XVIII. on lucky charms at the gym

at the gym there’s a terribly fit girl — outpaces me at 15 when I’m plodding along, sweating and out of breath at 12 — who has been my lucky charm the past couple of days, always an empty treadmill one or two away from her, & she makes me try harder. / today I finished my sets quickly — doing arms and shoulders today, it hurts! — so I could go over and run next to her. / yeah, I’m fairly sure she just thinks I’m a creepy fucker.

XVII. on sexuality & religion

So how old were you guys when you realised that sexuality doesn’t exist? / The people arguing for legal recognition and societal representation of alternative sexualities are are bad as those who argue for the law to recognise only straight relationships. Just be with who you want to be with — with due consideration of age ranges! / N.B. In respect of religious belief: if you are part of a religion which condemns samesex relationships — because there are no religions which condemn actually being gay; just acting on it — then either conform with your religion, be prepared to leave the backwards, intolerant religion, or accept that in the eyes of your religion you are a sinner.

XV. on the gym having no mirrors & the general election

there aren’t any mirrors on one floor of my gym. this has benefits that are also negative. / for example, you aren’t put off becoming red and sweaty on the treadmill, and making your orgasm face while doing your last two heavy reps, BUT you are red and sweaty, and everyone has now seen your orgasm face — and not the one you put on during passion, either; the one after angry fucking that we don’t let girls see. / also, there’s no way for someone on the treadmill next to you to spy on you all sneaky without you knowing, — they’d have to turn and face you — BUT you also can’t admire a guy or girl working out near you without just full-on staring, the result being that you’re now seen as homosexual or a pervert.

anyway, our general election is getting really bloody close, the propaganda machine is in full swing, & it’s getting close to when the main parties — I don’t mean in the sense of two-party politics; there are a lot of important parties this time around! — are going to break out the big guns. and by big guns I mean the newspapers are going to get a few anonymous tips, soon. / yeah, this should have been two separate posts, but I don’t want to spam when I haven’t much to say.

XIV. on the Laffer Curve

Prager University is a very pro-free enterprise thinktank, — read capitalist, greedy, rightwing, conservative, or whatever other buzzword you associate with that term — but the University of Chicago isn’t; this is a very interesting video that everyone should watch.

ADMISSION: My rendition of the economic principle, & the outcomes I draw from it, come from a very limited understanding of economics. I’m not unlearned, but I’m definitely not qualified to pass off what I say as fact. So I’d recommend just watching the video. . . .  / DISCLAIMER: I’ve done no research further than watching the video, reading some of the comments on that video, skimming the Romer & Romer paper online, & reading one other liberal review of the paper.

Anyway, if you can’t — or are not in the mood to — watch the video, the Laffer Curve is the relation between tax rates on a population & the amount of tax revenue received from that population. At 0%, the government receives £0 of the national income as taxes, and at 100%, there is no incentive to work, so the government eventually receives £0 as the national income of becomes £0. / All economists agree with this principle. The disagreement comes from where the hump sits. / For example, it would be to the Capitalist‘s benefit if the hump sat at 10%: — this would mean that if the government takes >10% of the national income as taxes, the government would begin to lose revenue. And it would be to the Socialist‘s benefit if the hump sat at 90%: — this would mean that the government can set taxes all the way to 90% of the national income and still continue to gain revenue.

The Romer & Romer paper, by leftist economists and commissioned and published by a leftist university (are there any that aren’t?) found that the hump is about 33%.

So, from what I can gather, technically, in a nation with a flat tax rate, it makes perfect sense; the 33% is the flat figure across all demographics that will give the government the most amount of money. BUT every country I know of employs a progressive tax rate, so depending on the bracket you fit into, it might be 50% for the high earners but only 20% for the low earners. So does the 50% cancel out the 20% and meet at 35% overall — almost perfect? It seems that this isn’t the case. What drives the drop in the Laffer Curve is lack of incentive to work. By taxing the high earners >50%, it gives people a smaller incentive to aim for that final tax bracket; and seeing as the richer people are, — & the higher the number of rich people is — the government suffers because the demographic suffers. / This would also happen if the low earners were taxed 50% and the high earners were taxed 20%. Because the majority of low earners are young people, or unskilled workers, it makes them less likely to enter the workforce.

CONCLUSION: If you are the biggest socialist ever, & want the biggest government possible, you should want a flat rate of tax at 33%. This means you should want the rich as well as the poor to be taxed 33%.

P.S. This is strictly talking about the money the government takes in, & not the growth of the economy. From other sources, — Britain in 1700s, the U.S.A. in 1800s, Israel in the 80s, Hong Kong, Russia after the fall of the U.S.S.R. — the ideal rate of government spending in respect of overall national income growth (and therefore government income growth, if that is actually important to you), has been about 10%.

Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue: http://youtu.be/FqLjyA0hL1s

XIII. on intermittent fasting

I started intermittent fasting a week ago Friday and really noticing a difference in energy, sleeping patterns, weight loss, & a massive change in hunger. Honestly I’m just feeling physically better all-round. / I’m fasting from when I wake up — at around 7.00 a.m. — to about 7.00 p.m. with a snack of some fruit or nuts at about 5.00 p.m. when I leave work and head to the gym. / Fasting just applies to food, here. I drink lots of water and one or two cups of black coffee. / I find that as long as I remember to eat the snack I don’t feel hungry at any point of the day, even after an hour long session at the gym, even though I’m probably only consuming 1500 calories a day. / I know that’s not enough calories, & I shouldn’t really expect any gains in strength on such a massive deficit, but I’m focused mostly on lowering my bodyfat at the moment. . . . I promise I’ll work much harder on being healthier very soon! — I’m almost at my goal.