NOTE: To my brothers in engineering/technology, this article is not meant to be an insult, but rather an analysis of a problem in our field and suggestions for improvement. Clearly there are many manly male engineers, but there are enough on the other side to create a stereotype.
Why is it that engineers are stereotypically unmasculine? I believe there are five interrelated things going on here: little interaction, ego, untrained bodies, noncompetitive, and high focus in other areas. This is not to say that engineers are particularly manly. Certainly there are outliers, and manliness comes in more than one form, but in general this trend seems to be true. 1. Engineering requires much less human interaction than other fields, especially when compared to sales, customer service, or law. This attracts quiet and introverted men. Being quiet and/or introverted on its own is by no means antithetical to manliness/masculinity, but being meek/letting others walk all over you is. I am a Crossfitter. I am Vegan. I am an Atheist. I am Palio. I am a warrior. I am a martial artist. I am lazy. I am a Republican. I am a Trump supporter. I am hungry. I am a socialist. I am a capitalist. I am a scientist.
Identity is powerful and can be used to alter behavior. For a warrior, identity is key. When under insane stresses identity sometimes is the only thing that helps them keep the code and not do the unthinkable. An identity serves the warrior better than any list of rules. Identity for the scientist is not in beliefs, but rather the scientist creates multiple opposing hypothesis in order to not get attached to one as an identity. When someone's job or identity relies on their not knowing something, no one will be able to convince them of it. People will risk destroying the entire wold to protect their identity (see The Cold War). A massive part of the political problem in the US is that we don’t have citizens who vote Republican and citizens who vote Democrat. We have people who identity as Republican and Democrat. That is why I am not a 'real' Libertarian, but I tend to vote libertarian. Don't shed every identity, but very carefully selct the ones that are making you stronger, healthier, wiser, better. I am a Christian, an athlete, an engineer, an entrepreneur, a warrior. Almost every other identity I am reconsidering because they get in the way of my striving to be less wrong each day. Thanks for reading, Rand P.S. Are you interested in improving your self-talk, getting more discipline in your life, and living a more healthy lifestyle? The 90 Day Self Project will help you achieve all of these goals. Introduction I pick one warm-up, do the ab routine, then I pick one from weight routine or body-weight training. I am working on adding stretching at the end when the muscles are warm, but do not have routine that I love for that yet. The whole workout takes just over an hour. I am considering adding Olympic lifts to the routine. My goal is to loose some weight and build muscle simultaneously. Feel free to use these workouts and adjust them to your desired difficulty level (add or remove reps). Warm-up/cardio
This post is based on Naval's Tweet:
As a Christian I have always thought that America and the world needs to come to know Christ as LORD and savior, but recently I have been very surprised and interested to hear several atheists say that America needs religion for socio-political-economic reasons. I will do my best to outline these reasons here. The political argument as laid out by Andrew Heaton and Rob Montz is that people have a fundamental need to worship and revere something. This craving has traditionally been filled by a monarch or by religion. The English have a very healthy system where the revered monarch is the queen who actually has little power. They then treat the Prime Minister with the derision due the head meter maid and tax collector in the land. In the begining the United States was very religious and gave little power to the President. Over time that office has grown in power and significance while religiosity has gone down. Everything that people used to get out of church they are now turning to politics to. This can be seen as people fight over who will be president like the Catholics and Protestants used to fight over who would be King of England. The Economic argument was also made by Andre Heaton and Rick Unger as well as others, such as an academic paper that I got to listen to a presentation by the author. His argument was that Capitalism was originally conceived as a moral construct. It was believed that Capitalism would require fair reinstatement of customers and employees to work out. The modern "greed is good" Capitalism is not what it's founders had in mind. The only solution that the author of the paper could provide was "maybe religion?" The Social argument goes like this: religious people are more likely to donate time and money to good causes. Religion provides a bond to the local community and promotes humility, persistence, and a sense of connection and purpose. Religious people tend to live longer and be happier. Singing in a group really helps people feel connected as well. These all came from a Ted talk I listened to a few months ago. “Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children’s children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.” — Theodore Roosevelt God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination. I never understood how someone could believe that people are the primary cause of climate change. The climate has always been changing and will always continue to change. Those who label me as a climate denier say that it has been doing this for 4.6 billion years. This semester I am taking a philosophy class in which we learned about existentialism, a philosophical movement centering on analysis of individual existence and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong (Merriam-Webster). This way of thinking elevates man into a role traditionally given to gods. I really like this way of thinking as a means of taking self-responsibility for making the world a better place, Jordan Peterson style. After studying this, I suddenly understood how people could believe that they had suddenly taken control of this ancient planetary cycle.
I realize that the President's powers are limited, but these are the policies I would like to see implemented. I will update this over time.
I would simplify the tax and entitlement codes along lines like in my first post. One key part of that is putting large fines on companies who hide money outside the US to avoid taxes. Another key part is cutting entitlements, particularly social security. I would also increase funding for NASA and science. I would task the FTC with breaking up Facebook and Instagram, Google search from YouTube, and Amazon as a product selling company form Amazon as a place where vendors can list and sell goods. I would pass a law that made any product which was intentionally and explicitly addictive (such as Facebook, Instagram, gambling, tobacco products, certain video games, certain pornography, alcohol, etc.) to be illegal for anyone under 18, and require them to have large explicit warnings every time they are used. These last two rules combined should free up the open markets to produce good competitive products that will benefit Americans and the world. I would pass a law that said that no federally elected official could hold a government position for more then 10 out of any 15, or maybe 20, year span. This should limit corruption, lifetime politicians, and elected officials completely out of touch with their constituents. I would try to increase, perhaps double the number of immigrants who can immigrate here each year and do away with the lottery system. Instead make it first come first served. I would like to significantly cut the red tape and make the immigration process cheaper, easier and more efficient for the immigrants and the agencies in charge of it. I would support having an open boarder with Canada, making some kind of agreement that allows citizens from each country to move freely across and work in each-others nations with a path to citizenship. I would also support very free unilateral immigration reciprocity with many European nations. I would also make securing the boarder a priority involving studies to figure out the best way to do that. This may include a wall or other barriers and may include other processes. As for foreign policy I would like to see us get out of the Middle East. Support Israel and push for an agreement on creating a Palestinian nation that Israel and Palestine can agree to. I would get out of Japan, let them defend themselves. They are a close ally in Asia and we can trust them. Let them have a military! Make a deal with China involving them respecting international intellectual property rights and in return we have free trade and less of a military presence in Asia. Part of that deal could involve them restricting North Korea's nuclear capability and us lifting all restrictions on Chinese products in the US. I would also like to get rid of the CIA and cut funding to the military industrial complex by 20%. I would increase military spending on technology and cyber warfare and beef up reserves, while downsizing our physical presence around the world. I would like to add a part to the constitution that limits US intervention overseas, especially our involvement in regime changes. I would like to get rid of as many nukes as I could talk the generals into. Is there a God? Are there many gods? If there are what is he/they like? Can we have any definitive proof?
To analyze these questions we must make some assumptions: Let us assume that logic works. Without this we cannot get anywhere. Let us also assume that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true. This one is harder to justify because it is not provable with formal logic, but there is a lot of evidence that it is true, much like the law of Gravity. This law states that all things move from orderly to unordered, leading to the eventual heat death of the universe. Let us also assume that Evil exists. This is even harder to justify, because no logic can prove it, and science has little to say about it, but only a psychopath or a moron would reasonably argue that evil does not exist, and I assume you the reader are neither, so Evil exists. The next question to answer is if the universe has always existed. The answer is no. There are several reasons to think this, for one it does not make much sense to say that the universe has always existed. We see all material things existence end, so all material things must have a beginning also. As far as we can tell the universe consists of material things, so the universe must have a beginning. Science also backs this up by showing that the universe is expanding, which means it must have an origin. Let us call this beginning the "Big Bang". For our analysis the best proof of the Big Bang is Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that since things are becoming more disorderly, if there was no beginning then by now everything would be infinitely far apart. If then there is a beginning then something must have caused it. Whatever caused the beginning must also have a cause, and so on. Yet, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics there cannot be an infinite line of causes, or a causal loop. Therefore there must be an unmoved first mover. Let us define that as God. What can we say about this God? We can say that he has infinite energy, or at the very least, close enough to call it infinite. He must not have a beginning or end. And since we say that logic exists, God must then be logical. Furthermore, since there are orderly laws that run this universe, it is unreasonable to think that God is not lawful and orderly. As evidence to this last claim, if we looked out into the universe and observed every object to be spherical, and observed that this was due to gravity (like science has done) then it would be unreasonable to claim that the Earth is not also spherical. In the same way we cannot rule out an illogical God, but we also cannot say that it is likely within a reasonable doubt. This rules out many of ancient mythical beliefs about gods, such as the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian traditions as being the "true God" or "real gods". Surely we can say more about God? Let us focus on this idea of evil. Since evil exists there must also be good for it to be compared to. If there is good there must be some way of distinguishing good and evil. Every person has an idea about good and evil, but few can agree on its definition. But if real evil exists, it cannot be defined by some wishy washy standard. There must be an empirical moral law defining it. And if an empirical law, and since the law does not come from man, it must come from God. Furthermore, why would an evil God produce a law that condemns himself? No, God must be a good God, by definition of his moral law. Why then is there evil in this world? It must be that more good can come of the evil than there could have been if evil did not exist. Perhaps it is good to know that there are good things, and how could we know good if there were no evil? We can now analyze the faiths around the world to see if any claim a good, absolute, infinity powerful, and logical God. P.S. This is clearly drawing off the work of Descartes and Ravi Zacharias, not meant to steal, just add my thoughts. Intro My tax plan would end poverty in the US, balance the budget, stimulate the economy, and lower taxes! This is done by having a flat tax rate, a negative income tax, cutting out all loopholes, slashing spending, eliminating red tape, and introducing a Value Added Tax. Part 1: Income! The negative income tax of would be distributed as 1/12th of the poverty line each month for every adult with no income. Today that would be $1000/ month(1). For every two dollars that individual makes they loose one dollar of the subsidy. This way a person making twice the poverty line ($2400/ year today) would pay no taxes. Every dollar above this would be taxed at a flat 25%. This would ensure that every American was at least above the poverty line. Because of the lack of tax brackets there would be no disincentive to work overtime or otherwise earn more income. There would also be less disincentive to hide income. This very low tax would prevent the rich from leaving, and in fact would probably cause the rich who are leaving other tax happy places like France to move here and pay our taxes. The negative income would replace social security (because it would provide every senior citizen with a bottom threshold of income) and all government student aid (because it would at least pay for food and housing for every low income college student). This would also replace the tax credit and close all income tax loopholes. There would be no housing credit. This system of entitlement is better for most every American than current systems because those with the lowest income would receive cash. Studies show that receiving cash can be more beneficial than other forms of help (3). Besides lifting them out of poverty, this money will be directly injected into the economy. Then the next "level" of income would have very little taxes. After that the flat income tax would mean more people get to keep more of their money, which with be invested into the economy (which will produce more income to tax, increase the stock market, and thereby people's retirement accounts, as well as produce jobs), given away as charity, or spent (which produces jobs and improves the economy). In other words this tax plan would stimulate the economy in every way and encourage the markets. Part 2: Healthcare Every citizen of the United States (adults and children) would receive a $400 voucher each month for health insurance (this is just under the average cost of health insurance (2)). That way everyone could have health insurance, the government does not meddle with people and their doctors, and everything is voluntary. This would replace all requirements of employers to provide health insurance and citizens to have health insurance. This should appease Democrats who want everyone to be taken care of, Republicans who want a free market, and Libertarians who want voluntary transactions. Part 3: Business I would put a flat tax on profit from businesses done in the U.S. at 25%. Make it the same as income taxes. I would also put hefty (like up to 25% of revenue) fines on any company that is obviously using tactics to avoid taxes (i.e. it is known that they are stashing money or assets in the Caymens or Ireland, etc.). Any company that refuses to play by the rules does not need to operate in the U.S. I would also set a 0% tariff on all countries who reciprocate in good faith (i.e. they are not intentionally ignoring our copyright laws. I'm looking at you, China!). Any country who does not wish to abide by this does not need to trade with us. There would be another exception for extreme cases of national security (i.e. North Korea or Iran. There would be a limit on this to prevent abuse. "*Achem* Trump! *Achem* excuse me"). Getting rid of all tariffs might at first seem like it would be bad for our economy, but it would mean cheaper imports which is which would mean cheaper good for Americans. This improves our standard of living. Cheaper imports also helps our manufacturing plants, which in turn produces jobs and money for the economy. I would also remove all subsidies. I would require that any company that the government invested in or otherwise gave benefits to for the greater good (examples include Tesla, the bailouts of the banks and auto industry, etc.) would need to in return give the government 20%, or a reasonable negotiated amount, of a special type of stock that would not give the government any say in the running of said business, but that would provide a return on investment to the tax payer. This would produce a more equitable outcome for citizens who then get to pay the real price for corn, sugar, and gasoline. They then get to choose if they want to pay that much, instead of the government stealing their money to give it to corporations, to lower the price, so that people can then "afford" that good. It would also be more equitable for our trading partners who would then be able to compete in a fair and open market. This will drive down the price of goods, which improves the standard of living for Americans. I would also institute VAT tax. This is a tax that is imposed on all value added. So if a company mines up iron ore they pay a tax on the ore they sell. Then if the next company refines the ore they sell into steel they pay a tax on the increase in value, not the amount they sell the steel for. The purpose of this tax is so that companies like Amazon who do not turn a profit for years still pay into the country that allowed them to become successful. Note: I am not an expert on economics. I could also see an alternate where instead of paying taxes companies can donate 40% ownership of their company, or whatever tax rate was decided on, in the type of stock described above.. Let's Run The Numbers I will study the year 2015 because that year I can find the most statistics I need. I will start by studying income: In that year the Federal Government produced 1.54 trillion dollars from income taxes and 0.34 trillion dollars in corporate taxes, a total of $1.1 trillion (4). That year people made 7.33 trillion dollars (5). Part 1 of my tax plan would produce $1.1 trillion in income off that same taxable income (6). Part 4 of my plan would produce $0.57 trillion from corporate taxes (7). The total becomes 1.67 trillion dollars. This is compared to the actual total income from 2015 of 3.2 trillion dollars where 1.1 came from social security, and .3 came from other revenues. Now let us consider spending in 2015. The total spending in 2015 was 3.8 trillion dollars (8). 0.6 trillion went to the military. This plan does not cover military, so let us leave this alone. $1.28 trillion was spent on Social Security. $1.05 trillion went to medicare and health. $.14 trillion went to food and agriculture. I am unsure what parts of this would be cut out by defunding subsidies, and how much goes to legitimate purposes (like testing for ecoli). I will assume for this analysis that it is half and half, good enough for this rough calculation. $0.1 trillion went to education. I will make the same assumption about the transportation budget of $0.085 trillion (or 85 billion, I am trying to keep the numbers easy to follow). $0.061 trillion went to housing. I have left out spending that is not covered by this plan. My plan would eliminate $2.6 trillion dollars of expenditures; and create about $0.517 trillion (9) from the negative income tax (part 1 of the plan) and $1.28 trillion for insurance, for a total of $1.8 trillion added. That is a net savings of 0.8 trillion dollars, bringing the total cost of the government down to $3.0 trillion. Post Script If a few years down the road the country has been running in the black and it were to get out of debt then I would like to see the same conservative budgeting continue, and see the VAT continue, but see the tax rate on citizens go down to 20, and maybe even 15%. (1) https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/2017-federal-poverty-level-guidelines
(2) https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/affordable-care-act/much-health-insurance-cost-without-subsidy (3) https://www.poverty-action.org/impact/cash-transfers-changing-debate-giving-cash-poor (4) https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_2015USrn_20rs1n_106063305040#usgs302 (5) from deviding 1.54 trillion by 13.5%, the average tax rate paid by Americans on income: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/03/04/whats-the-average-americans-tax-rate.aspx (6) from taking 7.33 trillion and subtracting the number of employed persons in 2015 (121.5 million according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-usa-since-1990/) which was multiplied by $24,000, the minimum taxable income in this plan then taking that number and multiplying by 25%. (7) I use .34 trillion in corprate taxes from (5). It was very difficult to find the effective corporate tax rate from 2015. The closest I could find is 24% from: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporate-tax-rates-are-in-line-with-comparable-countries this seemed very reasonable when compared to historic corporate tax rates as was found in this study: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/Average-Effective-Tax-Rates-2016.pdf I will use this rate to find a total taxable corporate profits from 2015 and then multiply that by 40% to find corporate income. I realize that this is not a good expectation because if the taxes were so high corporations might not have had as much profits, but that would probably push up income taxes, and otherwise show up in an improved economy, etc. (8) I will use https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ quite a lot in this section. (9) in 2015 there were 43.1 million people in poverty. That times $12,000 is $0.715 trillion. |
RandThis is a place to put my thoughts that don't fit on Twitter. Some is meant to be satire, some are just things I am mulling over. Archives
July 2020
CategoriesAffiliate Disclosure
Some links to products contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase after clicking a link, I may receive a commission. For example, as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This commission comes at no additional cost to you.
Website built with Weebly.
|