Login or register
Login or register
Login / Create Account
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Click to Create Account
Login to FJ
Stay logged in
Click to Login
Log in/Sign with Facebook.
Log in/Sign up with Gmail.
Rank #4449 on Subscribers
Level 357 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Send mail to iamjohngalt
Invite iamjohngalt to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Content Level Progress:
Level 222 Content: Mind Blower → Level 223 Content: Mind Blower
Comment Level Progress:
Level 357 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk → Level 358 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about iamjohngalt
I don't get it
First day on /b/
Time for some OC RP
Bored? Have Netflix?
Myths about Race
latest user's comments
- In other news: Unemployment rate drops down to 0% as all previ…
Feminism rant... or is it?
when there is a demand and people are willing to pay for it, it will add to the economy. Just because you think it's stupid does it not change the fact that a gender studies professor contributes to the economy
That is simply not true. Think about it this way. While you can infinitely add welath to a country through inflation of numbers, fiat money, or any other means, such as paying gender studies professors money and then taxing it, it doesn#t actually grow the economy. This is due to the fact that any and all wealth made by a country is meaningless if nothing can be BOUGHT with it. The only industries actually providing anything SUBSTANTIAL, as in, real life objects which further the de facto wealth of a country, are any and all jobs relating to those industries which actually produce. Now, due to the fact that all parts of an economy are linked up to each other it would be hard to claim that a gender studies professor has no actual impact on the wealth of a country. BUT the wealth would grow significantly MORE if the person filled other positions. The simple fact is, you CANNOT spend more money than the labor force produces things to spend money on. Spending money on a service NEVER creates any wealth. It is raw consumption. Learn the difference between consumption and investment. Sometimes a service (such as teaching) can be beneficial to investment but overall any and all wealth of a country is created by the production industry. Can't buy food that isn't being grown ya know?
If you account for all this you will soon see, that while females add a certain amount of wealth to a society it is mostly based on service industries which are a luxury and do not actually strengthen the country so much as they provide the citizens with the ability to live in more luxury. Its the difference between a gold necklace and a car. Both might cost the same money, but one is utterly useless in terms of furthering economic growth. Service and luxury are the FRUITS of a well functioning production industry, not part of it.
And the economic benefit of men in these production jobs not having to do anything BUT their job since all these service industries exist and therefore being more productive would be correct, IF a housewife couldnt basically fullfill these service rolls for every single man out there AND provide incentive to work hard for a better future for your kids instead of fucking about at work doing the minimum since you need only a small amount of money each month to be able to do what you love most:
Shitpost on the internet.
R You are wrong. If all women would be housewifes in monogamous relationships the economic benefits might perhaps be greater than they are now.
Much of this is not true. Service job do not suddenly make no production but you are correct that they would not function without production jobs. But many of the resources used are for luxuries of service job like for example trashmen. They actually need certain tools to be able to do their jobs efficiently like a garbage truck which in turns creates some demand for car producers which in turn creates a demand for resource gathering firms (like iron, gummy, etc.). Saying that service jobs brings no benefit to a country shows a great lag of fundamental economic understanding which I often see in people who have not taken the time on or have misunderstood modern economic teachings.
Please refer to this statement:
Now, due to the fact that all parts of an economy are linked up to each other it would be hard to claim that a gender studies professor has no actual impact on the wealth of a country.
It says what you are saying. but without the fuzz.
Then your own arguments counter your conclusion.
pleae refer to the statement rigth after:
BUT the wealth would grow significantly MORE if the person filled other positions.
Only because welath is increased does not mean it is done so at the optimal rate.
Yeah I have read it and do you have any proof of this though? Why do you think that a gender studies teacher does not add a proper amount of wealth to the economy? There is a demand for gender studies even if you think they are dumb. So some people will buy the books no matter what you think. Plus your end conclusion is that there might be a net economic gain for woman going back to being housewives. How do argue for this when you have literally about 100 years of economic history contradicting your statement as every country who has led woman enter the workforce has gained a huge increase in economic growth?
This is funnyjunk bro. If you wanna get down and dirty on statistics, actual wealth growth over the last 100 years, parts of the economy in non producing sectors, female participation in tax-revenue and their reliance on state handouts and all those nice and pretty numbers, hmu, but this would mean a lot of work for me. So please, dont do it if you just wanna be right. Then just pretend to have won this, since I cant give you any precise data at this moment since I cant be assed to remember all this shit all the time. If you want I can compile some, but only if you want to learn. Not if you wanna be right. No point then.
I want to learn that is why I debate.
The thing however is right now I disagree with your conclusion as your own arguments is against it. The they way you dismiss service job as somehow not being able to bring enough economic growth to an economy is against everything I have learned in my economics class.
If you take a look at the last 100 years of economic growth following the industrialisation of the west you will note that the main sectors which has grown is the service sector. Since we have effectivised production and resource gathering during the industrialisation there is no longer such a huge demand for such labor as it can be done very cheapily with machines and many resources currently flood the market unless they are demanded by the service sector.
For example how many people can actually use a piece of iron ore? Not many to be honest. Perhaps some hobby blacksmiths but mainly it would be ironworks which can refine and sell the pure iron on to other companies which can create tools for the service sector.
Resources are in the long run not worth much if they have not already been fashioned into something the common consumer can use or consume easily. Thus enters the service section.
The service sector is literally the end product of the production sector which offers us food, cellphones, health improvements and so on. In return the production sector supplies the service sector with what they need so they can provide a service. This is also the reason why you will see that in the rich parts of the world have HUGE service sectors because they give the largest amount of economic growth as they are what people can consume. This is why I take issue with your statement that removing the main source of our service sector (woman) would somehow benefit us economically even though it would half and thus cripple our work force. In the end the service sector and production sector are so intertwined that neither could survive without the other.
Plus I highly doubt that even though woman consume more public services than men would be enough to justify that it would be better to let them be homegoing (which seems contradictory since that would make woman be on government support 100 % of the time instead of just some of the time unless the man can provide for two and the woman graciously declined what the state offers her).
If you want to seriously change my mind you need to give me some proper statistics, data and articles supporting your argument. I need proper academic papers with cited researchers who actually bears some weight. Else I will continue to disagree but please if you can show me the error of my ways do so as that will only help me in the long wrong.
Services which are PURELY services are a different thing. prostitution for example. This is a raw service. A Waiter at a resteraunt is not, sinc ethe job is more than a service, you are also given a product. So it is NECESSARY, to detach the service and the product part. Does the waiter sucking your cock with every steak delivered make the meal a more pleasent experience? Yes. Is he actually producing anything of worth? No.
The only way the waiter can add to the PRODUCT o a country in that way is by making you more happy than you were before.
Now assume for a moment I am correct that the only way to build lasting and real happiness and satisfaction is family and strong social bonds ( refer here:
then the waiter and for that matter ALL non product jobs become completely fucking useless once your population already is healthy. Sure, some servicejobs are necessary so production can continue, yes, but only in that regard, any and all portion of the job that does not directly or indirectly make sure production can continue is useless to the overall economy.
Nurses: dead people dont produce
Teachers: Dumb people produce less
Our jobs only hold REAL worth in their ability to fascilitate actual production. Now in a global society we have done a very very fucking smart thing. We let third world slaves produce our shit, give them fiat money which is not backed by any real value and earn the money to shill them out of their hard earned products by jacking each other off constantly and calling it the "service-industry".
The simple fact is, you do NOT want service industry. You want happy people producing actual shit. Mental health+material prosperity. You cannot possibly have any value for any currency without it being backed by something. And if all you are handing out is ever increasing amounts of handjob certificates which then enable you to get more handjobs which in turn "bossts the handjob industry" you are selling fucking bullshit.
The question here is about the GOAL of the economy. What do we want to achieve? Such a level of material prosperity that and and alll influx to it would actually be fucking impossible. Well that wont be achieved in the optimal fashion by permanently jacking each other off. The only reason we are doing that is because we arent happy and we need the handjobs to function. Once we achieve happiness (through family and social bonds as well as, in my opinion, becoming educated, self thinking rational and spiritually aware human beings but heck what do I know maybe family is good enough) the entire service industry fucking collapses.
And how would you go about this? Bringing back the nuclear family helps how exactly?
It is not about the nuclear family. Quite the opposite actually. The nuclear family is the first step to unraveling the scoial cohesion of a community. You need strong and lasting bonds with more than your fmaily. Takes a village to raise a kid. Its about going back to a living model where social contact and reliance are of importance again.
Saying that prostitution has no inherent economics worth is rubbish. I mean besides war it is one of the oldest professions in the world. If it would not have any economic worth then why would there be any prostitutes? They would all have starved to death long ago if there was no value in selling your own body. But there is thus there are still prostitutes.
You seem to misunderstand how economics measure growth. Anything that generates worth and value adds to the overall growth of an economy as it generates revenue which helps people make money and thus increases their demand as they have money to spend which is then sated by producing what they demand. You must understand that the economy is not some step by step procedure it is a huge circle were money continually shift hands as people exchange currency for goods or services. Economics do not discern between goods or services because they go hand in hand. One increases the other.
If we follow your model we might as well discontinue all currency and going back to being selfsufficient farmers as they are actually the only ones who creates anything of worth because it is what most directly impacts our survival and production rate.
While the article and ted talk was interesting it does not imo add anything to your economical conclusions but did give some interesting insight into a healthy life.
Your idea of economic growth would make the following scenario possible
All services like prostituion are ONLY pursued because the money you earn can be exchanged to something of ACTUAL worth. If there was no worth produced BESIDES prostitution, then noone would need to work, because the people wanting to fuck each other could just fuck each other free of charge. There is no LABOUR going into it. Just fuck who you want to fuck. What i am talking about here is a unified model of both free market capitalism and marxist theory of labour.
Free market capitalism as in: you get what you are willing to pay for.
Marxist economic theory as in: all value is produced by the labour put into it.
There is no labour in the handjob that achieves any surplus in anything. There is no product at the end.
But you have a vastly different inherent idea of what constitutes value and economic growth and i dont think i will be able to convince you of anything else. One last try though:
I pay someone 5 bucks for a blowjob. Great now they made five bucks. they pay someone else five bucks for a blowjobs, jnow the economy made 10 bucks. And so on. But we all still only have five bucks to go around. As long as currency is meaningful it NEEDS to be backed by something. Prostitution works because people in the PRODUCTION SECTOR are PRODUCING SURPLUS and hence can afford to share their surplus with someone not actually producing anything of actual wealth in exchange for their servitude. If there is no production in the first place HOW THE FUCK will you pay for the prostituion? with more prostitution? Thats simply people fucking each other for the heck of it. Is it prostitution if you fuck someone and both of you pay each other 5 imaginary fiat dollars? Hell no.
Because there's more to life than the bare minimum? Especially nowadays? You always keep evolving as a person even after you get what you consider to be happy and fulfilled. Do you think you can have enough experiences and enough perspectives? If so why use Funnyjunk, why play games, why watch youtube, what's the point of playing a board game with your family if you can just talk to them, what's the point of traveling with your friends to a place you've never been to if you can just talk to them. You've got the bare minimum what's the point of expanding any horizon?
I do not have the bare minimum. I do indeed not have a strong and loving family with children and the whole shazazz. I have indeed not achieved inner calm yet, which I am working on, but those things take time. There is a difference between the bare minimum of SERVICE and the bare minimum of PRODUCT. THe bare minimum of service is: I will take the kindness and acts people I know and love give to me and this makes me happy, instead of running around LITERALLY PAYING STRANGERS to be nice to me. And since most people live like that strangers are automatically nice most of the time, without being SPECIFICIALLY PAID to do so.
Material wealth is all other things. Bungeejumping, parachuting, racecardriving, a visit to the bahamas, 10 houses, 500 sportscars, whatever dude, this is all MATERIAL WEALTH, since something is actually being produced that is then used for a specific task. All I am for is for the end of the monetary enslavement of the human race and an end to the ratrace for fake money to exchange more handjobcertificates.
So all you want is the bare minimum in life? Sure having a family and good relationships is what life has to offer but it doesn't mean you can't have more.
That is the fucking point. Why do you even want more? Why do you think there even is more? Can you be more happy than being fucking happy? Can you be more fullfilled than being fullfilled?
Sry for double post.
So we don't need hospitals and doctors, and their mostly female assistances, they're just a luxury. We don't need schools, the are just the icing on the cake, to produce wealth, we don't need to be able to read and write. We don't need shops where we can buy food and clothing, and we don't need those who make the clothing, we don't need offices where things are being organized.
All we need are the strong men who plough the earth, sow the seed and harvest the crop or dig holes underground to mine metals and iron. The rest is just... the golden necklace.
And these positiions couldn't POSSIBLY be filled by
A) Men currently working in these many useless service industry jobs
or B) automated to some extent at this point in time?
Ar eyou actively trying to be retarded or does it come with the flag? Oh wait, thats my flag. I hate this country so damn much sometimes.
Yeah, I'm retarded because I did not yet understand that all wymonz should stay at home and all the useless jobs should simply be canceled.
I also don't understand why wymonz can't plough the earth and mine the metals, just make tools that suit their physical strength.
Anyways, if wymonz would stop working tomorrow, no matter what country (cept the Vatican), that country would go to shit over night. Cuz, yaknow, not all teh wymonz work in gender studies. You plank.
They wouldnt stop working you goddamn imbecile. They would just be in noncompensated lines of work. I am not even for this. Idgaf personally. I am all for personal atomized individual freedom. Since I don't really give a fuck. But it is simply wrong to claim this bullshit. They WOULD BE WORKING. See, if you have housewives you need no more kindergartens. If you have educated housewifes, BAM there go the schools. If you have housewifes that are good cooks in a globalized world BAM there go vast chunks of the resteraunt industry. Etc. A lot of shit currently is splintered into dumbass menial jobs which fullfill noone, or drive people fucking insane because doing them for 40+ years is FUCKING RIDICIOLOUS. I think most people would be happier if men had their male space in the workplace, just getting shit done in FIERCE and BRUTAL competition, yet loyal comradery (women dont have that fite me bitch) and women could do women shit. And if a woman presents capable or a man willing to perform genderatypical work, fuck let em, shit do I care. i dont propose a ban, or a system of rules, thats batshit retarded. I am saying: think for a moment and you will see, there is a way to be happier than this menial shitass wageslave life we are living.
tbh this is just so overall dumb, I shouldn't have replied to you in the first place
Kek. here you see the jew shill shrieking back as his arguments have been shattered and he holds no hope of winning. He will resort to shametactics and ad hominem for lack of better weaponry. Know that in this moment, you have won.
Yes, you won. Get rid of most jobs cuz they're like boring and wymonz stay at home.
Only Jew shills would disagree.
Again, just because this is dear to me:
Your idea of what Im saying: Hurr dur get rid of dem jobs, wominz be bad.
My idea of what I am saying: By introducing the idea of the housewife back in our culture and, not through law but individual informed choice on the part of the women, we could boost economic output and industrial performance while simultaneously improving mental health.
But yeah. I get how one could confuse that.
Jobs =/= Productivity
- Oh no
games memes dump #48
- He clearly stated that the 17x currency increase happened &quo…
To be honest, there simply isn't enough information given in this situation to make a solid decision.
Achieving something out of "luck" isn't descriptive enough, and can be interpreted a number of different ways. It could've been a wise investment, all the way to winning on a scratch off ticket.
Regardless though, it's his money like we agreed. I kinda feel like he dug himself into a hole by telling his parents too. He should've taken more time to process the situation.
You've got a point and I agree with you.
It's still his money, though. Nobody elses.
- A healthy read/listen to understand the mechanics at use:
Tumblr is a cult.
- It's... so... beautiful...
- Retardation is just an antonym for acceleration. Use this know…
It's funny, because when I first encountered a retardando in music, I was confused. That's when I learned it meant slow down.
- lolwut, I captioned that picture and uploaded it to FJ and her…
HO-LEE TITS son! I spent so much time looking for the original after it was first posted! thanks!!!
- Wow, it's almost like some people have trained the ability to …
no, i mean as a commenter
Show Comments (134)