Posts made by Hella

Another Bennifer bites the dust. Ben Affleck gets divorced because it's legal to marry Matt Damon now?

@Insomnia said:

Trying to put a bra on after just doing your nails so you can go out in public and be decent.

Gel nails.

@Cobaltasaurus I suppose that means I should put my clothes back on.

@Cobaltasaurus said:

@Spitfire said:

Two weeks of bloody 90-100 degree heat. And it's not even July yet.

I didn't move to the northwest coast to live in hot. I came for 300 days of rain and wearing shorts in 60 degree weather.

Augh. Yes.

I'm afraid to look at the weather forecasts. The last time I did it said it would be 102 degrees in freaking Oregon. >_< Grr.

Make it stop. Somebody make it stop. It's so hot outside I'm considering walking around naked and blaming it on bath salts.

@Silver said:

@Coin I never posted on WORA. Never kept an account there.

Ditto that, though sometimes I wish it were still available to at least browse through to see what I was missing.

Mine's only 6 and she's a good kid. But I am also an overattached mother.

Maybe it's different when you only have one kid. I hate when mine goes away. I miss the little monkey. Also, there is one less reason not to study.

Ditto. School, but can make time.

@Thisnameistaken said:

The heat.

Ya'll may scoff because it's /only/ in the upper 80s/low 90s but it's significant when you're /used/ to 60-something. And it's going to go on for at least a week.

Should I die from it, don't cremate me. Drop my body off in the arctic somewhere and just let me freeze.

This. WHYYYYYY. I went to the driving range today and it was too hot to hit straight... >.> Yes. That excuse will do nicely.

I'd still be pissed. We have emotions. They're okay to have. Especially after something like that, even if it is after the fact. Betrayal is betrayal. You can have the noble feelings later, after the anger wears off.

Just get pregnant! Instant boobs. Isn't that why every woman gets pregnant/every guy knocks his lady-friend up? Bewbs.

... now, where did I leave my bra...

@Luna said:

@Ganymede knows what's up.

Basically just knowing that I used to be an oWoD changeling wiz says it all.

Damn it, @Luna . You're so turnt. TURNT.

@Luna said:

I would own that! I used to have the Hello Kitty vibrator but it was stolen. If you want the real 'packing' feel like @HelloRaptor implied, you get a feeldoe. I had an ex who was super obsessed with hers.

First.... someone STOLE a VIBRATOR? ... Second ... O.O @feeldoe. I feel very uneducated and naive right now.

Off-topic: I read the title as 'PreMade Girls and Code'... now slightly disappointed.

@Ganymede said:

For Japan, maybe. For the United States, I doubt it. Last time I checked, the majority of theorists believe that there will be a huge economic problem in the near future as the baby-boomers become decrepit, productivity per capita drops, and we suffer another recession.

You're proving my point with this. Due to the lack of population growth over the last generation or two, productivity has suffered and the economy suffers with it. Were there enough able bodies to take the place of the baby-boomers who leave the work force and become dependent on the State, there would be continued growth (to some degree or another).

I can concede that larger populations will, by and large, have higher population growth rates and enjoy greater technological development, but I'm not willing to concede a reversal of causation, as suggested by your second comment.

Regarding Galor and Weil, this this paper by Lagerlof confirms my original criticism. In it, the author hypothesized:

"We also show that these cycles are not an artifact of the two-period life setting: allowing adults to live on after the second period of life with some probability does not make the oscillations go away. Rather, the cycles are driven by fertility being proportional to per capita income minus the parental subsistence requirement. When population is large, and per-capita incomes close to subsistence, fertility is therefore sensitive to changes in population levels."

This suggests that fertility -- or population growth -- is sensitive to the difference between per-capita income and subsistence income. Further, per-capital income flatten to subsistence as overall production reaches its demand-based limit. So, I'm not seeing population growth as a good thing at all, or that the relationships are more than observational.

@VulgarKitten said:

I'm not saying this is right, or fair. <where I pointed out that it is not necessarily a good thing, just a thing that is necessary.>

I'm going to have a fair look at your link as soon as I have the time.

That said, I don't intuitively see where population growth any causal connection to technological growth. My understanding is that technological growth is tied directly to investment into education and research. Larger populations tend to have the public income necessary to fund technological growth, but I don't think the population factor has a direct relation.

As for Japan, its country faces somewhat unique circumstances. It's difficult to suggest that any "traditional" or "general" fix would apply to it.

It's not difficult to suggest. Many papers do suggest this, I pointed out one already. At this point I've got enough on my plate with RL schoolwork to go pulling up more links for you. They are there, and they are interesting, even if you don't agree with their logic. I would suggest Google Scholar, if in fact you are curious and don't have access to EbscoHost or other online research databases.

@BetterJudgment said:

@VulgarKitten I use Durkheim all the time for his insights on the sociology of religion. However, for population growth and capitalism, I'd use someone far more current and with some quantitative chops. Also, my brief look at the grab bag of sources your listed indicates that while many of them say that population growth was necessary for the foundation of capitalism, none of them say that it is necessary for the continuance of capitalism or even talk much about it at all in terms of current growth. Perhaps you could post some specific links? (I know you quoted Faris, but that's 1975 and, really, someone who makes so basic and Marxist an error as to call feudalism a "mode of production" when production was an epiphenomenon of the social institution of feudalism is pretty suspect.)

Perhaps a more physical example, then, since it seems like you were not able to access the entirety of the articles I linked to (for if you had been able, then you would see that the articles expound on the necessity of population growth over the long term).

Let's look at what has been observed in Japan, where population growth slowed, halted, and eventually reversed. Per capita incomes have risen only very slowly, government debt is enormous, households are heavy savers, and deflation is endemic. Population growth isn't a cure-all, but in the present economic situation it's likely to make the resolution of a range of problems much easier. In this instance it is necessary for capitalism. Is it the only thing necessary? Not at all, and I'll point out here that I made no claim of it being the only necessity for enhanced capitalism . @Ganymede points out other influences in their post (distribution and technology et al), so no need to go there. However, here's where I (and my research) differ from the converse school of thought: Kremer and other more recent theorists (Galor and Weil, Sorel) have stated and empirically confirmed that larger population is associated with higher population growth rates and faster technological development. Technological development, then, becomes a consequence of population growth, leads to an increase in labor productivity, per capita income and improvements in living conditions, and increased capitalism. Here is, hopefully, an article you might find interesting, as it argues both sides of the spectrum, is current, and is free to access: https://www.academia.edu/430979/Population_and_Economic_Growth

Re: Durkheim; most of the data captured in "The Division of Labor in Society," is empirical. Have you read this particular work, to know why I referenced it? In fact, Durkheim was a pioneer of empirical (quantitative) measures, though granted he is not current by any means. However, neither is Marx current and we can still apply his theories broadly to society today.

Pinterest. It solves all the things when I need to find creative End-of-Year gifts for my daughter's teachers. Thank you, custom Starbucks sleeves.

@Ganymede said:

@VulgarKitten said:

I disagree. Overpopulation is bad for a capitalist economy. Population growth itself is necessary for a capitalist economy.

No, it's not.

Overpopulation is a result, as scarcity is a provable presumption. Population growth is not a necessity.

I internet-challenge you to point to a credible study that says otherwise.

http://www.popline.org/node/346160
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0289.1970.tb01010.x/abstract;jsessionid=6559619EE5BA401C67403F5EFCCC925A.f02t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3zt2b504?query=population growth;hitNum=1#page-1
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970159?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=econ_wpapers

I'm not sure if you'll have access to all of those (I get them through the University) but you should be able to see a few. A quote from my personal hardcover library, "Population, Ecology, and Social Evolution," edited by Steven Polgar: "There is little doubt that world population will continue to increase so long as population growth is necessary to the capitalist modes of production." (p. 260, author James C Faris). Check the book out, you can probably buy it on Google Books if you're so inclined.
Add to that, you can pick up almost anything by Emile Durkheim to expound on it. "The Division of Labor in Society," is my preference.

@Ganymede said:

That's actually incorrect. Population growth is actually bad for a capitalist economy, especially if technology is not improving (it's not).

I disagree. Overpopulation is bad for a capitalist economy. Population growth itself is necessary for a capitalist economy. If there were fewer people to do the slaving and consuming, profits would be smaller. So long as the birth rate doesn't exceed the replacement level by more than a certain percentage, population growth is extremely beneficial.

People with children 'grow' the economy (or at least the capitalist economy) better than those who don't, because they're supplying the future cheap labor. That's why it's in the government's best interest to provide them with assistance, so their children can grow up to be exploited by the 'machine'. Without future workers, capitalism would suffer. Therefore those who make (and benefit from) the rules, will inevitably favor that which keeps them making profit.

I'm not saying this is right, or fair. It is what it is, though.