We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
kleinbl00's comments
kleinbl00  ·  2 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Apples and Walmarts

"Do you agree that this one, specific effect, lower prices when Walmart comes to town, is good for the locals?"

Alice, Bob, Carol and Dave live in Plainsville, USA. Alice owns a general store. Bob owns a gas station. Carol runs a daycare. Dave is a gardener.

Alice sells $1 worth of dry goods to Bob, Carol and Dave every week. She grosses $3 a week.

Bob sells $1 worth of gas to Alice, Carol and Dave every week. He grosses $3 a week.

Carol takes care of Alice, Bob and Dave's kids for $1 every week. She grosses $3 a week.

Dave tends to Alice, Bob and Carol's gardens for $1 every week. He grosses $3 a week.

We have no cost of goods sold and we're oversimplifying, but Plainsville has a GDP of $12 a week. It is a closed economy where everyone is break-even.

Now let's say Edward comes to town from Bentonville, Arkansas. He's going to open a general store to compete with Alice. His dry goods cost 50 cents on the dollar what Alice's do because he buys it by the container-load from China.

Alice is no longer making money. She grosses $0 a week.

Bob sells $1 worth of gas to Carol and Dave because Alice is broke. Bob grosses $2 a week.

Carol takes care of Bob and Dave's kids because Alice's kids are staying at home. Carol grosses $2 a week.

Dave is still doing the gardening for Bob and Carol but Alice can't afford him anymore. Dave grosses $2 a week.

Alice is assed out. Bob, Carol and Dave have taken a 33% hit on their income. Fortunately, Edward is selling for 50 cents on the dollar so they're actually coming out 17 cents ahead. Plainsville's GDP is now $7.50 instead of $12... except Edward is sending $1 of his $1.50 back to Bentonville because that's the whole point. So actually, Plainsville is at $6.50.

Alice is out her entire income - $3. But Alice's town is down more than her entire income, even though Alice's neighbors are saving 17 cents.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"If there are no public benefits, workers will have to make do with whatever salary they can get."

For once and for all, why do you think that's a good thing?

Had a friend. Her name was Jae Poon Rat. She lived in Bangkok. Here's her garden.

Jae Poon Rat lived in a 2-story warehouse. The upper floor was a sweatshop. She employed 50 people to make knock-off clothing. They made about 400 baht a day, or about $12. And I was assured they were happy. After all, you can get a meal on the street for about 100 baht. Per capita income in Thailand is about 550 baht a day and there are plenty of people who do much worse.

But the public benefits in Thailand don't include fire codes so when a fire broke out and the trucks couldn't get to the warehouse, all 50 people were unemployed. And they don't include healthcare so when Jae Poon Rat got breast cancer she just up'n'died. But over there, workers make do with whatever salary they can get.

By the way, Jae Poon rat owned a sweatshop because she received a large inheritance. 50 people worked for her for 400 a day because they didn't.

This is the atrium of the Central World Mall for the Queen's birthday in 2007. They had an orchid show in her honor.

Here's Central World after the government shelled it to get the Red Shirts out in 2010.

Allow me to quote from the article again:

    If you want an apple and you pick it off a tree in the wild, that’s not economics because no one else is involved. If you want my apple and you stab me and take it, that’s not economics either. If you want me to give you my apple, we have entered the realm of economics.

Some of us are advocating for a living wage because it discourages people from stabbing you for your apple. And some of us are advocating that just because you don't see any owner of the tree doesn't mean there isn't one.

I actually don't mean to beat you up this time. I know that you can make better arguments than this. I simply don't see why... I don't see why.

I don't see why workers should "make do."

wasoxygen  ·  1 hour ago  ·  link  ·  

I kinda lost hope in our ability to have a useful conversation that time you made a clear and plausible argument about charity, I responded, and you said I completely misunderstood your point.

Though your statement that "The world will be a tyrannical and biased place if aid is determined by the charity of individuals" makes more sense to me now.

    For once and for all, why do you think that's a good thing?

I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's a true thing.

This is important: people act on their perception of what you say, not on what you intend to say. In this instance, I'm informing you that my perception of what you say mismatches with what (I suspected) you intended to say. And again, in this instance I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... but it's important that you hear me when I tell you that you're coming across more antagonistic than you intend. We've talked about this. It's not a problem that's limited to me. There are ways to ask these questions that are less likely to raise hackles and I'm simply attempting to inform you that your goals would be best served by using more neutral language.

_____________THAT OUT OF THE WAY____________________

One of the tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one saw this coming." Having followed real estate blogs since 2006 which, to a man, were predicting the impending implosion of the real estate market, I knew this to be untrue. One of the other tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one can really explain how this happened." With one trope being handily disproven, I suspected this was also untrue.

Thus began a self-guided tour of popular financial literature which led to a layman's education in economics. One of the interesting things about economics is that because it's basically "math for business majors" it's a lot more accessible than you'd think. Not only that but because many of the more recent theories in economics are contentious, the accepted stuff tends to be simple and accessible.

I have 49 books in my Audible library dealing with economics, socioeconomics, economic history, management or business. I've read 46 of them. This does not a degree make but I feel it gives me a basis to have an opinion.

kleinbl00  ·  9 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The car was repossessed, but the debt remains

goobster is arguing the equation. You're arguing the variables.

I read a book about telecom - as in, how to build a phone system from "pile of wire" to "neighborhood filled with telephony." I mention this because one of the maxims put forth in the book is that in telecom, there's only one product but several different billing models. I think this is more profound and more applicable than the author intended: for much of life, there's one thing to buy, many different ways to pay for it.

In this case, you're buying "shelter." If you buy shelter in installments with no equity built and no maintenance to pay, you gain the ability to change shelter with short-term notice. If you buy shelter with the intention to sell it later or pass it on to your heirs, you gain the capture of appreciation but give up the ability to change your situation with little notice.

Back to inputs and equations: I have no doubt that you have evaluated the situation and have determined that there are no peril-free values you can plug into the equation. You are not alone. That does not mean that goobster's wrong: as the adage goes, it takes money to make money and the current political and socioeconomic climate punishes the working class at the expense of the upper middle and upper classes.

But don't let that blind you. In goobster's example, you take your debt in order to increase your income. Put it another way: instead of buying a $500 mortgage for a condo, put $500 a month into an REIT. That REIT goes up in value and if you run into trouble, you stop contributing. Shit, you pull all your equity out and cover your medical debt. Granted, you won't capture as much appreciation in a REIT as you will owning the property yourself but once again, there's one thing for sale and many ways to buy it.

The real trap of homeownership is it reduces your mobility. If you get laid off you can't find a job somewhere else easily until you've sold your property (or taken a massive loss by walking away). The eroding job security amongst the working class magnifies this peril. But make no mistake: tax law and social mores in the United States are tilted towards home ownership - multiple ownership even.

The economics may not work out for you right now. That's a legitimate beef to take up with your congresscritter. But that doesn't mean the economics don't work.

kleinbl00  ·  16 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Apples and Walmarts

Don't let a bad essay by a simp with a John Galt tattoo convince you these are the only two choices. The argument isn't "make Walmart increase its wages" it's "make everyone increase their wages".

It's super-funny how these discussions are always about Walmart and "company completely and utterly unlike Walmart" when they could much more easily be about Walmart and Costco. Walmart has a 3% profit margin and pays their employees shit. Costco has a 2.5% profit margin and pays entry level employees $13.50 an hour.

But it just wouldn't be libertarianism without some cynical, sophomoric sleight-of-hand.

kleinbl00  ·  16 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Apples and Walmarts

    There’s an old saying: “If you want to hear a dumb opinion, ask someone their thoughts on the minimum wage”.

1 result (0.53 seconds). In other words, that "old saying" was coined specifically for this essay.

    In a series of three posts, I’m going to describe a few economic approaches to analyzing minimum wage laws.

Thereby amply demonstrating the above adage. Minimum wage laws aren't about economics, they're about civics and welfare. From a capitalist standpoint, Dickensian workhouses and Calcutta sweatshops are the best economic approach to wages. After all, market forces will maximize efficiency. Minimum wage laws, by inspection, are inefficient from an economic standpoint. Their function is not to improve the economics of a society but to improve the welfare of a society.

    Workers want a lot of things from employers. Mostly they want wages, but also a pleasant workplace, stability, good conditions, and respect.

Workers want more benefit from working than from not working. Serfs ceased being serfs when they were better off putting noble heads on pikes than they were working land as chattel.

    Employers want several things from workers too, mostly labor but some of the above as well.

Employers want a greater benefit from employing someone than from not employing someone. So long as there is benefit in paying a worker fifteen cents an hour and forcing them to sleep in flophouses, employers will do that. This is a maxim that has been held unassailably true from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. Smith argued that regulations were necessary to keep businesses from being horrible; Friedman argued that because businesses were horrible it was proof that our society doesn't value non-horrible businesses.

    I won’t keep you in suspense – I think that minimum wage laws are a huge mistake, both economically and morally.

Color me shocked. I will wager, however, that you cannot demonstrate this in a logical, non-fallacious way.

    The call is to force WalMart to raise its minimum wage to $15/hr, because some percentage of their employees use government assistance.

Left unsaid is the argument that if WalMart cannot turn a profit without reliance on government subsidy in the form of welfare and SNAP assistance for its employees, WalMart should not be in business. It's hilarious how libertarians and capitalists always assume as a maxim that Walmart is entitled to be in business regardless of the social cost.

    $20B is more than WalMart’s entire net income. There is simply no way for a company with such tiny margins to increase its costs without transferring the entire increase to prices.

And, in those arguments so sweepingly dismissed, is the argument that WalMart managed to destroy many smaller businesses because as owner-operators they had to pay an equitable cost of living or go out of business. The argument made by minimum-wage proponents is that Walmart leverages public assistance to outcompete competitors that are not eligible to do so.

    Even at $10 an hour, WalMart gets more applications per open position that does Harvard.

This is an argument that the local economies inhabited by Walmart are depressed, not that Walmart is a more desirable place to work than Harvard. Talk about apples and oranges: those scrambling for minimum wage and a blue vest are somehow equivalent to those scrambling to pay 63 grand a year how, exactly?

    There is going to be a lot of economic theory in parts 2 and 3 of my essay, but the simple fact that higher wages at WalMart would cause a lot of pain to a lot of poor people doesn’t depend on any of it.

The simple fact that higher wages at WalMart would cause fewer poor people doesn't depend on any of it either.

    I’m pretty sure that it never crossed the mind of people attacking WalMart’s wages to do the math on WalMart’s income statement.

You would be mistaken. However, "doing the math" in our case means evaluating whether or not Walmart is a viable business without subsidy, not whether or not walmart is profitable. It's interesting how the author considers profits to be inviolate while making an economic argument against minimum wage.

    I think it’s because the core of their argument is about ethics, and not about making workers richer. Unfortunately, the ethics of the argument are just as perverse as the numbers.

I'm going to make an assumption, ignore everything else, and then paint how this assumption is wrong, therefore my opponents are stupid.

    WalMart is a very convenient scapegoat for American poverty because WalMart does more for poor Americans than pretty much anyone else. In 2004, WalMart saved its customers $263 billion, which is more than all direct government welfare programs (food stamps, EITC, TANf etc.) combined.

Actually, the argument is that Walmart removed $263 billion from local economies. That their prices were this much lower is an argument against Walmart because, again, they are only able to do this through government subsidy. I don't know what that has to do with Copenhagen.

    In contrast, a company like Apple doesn’t employ any poor Americans and doesn’t make things for poor Americans.

Nobody at Apple makes minimum wage because nobody at Apple does minimum-wage jobs. The liberal argument here is that if Walmart paid a living wage, more children of Walmart employees would be able to go on to college to work for Apple. This would increase productivity, GDP and wealth for all.

_____________________________________________________________

This shit isn't hard. This shit isn't novel. And pretending this shit is about a fucking misinterpretation of quantum mechanics in service of alt-right neoliberal talking points will never make it insightful.

kleinbl00  ·  18 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Baghdad Bob Resigns as White House Press Secretary

I think it was Euripides that argued there were only like 18 different plots in all of drama. Alexander Polti put it at 43. Joseph Campbell argued for eight character archetypes and Strauss & Howe broke down all of world history to four types of people. I just don't know if there's a man who wears his name better. I mean, there's a b-movie action star named Dirk Shrapnel but he had to pay for that. Scaramucci? Dude was born wearing a domino.

I'm gonna guess this is one of those instances where you don't realize how antagonistic you're being.

You started this conversation by positing a position I don't hold, and then asking me to defend that position. I clarified my opinion. Now you are assaulting the validity of that opinion by questioning my education.

So I'll turn it around: why am I not allowed to have an opinion about this? Why are my arguments not sufficiently rigorous to stand on their own merits? If someone can make a valid mathematical proof, does their background matter? After all, it didn't matter for Ramanujan.

I'm not hypothesizing new forms of economics here: I'm arguing that the science of economics, much as I personally criticize it, is not worthy of the disdain being heaped upon it by the author of this article. And frankly, I'm at a loss as to why I'm under attack for doing that.

ThatFanficGuy  ·  10 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

You're confusing my sincere curiosity for antagonism. You're a highly-educated person whose knowledge lies beyond what the diploma might suggest. I'd like to know how you got there.

Please, don't suggest that I'm doing something out of ill intent if I ask a question - especially of you, since you know damn well what I think about you. I'm already barely talking around here to not upset people.

kleinbl00  ·  8 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

This is important: people act on their perception of what you say, not on what you intend to say. In this instance, I'm informing you that my perception of what you say mismatches with what (I suspected) you intended to say. And again, in this instance I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... but it's important that you hear me when I tell you that you're coming across more antagonistic than you intend. We've talked about this. It's not a problem that's limited to me. There are ways to ask these questions that are less likely to raise hackles and I'm simply attempting to inform you that your goals would be best served by using more neutral language.

_____________THAT OUT OF THE WAY____________________

One of the tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one saw this coming." Having followed real estate blogs since 2006 which, to a man, were predicting the impending implosion of the real estate market, I knew this to be untrue. One of the other tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one can really explain how this happened." With one trope being handily disproven, I suspected this was also untrue.

Thus began a self-guided tour of popular financial literature which led to a layman's education in economics. One of the interesting things about economics is that because it's basically "math for business majors" it's a lot more accessible than you'd think. Not only that but because many of the more recent theories in economics are contentious, the accepted stuff tends to be simple and accessible.

I have 49 books in my Audible library dealing with economics, socioeconomics, economic history, management or business. I've read 46 of them. This does not a degree make but I feel it gives me a basis to have an opinion.

No.

The kernel of the argument I agree with is that economics, in the United States, is accorded more of a hard science reputation than anthropology, sociology, psychology etc. in no small part because economics uses more equations. It makes sense if you think about it - economics is the only soft science whose basis is numerical (money).

However, it remains a social science that largely attempts to quantify behavior. That there are more numerical inputs for economics than there are for anthropology does increase the number of equations thrown about when comparing economics and anthropology. The author's argument is that the easy availability of numbers and equations causes the "soft science" of economics to consider itself a "hard science" like physics or chemistry.

But I didn't use the term "pseudoscience" and I wasn't bitching about the remuneration of college economics departments. As far as I'm concerned, if you want the guy who ran Vanguard for 28 years to teach at your school you're bloody well going to pay him better than anyone in the dept of Divinity - when you've got four trillion dollars under management your incentive structure is a little different than when your high water mark is cardinal at some diocese.

I agree with the author that economics should not be considered alongside other branches of science that are numerically-driven. I disagree with the author that terms like "pseudoscience" and "astrology" can be casually thrown around - economics isn't as rigorous as physics, but anybody comparing anthropology to astrology would be driven out of academia.

ThatFanficGuy  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  

You lay out quite a lot of experience. Did you read about all of this? I seem to remember your official education being something in design and/or construction and/or engineering.

kleinbl00  ·  18 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

I'm gonna guess this is one of those instances where you don't realize how antagonistic you're being.

You started this conversation by positing a position I don't hold, and then asking me to defend that position. I clarified my opinion. Now you are assaulting the validity of that opinion by questioning my education.

So I'll turn it around: why am I not allowed to have an opinion about this? Why are my arguments not sufficiently rigorous to stand on their own merits? If someone can make a valid mathematical proof, does their background matter? After all, it didn't matter for Ramanujan.

I'm not hypothesizing new forms of economics here: I'm arguing that the science of economics, much as I personally criticize it, is not worthy of the disdain being heaped upon it by the author of this article. And frankly, I'm at a loss as to why I'm under attack for doing that.

ThatFanficGuy  ·  10 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

You're confusing my sincere curiosity for antagonism. You're a highly-educated person whose knowledge lies beyond what the diploma might suggest. I'd like to know how you got there.

Please, don't suggest that I'm doing something out of ill intent if I ask a question - especially of you, since you know damn well what I think about you. I'm already barely talking around here to not upset people.

kleinbl00  ·  8 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

This is important: people act on their perception of what you say, not on what you intend to say. In this instance, I'm informing you that my perception of what you say mismatches with what (I suspected) you intended to say. And again, in this instance I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... but it's important that you hear me when I tell you that you're coming across more antagonistic than you intend. We've talked about this. It's not a problem that's limited to me. There are ways to ask these questions that are less likely to raise hackles and I'm simply attempting to inform you that your goals would be best served by using more neutral language.

_____________THAT OUT OF THE WAY____________________

One of the tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one saw this coming." Having followed real estate blogs since 2006 which, to a man, were predicting the impending implosion of the real estate market, I knew this to be untrue. One of the other tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one can really explain how this happened." With one trope being handily disproven, I suspected this was also untrue.

Thus began a self-guided tour of popular financial literature which led to a layman's education in economics. One of the interesting things about economics is that because it's basically "math for business majors" it's a lot more accessible than you'd think. Not only that but because many of the more recent theories in economics are contentious, the accepted stuff tends to be simple and accessible.

I have 49 books in my Audible library dealing with economics, socioeconomics, economic history, management or business. I've read 46 of them. This does not a degree make but I feel it gives me a basis to have an opinion.

Devac  ·  23 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

    I seem to remember your official education being (…)

Said a linguistics student who tackles (natural) philosophy between his programming projects. ;)

I can slag on economists with the best of 'em, but there's a lot of empty criticism here. Economists spend most of their time slagging on other economists - the fact that there are so many schools that hate each other says a lot about how unsettled a discipline it is. "Most scientific of the social sciences" - Definitely an American problem (Piketty went back to France because he was uncomfortable with how "scientific" economic was judged to be in the US) and also a "thinnest fat man" descriptor. But most importantly, they can all be wrong and still be important because they're the ones making decisions about our economy. The theory that witches float is 100% bunk and it still killed a bunch of women in Europe.

Puttin' Bernanke up there's a cheap shot. He was very much a student of the Great Depression and did everything he could to forestall another one. We'll be arguing about whether his actions and decisions were good, bad or indifferent from now until the sun is a cinder but the fact of the matter is, he enacted unorthodox policies based on prior knowledge. Whether he was responsible or not for forestalling another depression is certainly debatable but using him as the frontispiece of "highly paid pseudoscience" is too snarky by half.

Especially coming from a guy with a doctor of Divinity.

ThatFanficGuy  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  

    and also a "thinnest fat man" descriptor.

Unrelated, but - did I hear your disliking social sciences? Why, if so?

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  

No.

The kernel of the argument I agree with is that economics, in the United States, is accorded more of a hard science reputation than anthropology, sociology, psychology etc. in no small part because economics uses more equations. It makes sense if you think about it - economics is the only soft science whose basis is numerical (money).

However, it remains a social science that largely attempts to quantify behavior. That there are more numerical inputs for economics than there are for anthropology does increase the number of equations thrown about when comparing economics and anthropology. The author's argument is that the easy availability of numbers and equations causes the "soft science" of economics to consider itself a "hard science" like physics or chemistry.

But I didn't use the term "pseudoscience" and I wasn't bitching about the remuneration of college economics departments. As far as I'm concerned, if you want the guy who ran Vanguard for 28 years to teach at your school you're bloody well going to pay him better than anyone in the dept of Divinity - when you've got four trillion dollars under management your incentive structure is a little different than when your high water mark is cardinal at some diocese.

I agree with the author that economics should not be considered alongside other branches of science that are numerically-driven. I disagree with the author that terms like "pseudoscience" and "astrology" can be casually thrown around - economics isn't as rigorous as physics, but anybody comparing anthropology to astrology would be driven out of academia.

ThatFanficGuy  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  

You lay out quite a lot of experience. Did you read about all of this? I seem to remember your official education being something in design and/or construction and/or engineering.

kleinbl00  ·  18 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

I'm gonna guess this is one of those instances where you don't realize how antagonistic you're being.

You started this conversation by positing a position I don't hold, and then asking me to defend that position. I clarified my opinion. Now you are assaulting the validity of that opinion by questioning my education.

So I'll turn it around: why am I not allowed to have an opinion about this? Why are my arguments not sufficiently rigorous to stand on their own merits? If someone can make a valid mathematical proof, does their background matter? After all, it didn't matter for Ramanujan.

I'm not hypothesizing new forms of economics here: I'm arguing that the science of economics, much as I personally criticize it, is not worthy of the disdain being heaped upon it by the author of this article. And frankly, I'm at a loss as to why I'm under attack for doing that.

ThatFanficGuy  ·  10 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

You're confusing my sincere curiosity for antagonism. You're a highly-educated person whose knowledge lies beyond what the diploma might suggest. I'd like to know how you got there.

Please, don't suggest that I'm doing something out of ill intent if I ask a question - especially of you, since you know damn well what I think about you. I'm already barely talking around here to not upset people.

kleinbl00  ·  8 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

This is important: people act on their perception of what you say, not on what you intend to say. In this instance, I'm informing you that my perception of what you say mismatches with what (I suspected) you intended to say. And again, in this instance I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... but it's important that you hear me when I tell you that you're coming across more antagonistic than you intend. We've talked about this. It's not a problem that's limited to me. There are ways to ask these questions that are less likely to raise hackles and I'm simply attempting to inform you that your goals would be best served by using more neutral language.

_____________THAT OUT OF THE WAY____________________

One of the tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one saw this coming." Having followed real estate blogs since 2006 which, to a man, were predicting the impending implosion of the real estate market, I knew this to be untrue. One of the other tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one can really explain how this happened." With one trope being handily disproven, I suspected this was also untrue.

Thus began a self-guided tour of popular financial literature which led to a layman's education in economics. One of the interesting things about economics is that because it's basically "math for business majors" it's a lot more accessible than you'd think. Not only that but because many of the more recent theories in economics are contentious, the accepted stuff tends to be simple and accessible.

I have 49 books in my Audible library dealing with economics, socioeconomics, economic history, management or business. I've read 46 of them. This does not a degree make but I feel it gives me a basis to have an opinion.

Devac  ·  23 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

    I seem to remember your official education being (…)

Said a linguistics student who tackles (natural) philosophy between his programming projects. ;)

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Looking for good English-language sources of Indian news.

Thank you. I've had a busy weekend but I've bookmarked all three and will at the very least add a perusal to my morning routine. I appreciate it.

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 237th Weekly "Share Some Music You've Been Into Lately" Thread

Ahhh... but Rednex were Swedes. Their schtick was borderline parody. Creedence Clearwater Revival weren't "born on the bayou" they were from Height Ashbury. But the whole of Hick Hop believes it.

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 237th Weekly "Share Some Music You've Been Into Lately" Thread

I would not have predicted this entire genre of music 20 years ago.

I also do not know of a more pure instance of cultural appropriation.

bfv  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  

Ahhh... but Rednex were Swedes. Their schtick was borderline parody. Creedence Clearwater Revival weren't "born on the bayou" they were from Height Ashbury. But the whole of Hick Hop believes it.

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: How fear of falling explains love of Trump

There's a world of difference between "wilderness" and "frontier." I freely acknowledge that there are mountains where you ski or hike for miles without seeing anyone. At the same time, they're the same mountains where your ancestors have been skiing or hiking for miles since before the advent of written language. The culture of Scandinavia has been Scandinavian since before the Etruscans; neither the Romans nor the Mongols so much as set foot there. By contrast, I grew up in a place where the houses were built on the roaming lands of nomadic tribes that were kicked out for once and for all at a time when their leaders were studied by anthropologists from Washington and their artifacts were shipped to the Smithsonian.

Your definition of "frontier" is not the definition of "frontier" and that parameter mismatch is important.

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Wanted: Male teachers in U.S. schools