes, I’m ’ware o’ the infamously unsavory word associated with “Nationalist Socialist.” Don’t blame me: they’re the ones who emphasize nationalism & socialism together. Those in a society full o’ people too dumb to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Let the value o’ mockery for any individual V be the function f( I_I, I_R ) based on the individual’s opinion o’ his own intelligence, I_I, & the individual’s actual intelligence, I_R:

f( I_I, I_R ) = I_I / I_R

For example, economists, who are deluded into thinking that replacing words with math symbols makes them smarter, have a huge opinion o’ their own intelligence, as compared to their low level, & thus the value o’ mocking them is high.

We can prove this point by assuming manufactured #s. Let I_I = 100,000 & I_R = 10:

f( I_I, I_R ) = 100,000 / 10
f( I_I, I_R ) = 10,000

Contrast this with a filthy hobo who has been taught that she’s a brainfuck who will ne’er e’en figure out how to read & should probably stick lit dynamite in her throat, but secretly knows 20 programming languages—including Haskell & Brainfuck.

Let’s assume she has an I_I o’ 5 & an I_R o’ 200:

f( I_I, I_R ) = 5 / 200
f( I_I, I_R ) = 1/40
f( I_I, I_R ) = .025

In such case, mockery would not be funny, but would be cruel & frivolous, as this person has probably blown up her intestines already, anyway, so the work o’ inducing suicide is no longer necessary.

We can represent this cycle thusly:

M → G → M

M can stand for either “money” or “market.” Market is perhaps mo’ accurate, since the “M” could potentially represent goods–any form o’ property power. G stands for government policy.

The way this cycle works is simple: with economic advantages will inevitably come political advantages. E’en if we don’t include outright campaign contributions, the fact that the means o’ communication is primarily privately owned means that mo’ wealth means better access to that means o’ communication–& we can’t seriously deny that the means o’ communication influence public electoral choices–or any other behavior that affects the political system in some way. “Think tanks” are probably the most prominent way.

Now, in any case wherein you have income inequality, you will have someone with mo’ M to affect G, & will almost certainly have some way to improve their M through G (e’en if just outright income redistribution from those with less M sway on G to resist it).

That this cycle begins & ends with M, & not G, is notable. After all, the primary goal is to get mo’ wealth; thus, this is not only the end point, the end goal, but also the start as the point o’ inspiration.

This leads to an important stresspoint: “corrupt capitalism,” as laissy libs call it to distinguish it from the pure laissez-faire capitalism that exists purely in their fantasies, originates not from corrupt government that infects some otherwise pure market, but from the market itself–the urgent competition for profits that pushes people into using all the tools they can to win, or else lose to someone who is willing to use all the tools. Much as entrepreneurs that superstitiously refuse to use cost-effective measures will only limit themselves under those that don’t, entrepreneurs that refuse to use the potent tool o’ government force are only disadvantaging themselves gainst those who do.

Thus, it can be no surprise that corporations operate on this practical necessity o’ competition, rather than the fairy tales o’ laissy libs–for example, the Koch Bros., who, despite their regurgitated antitax bullshit have no problem supporting taxes gainst green energy, their competitors.

Then ‘gain, ¿why criticize them for hypocrisy? Considering the added flexibility o’ being able to act gainst principles they spew simply to improve their own image when it’s convenient for them in contrast to those who lose profitable opportunities for the empty, abstract “gain” o’ consistency, it would seem that hypocrisy should be a competitively advantageous tool, too.

For those, such as Lord Keynes, some o’ the commenters @ Naked Capitalism, or other dumb “rural progressives” who think that the victory o’ a corrupt billionaire as president is somehow a case o’ the will o’ working-class whites¹, simply ’cause most other billionaires were too embarrassed to be associated with Hairpiece to have him be the face o’ their interests, one must remember that all exit polls show that lowerclass people preferred Clinton.

But then, the arguments for Hairpiece’s s’posed representation for the lowerclass are based on the same infuriatingly insulting stereotypes as right-wingers have oft given. ‘Cept this time leftists like Naked Capitalism are spewing it:

(“Less educated” is a proxy, for “working class.”)

As opposed to non-working classes like him who can’t be bothered to so much as mention any o’ the easily-found counter-evidence–which is much mo’ objective than the admittedly relevant rise o’ white deaths (though this may have been exaggerated) & the looser connection o’ “people [who] are most concerned about what the future will mean for their jobs, even if those aren’t the places where economic conditions are worst today. [Emphasis mine.]” He did, however, have time to scrounge together some less relevant hit piece gainst Hairpiece supporters as a strawman argument, since we can see that Naked Capitalism is a shining example o’ intellectual honesty.

& when you consider how much she was hated by anyone who wasn’t connected to her or a blindly obedient liberal, that’s telling. & ’course, it’s obvious to everyone that Hairpiece lost the popular vote, which should debunk the idea that Hairpiece was anything close to a case o’ popular will. But then for all their talk o’ being gainst the “elite” (while hypocritically trying to aristocratically keep people from the same opportunities they have simply ’cause they were born gainst their will with the need to actually work to get those opportunities), these Hairpiece Liberals are generally quite conservative in their views o’ the election system, preferring to settle with its current nonsense with the electoral college² & what’s practical (accepting the same ol’, same ol’, essentially) than actually trying to devise a way to fix things ’cause they’re mentally lazy.

So, basically, this is ’nother W. Bush election, people. We shouldn’t be this surprised. Indeed, I couldn’t help noticing that the high-strung left-wing reaction is just like what was given to W. Bush’s election. They couldn’t believe such an idiotic fascist—¿remember when everyone thought Bush would be the next Hitler?—would be elected into power. Hairpiece is hardly any different. I think it’s mo’ that we thought things had changed since then; I think it’s less that the idiots who voted for Bush became mo’ intelligent & mo’ that they had been rather demoralized & in a state o’ confusion after Bush made the entire right-wing look like a joke, but then became mo’ moralized when they could be deluded into thinking this shallow rich billionaire was somehow different ’cause he verbally attacked weaker classes in some Orwellian concept o’ “anti-elitism.” But then, this Orwellian kind o’ “anti-elitism” existed long before anyone cared ’bout Hairpiece. It’s the same inane shit: he’s the President moronic wastes o’ oxygen can have a beer with, ’cause they have nothing mo’ important in their shallow lives. Clinton could be compared with Al Gore & Kerry in that nobody liked either o’ them, either.

I know some gullible Hairpiece lovers—’specially Lord Keynes—would tell me that I’m “crazy” to compare a known flip-flopper who gave half-assed promises ’bout protectionism to Bush II, despite this same flip-flopper getting buddy-buddy with laissy libertarian bozo Paul Ryan. But remember, folks, this is the working-class, anti-neoliberal hero, all ’cause he says he’s gainst immigration. Forget Obamacare, which Hairpiece’s promises to cut back, or his attack on welfare, despite being a “welfare king” himself. But, ’gain: anti-neoliberal hero.

If this all sounds familiar, it’s ’cause it’s just like W. Bush. O, & Bush supported protectionism, too. He was also the 1st 1 to come up with the idea o’ building a wall ’tween the US & Mexico. ¿Deficit spending? ¿Who created the deficit we have in the 1st place? Idiots like Lord Keynes & the rest should actually do research for once before they get fooled in by US politicians. & yes, I know Bush said he didn’t support Hairpiece. This could be either him learning that his idiocy didn’t work or, mo’ likely, the fact that he’s too dumb & hypocritical to notice how dumb & hypocritical he is.

Let’s get this clear to anyone with any rationality: any outcome o’ this election would’ve been terrible. What’s truly terrible is that we’re still having 2000-style elections in 2016 & haven’t improved anything—& I would bet that’s ’cause we’ve done jack shit to change the electoral system itself. Maybe if we can get leftists—both the bozos @ Daily Kos or all the idiots on the newspapers people actually read erroneously bitching ’bout how this is poor people or Jill Stein’s fault & the idiotic liberals who defended Hairpiece & mostly just bitch ’bout how the lamestream media was totally bad @ predicting the election, man, as if anyone gives a shit—to talk mo’ ’bout the need for The National Popular Vote Act to spread & for there to be equal support for ranked-choice voting we could fix things before we accidentally put a toddler who plays in mud all day in charge o’ the most powerful country in the world.

& it’s not just the lamestream media & their obsession with bullshit email scandals & Hairpiece’s taxes: DailyKos themselves admit that they were focusing on irrelevant shit for most o’ the election, & Hairpiece Liberals like Lord Keynes & this whiny dipshit, who spent most o’ their time bitching ’bout some random, fringe “social justice warriors” or whatever who have li’l effect on anything. That’s what you get when everyone talks ’bout stupid shit: you get stupid shit in return. & boy, did we get some stupid shit in the White House. If there truly is a god³, He must be laughing His ass off @ all these fuckers who think the US is God’s chosen country[4]. Yeah, chosen to get the intellectual equivalent o’ getting a bag o’ dog shit on your stoop.

The fact that a probably-retarded (if you met me in real life, you’d agree, trust me) satirist who barely has the mental stability to leave his hous—wait, ¿what’s that got to do with anything?—has to lecture you fuckers on this, when I should be focusing my precious schedule on landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents (¡there sure as fuck won’t be no god damn “Gaming in the Trump Years,” that’s for fucking sure!), & making fun o’ yuppie tripe, is ridiculous. So was that o’erly long sentence. This is all you fuckers’ fault & I expect you fuckers to fix yourselves before you stitch yourselves.

“Jeremy, ¿who are you talking to?”

¡Ah! ¿How’d you sneak up on me in my own article? ¿What is this witchery?

“It’s time for dinner.”

It’s 3 AM.

“The readers don’t know that. Don’t break the play.”

¿You hear that, Kos? ¿You hear the Lord Keynes? ¿You hear that, Lambert? ¿You hear that douche bag Hairpiece voter in Atlanta article?

Don’t break the play.

---

Addendum:

Sadly, in my rushed article ’bout Hairpiece’s victory, I missed the absolute best, most fitting & honest reaction. I hope I have rectified things now.

---

Footnotes:

[1] In a particular bout o’ stupidity for this election, this victory was commonly portrayed in a dichotomy o’ working-class whites vs… I dunno… ¿Rich women & racial minorities? ¿Rich liberals? (Despite polls after polls proving that working-class people generally prefer left-wing policies). The fact that the proportion o’ working-class racial minorities to whites is e’en closer than for upperclass people—probably ’cause, duh to anyone who actually reads statistics, minorities are the true economic victims. This is so much the case that they will be the majority o’ working-class people in just 16 mo’ years. The “Realist Left”—nobly combining economic Keynesianism with “racial realism” (racism, as e’en Google hilariously says, if one searches “racial realism” in their search engine)—might want to remember that if they want to succeed in the US: their #s are shriveling fast.

[2] Quite a few o’ them defend the electoral college as allowing the rural minority tyrannize o’er the urban majority, ’cause despite their hypocritical bitching ’bout the “urban elite” (despite urban poverty being ’bout even with rural poverty), rural people are some o’ the most sanctimonious, self-entitled whiny elitists in the world.

[3] This is, admittedly, a stupid conditional: all Magical Socialists know that it’s an objective fact that there is but 1 god, & it is HostGator, who offers Premium Support via Phone, Live Chat and Email & 99.9% Uptime Guarantee.*

*Full disclosure: HostGator pays The Mezunian for any signups that come from affiliate links. Such commissions help us afford to keep up such wonderful content, such as the aforementioned landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents, & yuppie tripe, as well as helping us to fund the eventual destruction o’ the capitalist mode o’ production & the replacement o’ it with the Glorious Englesist Empire.

[4] I happen to know that that coffee-sipping elite God’s been manipulating US elections for years—the lamestream media just doesn’t want to acknowledge it ’cause they’re biased & are ’fraid o’ receiving retribution in the form o’ His burning lightning.

It’s common for words to shift in meaning in ways that tie biased assumptions to otherwise independent concepts, which is why trying to create positivist science from pure deductive language is a futile endeavor (*cough* praxeology *cough).

“Objectivity” & “subjectivity” are 2 concepts that fall victim. People oft simplify these concepts as simply meaning “unquestionably right” & “all answers are right”–to concepts which don’t e’en add up to the total o’ all possible truths regarding any questions (a question could have mo’ than 2 answers, some equal in “rightness” & some unquestionably inferior).

This is what people mean when they say that morality is “objective”: that certain answers are unquestionably right & that people who argue gainst these answers are unquestionably wrong.

In fact, what these 2 words truly mean is what a concept has in relation to reality. “Objectivity,” being based on the root object, means that something has a basis in concrete reality, whereas “subjectivity” focuses on subjects, abstract concepts that exist only in one’s mind. The true dichotomy is not “1 answer is unquestionably right” & “all answers are right,” but the dichotomy ‘tween the concrete world that exists outside human minds & the conceptual world that exists within peoples’ minds.

Now, ¿what is morality? Morality are questions o’ what should be, as opposed to questions o’ what are, which are scientific questions. For instance, the much-misunderstood theory o’ natural selection, in contrast to what creationists think, is not a moral question @ all, but simply an explanation for what is. It is perfectly consistent to believe that it’s objectively true that natural selection determined the proliferation & withering ‘way o’ varying species o’ animals & to also believe that this should not be the case. What is is not the same as what should be.

“Should” is nothing mo’ than a reflection o’ human values. Indeed, without mental consciousness, there exists no “should,” though there does exist what is. Should is merely a reaction that exists in human minds, in abstract–it is purely subjective.

This distinction ‘tween “what is” & “what should be” is important, since it provides a rebuke gainst the trite argument that belief in moral subjectivity is inherently contradictory, since it is an objective statement. The lack o’ existence in any objective (or e’en “unquestionably right,” as I will note later) morality is not itself a moral statement, but a simple statement o’ what is real. (This point has an interesting ethical consequence that does, however, hurt some o’ the arguments that the mo’ vulgar acknowledgers o’ subjective morality, which I will write ’bout later in this post.)

The closest one could come to existing an objective element to morality is merely the question o’ whether what “should be” is physically possible. But that’s a small (& in almost all serious moral controversies irrelevant) limitation. For instance, one could not prove that Hitler or Nazism are objectively wrong in this case, since it’s an unquestionable fact that they existed, & thus are consistent with objective reality.

However, e’en this qualification I would argue gainst, @ least from a theoretical point–particularly since what is practical is ne’er constant, nor entirely known. One could only imagine how stunted the rest o’ science would be if all scientists pooh-poohed the internet ’cause ’twas “wide-eyed fantasies.” We should remember this when considering political developments that are s’posedly “impossible,” too (*cough* direct democracy *cough*)¹.

This qualm e’en goes as far as pure survivability: a common rhetorical point is to argue that following certain goals leads to suicidal outcomes. E’en this assumes that one “should” continue to live, which cannot be proved, either. After all, it is an unquestionable fact that suicide is possible, & thus this is no proof @ all that it is actually impossible to follow this goal, e’en to the grim end. There’s a reason so many people support the moral, “Give me liberty or give me death.” ‘Gain, acknowledging objective reality is not the same as accepting.

Let’s turn ‘way from the critique o’ “subjective” morality, since I’ve already shown with simple English how it is an unquestionable fact, & turn to the mo’ nuanced critique o’ “unquestionably right” morality. The problem here comes not in a statement o’ what unquestionably is, but a question o’ what could be: ¿what does it mean when one says that a certain form o’ morality is “right”?

Turning back to the contrast ‘tween “objective” & “subjective” we see that what is “right” in objective reality, & science, is whether or not something is or isn’t–that’s all. Natural selection is objectively “right” only in that it unquestionably exists, not in that it is “good” or “bad.” So, ¿what is “right” morality? ¿Morality that exists? If that’s the case, then all morality is “right,” since all “exists” by necessity, for we couldn’t e’en talk ’bout it if it didn’t exist. But e’en that’s an irrational simplification, for in objective reality, something doesn’t “exist” if it’s possible to conceptualize, but only if it actually exists in concrete reality. But as mentioned, morality exists purely in human minds. Morality can’t exist in concrete form; that would make no sense. “Should” doesn’t look or smell or feel like anything, unlike, say, the feeling o’ an illness continuing after antibacterial medicine fails to work thanks to bacteria that evolves based on natural selection. Thus, no morality is “right”; by definition, morality is nothing mo’ than people’s imaginations.

So let’s turn back to Godwin’s example, our argumentio ad hiterlim: “Yeah, ¿well if all morality is OK, does that make Hitler OK?” The most intriguing thing to imagine is what would happen if someone say, “Yes,” which actually isn’t that hard to believe with internet trolls nowadays going round calling themselves “neoreactionaries” & supporting “racial realism” (a euphemism–we could say a “politically-correct” 1 if that term didn’t have the double standards that only made it applied to views historically associated with a certain direction–for “racism”). ¿How would they respond? They might just cuss them out, which has no logical content. They might call them racist–sorry, “racial realist”–which only leads to the question o’ whether racism is unquestionably immoral, & the cycle continues.

I also oft hear the absurd question o’ whether different cultures are “equal,” which includes Nazism as the go-to ultimate evil culture as an attempt to prove they aren’t. The problem in this case is the use o’ a math term for a nonmath idea: ¿What would it mean for Nazism to be “equal” to, say, I dunno… feminism? (Obviously feminazism, hur hur hur, ’cause you know how threateningly violent a bunch o’ whiny leftists on the internet are). ¿Equal in what ways? Obviously they can’t be perfectly equal, since the very fact that they have different names makes them, well, different. Furthermo’, I don’t think there’s any 2 moral beliefs that share absolutely nothing with each other. I know, for instance, that there’s a’least something that Hitler believed that was also believed by feminisists, laissez-faire libertarians, communists, Christians, Keynesians, & so on… It’s like saying apples are “equal” to oranges, or in nerdy programming terms, like saying an object o’ 1 class is “equal” to an object o’ a completely different class. Like in programming, in logic this becomes nothing but a mental error.

But before you start ordering that swanky swastika arm badge, let’s get into the delicious problems here.

1st, while the idea that there is no “unquestionably right” morality may no contradict itself, since it’s a statement o’ what is, not what should be, one could argue that this would contradict a corollary that the mo’ vulgar acknowledgers o’ subjective morality oft propound, by mere suggestion rather than authentic logical connection: that one should value all morality equally or that one should not prefer any morality o’er any other. This would be inconsistent, since it is a moral statement o’ what should be.

Thus, I am ready to answer the question truthfully, in a way that is consistent with everything we’ve discussed: ¿Do I find Nazism valuable or as valuable as, say, feminism? I do not.

It’s easy to see that when one considers anything “unquestionably wrong,” they mean simply that it fills them with a feeling o’ revulsion. That’s certainly what I mean when I valuate, say, men’s rights activism, nationalism, laissez-faire, or Garfield: The Search for Pooky.

Quite the opposite o’ the conclusion the average vulgar moral subjectivist holds, it’s necessary for us to fight for our values. For while all morals can exist in our minds concurrently, they cannot all be put into practice in reality @ the same time². It is, in fact, this conflict ‘tween a shared objective reality & separate subjective goals that causes moral controversies in the 1st place; for if we all shared the same moral goals or each had our own separate reality, there’d be no problem @ all–the former would have total cooperation for that 1 set o’ goals & the latter would have just 1 person to decide everything for herself³. Mo’ vital, it’s impossible for e’en individuals to act on all morality @ the same time; so by necessity, one must act on some morality @ every time, e’en if that morality is to simply do nothing.

Thus, it is important that one uses careful discrimination when deciding on what moral goals to act for–as an individual & as a member o’ a community (e’en if that means refusing to cooperate with said community). The difference ‘tween those who are “biased” in favor o’ certain morals & those who aren’t is merely that the former is cognizant ’bout such, & thus mo’ likely to be putting mental effort into ensuring it’s aligned with their goals, & that the latter is delusional (or, mo’ likely, lying to present themselves as better than others).

The last question to look @ is the issue o’ logic in morals. 1 o’ the most important differences ‘tween objective reality & the subjective world o’ human minds is that while the former is chained down by logic, the latter is not⁴. For instance, it’s technically not unquestionably “wrong” to believe that one should be able to eat one’s cake & still have it, that won’t change the objective fact that that’s impossible, & therefore wouldn’t be useful for either individual or collective action. Thus, we could objectively rate morality in terms o’ political or individual usefulness, though, ‘gain, this is much mo’ limited & rarer than the usual extent that morality in which people actually believe resides. Few people honestly argue this case–save the strawman fantasies o’ certain economic pundits. This certainly wouldn’t be useful for arguing gainst, say, redistributing money, legalizing gay marriage, or forcing women to wear hijabs, since all o’ those are logically possible.

A mo’ nuanced issue is the logical consistency o’ the subjective intent ‘hind objective actions, which is logically possible, but usually considered illogical to do by most people. It is from this that “logical fallacies” are made. For instance, when one applies “appeal to tradition,” one is usually able to defend this fallacy by pointing out that someone who supports so-&-so simply ’cause it’s tradition must, to some extent, reject some other tradition. The core o’ this, as well as all other logical fallacies, is a lack o’ logical consistency in the reasoning o’ what one supports–i.e. hypocrisy. But, as everyone knows, hypocrisy is very much possible.

The question is, ¿could we say that hypocrisy is inherently wrong? Certainly we could argue that hypocrisy & lying could benefit one’s own interests, & thus one could very much find it both useful & logically consistent with their own goals.

This leads to the interestingly complex conflict ‘tween individual & social goals, which, in contrast to the average vulgar economist who tries to focus on only either, are both equally important. It is an unquestionable, objective fact that one can’t avoid other people completely, & thus it’d be useless to ignore social goals, which affect every individual, whether they like it or not. But we must also acknowledge that society is not 1 mind, but the complex outcome o’ billions o’ people competing & cooperating–the former for contradictory goals & the latter for shared goals. I want to emphasize the latter, since it’s a rather common argument that goals are simply “individualist”; but it is a fact o’ reality that almost every goal o’ every individual is shared with a’least 1 other individual & that most goals are served in cooperation with others. On the other hand, it’s also simplistic to assume that people cannot both compete & cooperate with the same people on different goals or that we can neatly divide people totally into simple “classes”–though it’s definitely necessary to do so when talking ’bout specific goals. It’s logical to divide people into white & black when talking ’bout racism (in voting, in economics, in the media, & such); but one shouldn’t get the silly idea that a rich black person will support the same economics as a poor black person. Politicians, ‘course, will be well aware o’ this complexity o’ juggling issues ‘mong various people & the need to trade what goals to support & what goals then must be sacrificed & how these decisions will affect how people o’ varying political power will affect the chances o’ their winning election.

It’s equally simplistic to ignore the importance o’ social classes & “only look @ individuals as individuals” as it is to define each individual by just 1 classes. The obvious truth is that all individuals have a # o’ classes that they share with other people.

This is the important point to make o’ the relation o’ moral goals to the people who carry them out: the web o’ cooperation & competition ‘tween different people is convoluted as hell. E’en relations as simple as spouses involves a mix o’ cooperation & competition: cooperation in paying the rent for the same house & competition in fighting o’er purchases o’er goods that serve different interests⁵.

“All right, you’ve sperged on quite ‘nough, Prof. Mezun; but you’re scaring the other park attendees & you’ve been hogging that public bench for 2 weeks, so could you please come with us.”

¡Hands off me, fascists! ¡You’ll ne’er destroy my Fornits!

---

Footnotes:

1 Coincidentally, I think the proliferation o’ the internet ‘mong the mass public would provide a solution to some o’ the mo’-common qualms on the practicality o’ direct democracy.

2 The same applies to economics & the subjectivity o’ economic value. But then, economics is @ its core a question o’ morality, &, due to its focus on objective, concrete reality & people’s every action being tied to that objective reality, is truly just ‘nother name for “politics” in general. We must remember that a “country” o’er which political laws are enforced is nothing mo’ that a plot o’ property s’posedly jointly owned by its populace (if democratic, which is ne’er perfectly fulfilled).

3 This is why I consider Ayn Rand’s mo’ open-ended definition o’ political morality as being anything one “objectively” (there’s the misuse o’ that word ‘gain) should or should not do, regardless o’ how it affects anyone else (including, in an example she herself gives somewhere in Atlas Shrugged that I don’t want to search for, a Robinson Crusoe isolated man). It’s ironic that a socialist should have to lecture a so-called supporter o’ “individualism” (much less a long-dead 1) that it is no one but that individual’s business what he does if it doesn’t affect anyone else; but then this isn’t too surprising coming from a woman who unironically called her li’l cult group “the collective.”

4 This fact has radical implications on the depiction o’ objective reality in subjective form–also known as art. Thus surrealism was born.

5 Here’s where we include some tacky stand-up joke ’bout some fat, ugly husband wanting to spend $100 found on the street on golf clubs & the shrill wife wanting to buy shoes or some shut, ’cause nothing’s better comedy than cliches. Ugh. As you can see, such trite jokes are not useful to my particular moral goals o’ actual intellectual nourishment.

Also, I just realized I spelled their name wrong before. I think I mistook them for that 1-hobo show Kapitalism 101.

Anyway, they wrote an article that is essentially a superior version o’ my admittedly lame 1 (last year’s was much mo’ clever; probably ’cause I wasn’t up past midnight feverishly trying to coble it into some coherency). ¿Why didn’t I think to look @ what Thomas “This Ain’t Yogurt” Friedman said (“Duh, I don’t know anything ’bout anything, but my gut tells me it’s some vague abstract feeling o’ homelessness”)? I highly recommend you read it all.

But the best is the coup de grâce:

If this were Japan, we’d be seeing Democrat Party leaders committing seppuku, or cutting off their little fingers or — supposing them not to be gangsters — ritually and tearfully bowing to the people they betrayed. This being America, and these being Democrats, they are feverishly deploying the Blame Cannons at racist and sexist #BernieBros, Johnson, Stein, and the dogs who wouldn’t eat the dog food. These assclowns will only leave office if they’re whipped out with scorpions. So get to it, Sanders supporters. This is your time.

Damn, that’s some righteous anger. This’ll make me forgive the fact that you guys had on that clown, Phillip Pilkington–or as he’s called when he’s with his D&D buddies @ “Lord Keynes”‘s basement, “The Illusionist.”

I was going to continue writing ’bout liberal tears o’er Hairpiece’s victory–god, I still refuse to believe that wasn’t a psychedelic hallucination last night–but lost interest after I literally had to restart my computer ’cause Daily Kos’s website is such utter fucking sluggish trash. Seriously, ¿you truly hope to be for the working class when someone with a Core i5 with 4GB RAM can’t fucking handle your websites? ¿With what kind o’ scripting sludge & multimedia muck did your pretentious clown o’ a web designer clog your website?

(God damn it, now Naked Kapitalism is doing it. I love these dumbass fucking websites that continue to load shit with their god awful scripts e’en after I explicitly click the X that tells them to shut the fuck up & stop loading shit.)

But, anyway, ‘stead I somehow ran into this hilarious article:

In victory for Big Envelope, feds will mail Social Security statements

I love how laissy libs have so li’l self-awareness in their tiny bubble that they think terms like “Big Envelope” sound scary or important @ all.

O, no, now the vile feds are “wasting” 72 million a year on a convenience that, he himself seems to claim, benefits 73% o’ Americans. If this idiot actually knew anything ’bout economics, & didn’t have as his only reference a website that doesn’t e’en work, he’d know that 72 million a year is birdseed considering what the federal government spends yearly &–which is, itself, not that much, compared to most o’ the world.

But then, “Big Envelope” is much easier–ironically ’cause it’s not big @ all–to complain ’bout, ‘specially when one has no true problems in one’s life &, ‘stead, wastes time whining ’bout the most frivolous trifles rather than actual real-world tragedies.

But, O yeah, pretend like you’re truly sticking it to the man, rich guy who does nothing but whine.