The women can work as secretaries, receptionists, etc. until they get a new gig. The men? They won't even think of applying.

That's bollocks, because men will end up working manual labour in the same situation if money is tight. You won't get hired as a secretary or receptionist as a man, because... well let's be honest, most men aren't eyecandy and for secretary and receptionists jobs that is a job requirement. It is, don't deny it.

So, no I wouldn't apply for those positions, but I would apply for a bus driver or truck driver job. Men will chose the harder jobs over jobs that handle humans... which brings us to...

Just look at the ratio of male to female nurses as another example. A job where the extra strength of a man is an advantage, but they avoid it like the plague. Why? Fear. Fear of what other people will think.

I don't think it's fear. I wholly lack the empathy to care for people. I would be more than wrong on that place and I share this *mental* state with most other men. That's exactly what you've been saying: there is a mental difference and the nursing job simply doesn't match what men like to do. If I can avoid people and get machines instead, I will take that option every single time. Even if it's worse paid and more physicals. Humans are disgusting, humans are vile, interaction with them in undesirable.

I think you're too much of a victim to see these things clearly. Men, do not like jobs where you have to handle humans. Only in highly paid positions, they accept that burden. That's why a project manager is paid more than a good programmer, while doing much less for the project.

Or if a man says something to a woman at work and she takes it the wrong way, another lawsuit.

Perhaps that is a cultural problem. I have, in my career, never shunned perverted jokes, sexual innuendos, compliments ("sexy dress today, Jane"), etc. The worst I had was a little talk because on one I made a girl turn totally red and she complained to her superior (Blowjob joke, but damn, if you're kneeling in front of a coworker you're deserving that.). I merely, got a little stern talk about behaving a bit better -not around women- but around uptight PriceWaterHouseCooper consultants.

I have a cute dataminer sitting next to me at work, the rest of us are neckbeard developers and/or sysadmins. Male-jokes get made and she just laughs with us. It is not a problem. Now, it were different, if I'd be touching her inappropriately, but I'm not and I wouldn't want to.

Other example, my sister is a roadie/sound-engineer. That is pretty much a physical job and she is the only female. She handles well and her nickname is "pittbull". A women in these jobs just has to take up the culture, because it's just that: a culture and it's not against women, it's just in good fun. So, yes, she gets teased that she'll be sent in a pink dress to the client to make better sales, but she quips back hard and everything is in good fun.

Sueing? So North-American. Try "forgiving" and "adapting".

It is very simple, you are free to say that -let's say- black people and inferior people. Totally free in my eyes to say that. You'd be an idiot, but freedom allows you to be an idiot.

What you can't do is enforce your beliefs, because that is the actual discrimination.

The laws are there to protect minorities, not from vile speech, but from actual harm. However, even discrimination laws have their limits. Especially regarding to gender, because there *are* actual physical difference between men and women (feminists will never allow this to be true, but it's pretty much scientific fact). So, I can understand that an employer wouldn't hire a female truck driver, because in the event of a flat tire, she wouldn't be able to help herself because changing the tire would be too heavy. Of course, this would depend on the candidate. I know very physically strong women, but that is not how feminists think. That said, they're not battling for women to become truck drivers, but for women to get so called white collar jobs in management.

So, no, discrimination is not equal to political correctness. I am not politically correct, because I'm not afraid to say what I think even if it is contrary to popular beliefs, but I do not discriminate (at least, I try not to... it is apparently impossible not to discriminate at all)

Even so.

$20 in 1913 was worth almost $500 today. But the nominal gdp per capita in 1913 was about $400, while in 2013 it was over $50000. So: $20 / $400 gdp per capita in 1913 = 0.05 or 5% of yearly income. $400 / $50000 = 0.008, or 0.8% of yearly income. Thus, purchasing power has increased since 1913. The equivalent of $20 today will buy you much more than you could get in 1913. That includes electronics that didn't exist in 1913: radios, wind-up LED lights, cell phones, etc.

Regarding your example of a good suit costing "in the thousands": 5% of $50000 is $2500. So your purchasing power has not decreased: you can spend the same percentage of yearly income on a suit, and get a very high quality one today, as you did in 1913. Also, there are so many electronic products that cost $infinity in 1913, such as computers, cellphones, TVs, and many other things we take for granted today.

The myth of inflation being such a destructive force is thus revealed to be hyperbole.

Purchasing power has advanced much faster than inflation. A common meme is "A suit cost $20 in 1913." But the GDP per capita in 1913 was much less. You can look it up (as I have) and you will find that as a percentage of GDP per capita, a suit today is something close to 5 times less than it was in 1913.

The money supply has increased significantly faster than inflation. The quantity theory of money is deeply flawed.

What non-governmental institution turns over its profits to the US Treasury? What non-governmental institution has to have its head approved by Congress? What non-governmental institution has its charter written by Congress?

The Fed should learn to keep interest rates low. If you look at a graph of interest rates, you'll see that interest rate hikes preceded 8 of the last 9 recessions. Only four out of 12 rate hikes didn't cause recessions.

Why should the Fed raise interest rates now? It just raises costs to borrowers and increases bank profits. Interest rate hikes caused the housing crisis in 2007, because the ARMs adjusted to the increased prime rates instigated by the Fed.

Why is there this mass hysteria that rates have to increase, when clearly rate increases precipitated the most recent crash?

"The Federal Reserve also ignored Bagehot's recommendation of what to do during a bank run: make money readily available but on good collateral at dear prices. Instead, the Federal Reserve paid good money for garbage from the banks."

I would argue that the collateral is good. It was market groupthink that resulted in the crash, gossip in chatrooms hysterically screaming that every mortgage was in default. In fact the vast majority of mortgages didn't default. A few did, which was expected, but irrational paranoiac fear took over, as the market loves to let it.

Bagehot was too conservative with his "at a high rate of interest" dictum. Also, the Fed should bail out individuals, not banks. Even Kenneth Rogoff agrees:

Without question the best and most effective approach to the problem would have been to bail
out the subprime homeowners directly, forcing banks to take losses but keeping them manageable.
For an investment of perhaps a few hundred billion dollars, the US Treasury could have saved
itself from a financial crisis whose cumulative cost, counting lost output, already runs into many,
many trillions of dollars. Instead of âoesaving Wall Street,â a subprime bailout would have been
targeted, almost by definition, at lower-income households. But unfortunately, this approach too
would have been politically impossible prior to the crisis.

It is up to us to change the political possibilities by educating ourselves and voting in representatives that will tell the Fed to help individuals instead of corporations.

The Fed is not private. What private bank returns interest profits to the Treasury each year? What private bank explicitly is chartered to work in the public interest, and follow directives Congress gives it? The Fed was created to replace the private central banks ("clearninghouses") that had been evolved to expand the money supply in panics. The private sector realized that it was not good to have an individual such as J. P. Morgan as the lender of last resort, because as a private, profit-motivated individual he was in a position to help only his friends and hurt his enemies.

The Fed learns. In the Great Depression, it misguidedly tried to defend the dollar's gold conversion ratio and did not expand the money supply nearly enough. In the latest crisis, Bernanke expanded the Fed's balance sheet by a trillion dollars in a matter of weeks (and the predicted hyperinflation, from the quantity theory of money theorists, failed to materialize).

The Fed can and should continue to learn, to backstop individuals instead of corporations. The Fed should backstop social security, and local and state governments such as Detroit. We can expedite the learning process by voting in congressional representatives that tell the Fed: "Finance a basic income", for example. The Fed will figure out how, they know they can finance anything.

They are ultimate, perfect libertarians. Rand Paul eat your heart out!

The government should not be constrained by market assumptions, such as that resources are limited because of efficient allocation. The government operates on principles, such as unalienable rights, that markets do not value.

s/yoy/you
s/ad/as