#simplifying the margin calculation process

ive documented so many of them. a lot of the lies were calculated such that it would be mortifying to repeat them even to correct them. like elle benjamin saying emma thought torturing children was hot. thats a lie. or kelsey piper saying emma was indistinguishable from a rapist.

but the correct response at these tentative tries at defamation is to repost them in full and drive straight against the expectation that you wouldnt want to repeat these lies aimed to eliminate people who could disrupt the social order.

here's kelsey piper comparing emma to brent dill, saying they are indistinguishable from a rapist for talking about philosophy on the internet:

https://pastebin.com/tje4hN33

heres emmas parse of it:

<<actual lintamande quotes simplified:

glass said [they tried to do what a] person really endorsedly wanted [...] even if the person claimed they wanted something different

[they may have been seeking social] proof that we didn't really have an ethical injunction against it

and part of my main concern about glass, etc. is that their priors seem really really off to me?

so if they say they'll use their social priors to decide when it's appropriate to violate peoples' preferences, I am more scared than if someone whose social priors seem sensible to me says that

combination of two things. one is that, yes, people's "this person is manipulating me and coercing me" detectors ping, at glass in particular, and asking people to turn down their 'this person is manipulating me and coercing me' detectors is a big ask and not always good for them

with comments interspersed about Brent so that people would associate me with him>>

lex (trans) noted this pattern about the chatroom:

<<[11:19] alexander: they’re like... kiiiinda incapable of criticizing the ethical positions of a trans woman without lowkey calling her a rapist. which is like all cis people ever but i’m not happy with it>>

heres elle benjamin choosing to "believe" the lie that emma thought child abuse was hot:

(emma was never let in the "feminist" group to...talk about their experience of being abused.)

heres elle benjamin talking about how much she loves trans women and has empathy for emma being abused. while lying about emma thinking child abuse was hot and lying about them having been violent and banning them from the "rationalist feminist" group they mod. (using the same excuse kingsley did when he said that he chose to believe the lie that anna salamon, president of cfar, wasnt involved in hiring at cfar. "oh someone else told me this." as if that shunts responsibility on to someone else for you believing obvious lies. (it doesnt. someone telling you stereotyped lies about minorities doesnt abdicate responsibility for joining in with the mob.)):

its all so deeply evil what these people are doing. but all they have is "for vague unspecified reasons its Deeply Wise not to listen to what these people say" *sage nod* "they are infohazards, glitches in the matrix, we should all agree on a social norm of ignoring these people." because they are actually wrong and will lose in a debate if they have to justify, say, why they are saying OpenAI and DeepMind have 'alignment teams' when they know thats not true. or why 0 trans women have ever been hired by cfar. or why miri lied about what happened to the fundraiser. or why who is baked in to an fai as morally relevant is determined by a political process, excluding those who have died and nonhuman sentience. or 1000 other questions they can not answer.

these exploratory tendrils of "what lies based on nothing can we get away with?" they also did this with somni and ziz and gwen, the lies they try have a pattern of being blatantly transmisogynistic. for instance patrick sensa lavictoire after sinking a marginal 71,000$ into a failed fundraiser, tried the lie of [ziz is a "gross uncle" style abuser like brent]. https://pastebin.com/TUZ7EThz

there are a lot of avenues people tried that i have catalogued. pete michaud (listed on the cfar staff page) tried saying that ziz was tall and anna was a ~small vulnerable cis woman~. one of these people is the president of a large organization.

<<I'll preface by saying outright that what follows is a full throated, shameless defense of Anna, my friend and colleague, against untrue and ungrounded accusations.

[…]

1. An accusation of Anna that might actually land is that she is a little fast to feel threatened in social situations. She is a woman who is unusually small and has dealt with minor physical disabilities from childhood. She is a full-grown, competent person who navigates life fine (probably better than most, frankly), but the sense of physical vulnerability has deep roots, and she carries it into her social interactions.

2. The context with Ziz is long, and importantly begins prior to Ziz's gender transition. Anna's perspective on a lot of their early interactions is as a small, socially-vulnerable woman, interacting with a male-presenting person who towers over her, and has a penetrating social presence and quite unusual mannerisms that are a combination of low-affect and extremely direct (a combination easy to interpret as aggressive or depersoning).>>

https://pastebin.com/Y5E8d29D

pastel (trans) commented: <<pete michaud's post is invalid

you don't have to read ziz's blog to understand that he is doing bullshit stereotypy

"full-throated defense" suck anna's cock a little deeper, buddy

"anarchists are scary and evil, they throw bombs and wear black">>

pete is a sycophant and probably since he hangs around anna is used to an environment where you can just be this transmisogynistic. anna certainly expected the strat pete is trying to work on ziz.

<<At WAISS, my intent to not be net negative was partially consumed by the intent of Anna Salamon to prevent whistleblowing, and by her timeless gambit that trans women must know our place as inferior to not be “dangerous”.>>

there are a lot more. all playing on transmisogynistic stereotypes, all not true or not relevant. probably the easiest coordination mechanism for ostracism these people could locate.

fortunately for the fate of sentient life in the multiverse, transfems have been talking with each other and know the metagame so when cfar affiliates push the button that activates the trapdoor to flush transfems out im just levitating above empty space.

Since the mid- to late-1800s, better working conditions have been proposed by both activists and government bureaucrats, with constant political pressure on entrepreneurs having yet to cease. Of the many policies that have been suggested or, better yet, enforced, there is one in particular that has remained consistent: increasing the minimum wage.

As of late, it has been referred to as the “living wage.” This policy essentially advocates that companies increase the pay of their workers, particularly those that maintain a meager amount of skills valued in the market. After brief analysis, however, one will conclude that the “living wage” is nothing more than an asinine populist term that maintains steep repercussions not only for companies, but also for the intended beneficiaries of the policy.

Even when examining this progressive concept without much thought, it still falls under scrutiny. Its advocates claim the wage is determined by calculating the expenses for food, healthcare, rent, transportation, childcare, and a handful of other costs in a particular area. Like the CPI, these costs are completely arbitrary. Of the millions of individuals who maintain subjective consumer tastes, preferences and tendencies, how can one accurately determine an average price that would efficiently fulfill each individual’s need?

Before we proceed, one must grasp those economic dynamics that determine wages, which we will find is nothing more than a price. Prices, and the signals they convey, are a vital tool in a market economy. They are essentially a language. They allow both producers and consumers to observe and communicate the aggregate value of a particular commodity or factor of production. These prices reflect the current market conditions of the good or service consumers wish to purchase, without having to know its current supply.

Think of it as a simplified ledger conveyed into a single number.

The determination of the price of the good or service is determined purely by its demand. This is not to insinuate that demand is the only influence of a price, but is rather the origin of the good or service in question. The supply of the given good or service maintains its importance in the determination of the price, but it is certainly not the driving factor.

The failure to realize demand is the vital determining factor of a price. This has created the claim that an increase in wages inflates the price of a good, which is misleading. Prices are not set by producers and the costs of production, but rather by consumers. The price can only be raised by the producer to the point where consumers are willing to purchase the good, due to elasticity. For the remainder of this analysis, we will refer to demand as the demand for labor.

When demand has been realized in the marketplace, workers will offer their labor to meet the demand, which constitutes the supply of labor.

In essence, the living wage intends to support those who maintain little to no skills. The main concern with this notion is that there is already a large supply of unskilled workers in the marketplace. When the wage rate is mandated to be set above its equilibrium price, a surplus of labor arises. With each additional increase in labor, the utility of each additional laborer decreases. This is otherwise known as the law of diminishing marginal utility. During the production process, the entrepreneur utilizes the amount of labor required to fulfill the marketplace demand. With each additional worker enacting their labor, a point will ultimately be reached where an additional input of labor will generate no return, and instead increase the cost of production. This concept is known as the law of diminishing returns.

With these economic principles being realized, the entrepreneur will determine the amount of labor needed to generate the required output to receive a profit, or at the very least break even. The entrepreneurs will pay each laborer their price which was set by the market demand for their skills well before the production process is complete. This is because laborers tend to have a high time preference, meaning they prefer income now rather than later. This causes the individual with a high time preference to receive their income at a discounted rate.

This concept is what determines the wage rate of the laborer, known as the discounted marginal value product, or simply the marginal product. Simply put, each laborer’s wage is determined by the required output to satisfy consumer demand. But why, one may ask, has productive output increased over the past few decades, yet wages have been stagnant when adjusted for inflation?

One could make dozens of suggestions, but the most observable is the increase in the productivity of capital goods. One must recall that labor is not the only factor of production.

Contrary to those who favor a universal basic income and who maintain this erroneous fear of automation, the increase in output due to capital investment is a good thing. This is because the increase of output at lower production costs due to capital investments allow consumers to purchase goods at lower prices! This is why, contrary to Keynes in his General Theory, real wages are what is important, not money wages. As long as artificial inflation is not induced, the purchasing power of real wages to consume goods and services ensures a respectable quality of life.

We have established what constitutes the wage of a laborer, and have also determined that wage rates artificially held above the equilibrium price set by the market results in surplus labor, thus unemployment.

We may now conclude that this surplus of labor induced by the artificial wage set by the government, in fact, harms and discriminates against unskilled workers. As noted earlier, a brief observation of the “living wage” can be turned on its face. With further analysis, it is simply not feasible and maintains damaging ramifications. The “living wage” is nothing more than left-wing populist rhetoric that seeks to reach politically-expedient goals in the immediate future, disregarding the externalities and negative long-term effects of the policy.

The post Addressing the Living Wage – Eccentric Economics appeared first on Being Libertarian.