The Earthbound/Mother series is 1 o’ those cult classics that nobody cared ’bout when it came out ’cept a few, those few became fanatics with a fervor rivaling political groups, till it spread so far that now the internet’s full o’ people praising it, including the creators o’ South Park.

I would say that I mentioned my inclusion in this group in my review o’ Earthbound Zero, ’cept I’ve just realized that I failed to publish that article ’cause I’m apparently mo’ lazy ’bout publishing content than actually writing it (still working on that immensely-groundbreaking article analyzing Donkey Kong Country levels, by the way). You could’ve also looked through the sidebar, which includes some Earthbound website, I guess—as well as many websites I haven’t been to in years, since my interests are as fleeting as the seasons.

Anyway, some fans are working on an unauthorized 4th game, & if you’ve seen their previews on their site, you were probably as excited as I was: look @ that amazing web design!

The Strengths o’ Mother 4’s Web Design

I. The Font’s Readable

Though it could be bigger, it’s much bigger than most websites, which for some reason take microscopic text that’s impossible to read without pressing your face right into the monitor as the apex o’ quality design.

They’re wrong. Letting Grampa Mezun read your text without squinting & raising his monocle is.

Also, Mother 4’s site uses Roboto & I like Roboto. That’s 1 o’ those things you can’t truly ’splain. I mean just look @ that font! How can you not love Roboto?

II. The Color Scheme’s Simple

The site mainly just uses white, dark gray, & red—hardly the most original colors. However, they’re used in a way that still heighten contrast. Usually by trading them back & forth as backgrounds & text colors for different sections.

It also makes rare use o’ subtle texture, such as the faded earth @ the top & the crosshatches for the music section. This is better than a big, colorful background that distracts attention.

Granted, a lot o’ websites go the other way & have just gray & white, which is why the red is necessary, like strawberries dabbled on a vanilla cake.

III. Objects are spaced out well.

A web design fad developing recently that I actually like is the turn toward bigger sites—bigger in that the text is bigger & the content takes up mo’ space, rather than trying to cram a bunch o’ tiny elements into 1 screen. By spacing out content, web designers make it easier for users to parse content & less likely to have to hunt it down, since it’s set down piece by piece.

The only downside is that it creates a greater need for scrolling; but as plenty o’ research has shown, this is hardly a problem—much simpler to scroll straight downward through content than trying to wander all round a screen packed together in many directions.

Ironically, ’nother pattern that’s emerged does the opposite: putting a ton o’ social media & links that stay with the screen as one scrolls. This site only has the slim navigation & small return-to-top button stay on-screen, both o’ which are actually useful.

Other websites put that crap all over the screen, which can oft get in the way o’ the text when one resizes their tiny text ’cause apparently they never thought that one might do that, even though said functionality is in every browser.

IV. Other

The way the top links change based on your position on the page—the links actually go to anchors on the same page, not different pages—& the smoth way it glides up & down are neat.

Actually, that 1st point reminds me o’ something else:

V. Doesn’t cut content into a million pages.

In the 90s ’twas common to see websites all mashed together in 1 huge page. I think those crazy ideology websites like Jesus is Savior & Rense are the most infamous, as well as whatever this site’s s’posed to be.

This has unfortunately led the web in the other direction: splitting content into as many pages as possible. I’m always bewildered when I read a newspaper article & see it split into pages. Why? Do they think I’ll only want to read half o’ it?

The problem is, while putting all content into 1 page is a processing—& thus time—burden ’cause it forces 1 to get all content @ once, splitting it too much can, too, since it forces 1 to load a whole ’nother page & wait ’gain.

I joked to myself when comparing David Wonn’s amazing glitch website that you should definitely read, which hasn’t been updated since 2006, & a newer glitch wiki—whose design can’t be blamed on its creator, since it just uses a Wikidot default. Though the former packs half o’ an entire system’s glitches into single pages, they still load mo’ quickly than going through each individual page for each individual glitch in the wiki.

Consequently, the former’s mo’ enjoyable to read, even if it looks like a book written in neon signs. It may be due to my relatively slow internet, but the wiki’s like reading a book & having to wait minutes before each page. Wouldn’t that be annoying to read?

’Course, Wonn had full control over his site’s design, whereas I doubt the wiki’s creator had any. Furthermo’, I suspect the reason for splitting content so much may have to do with economics—mo’ ad views—than design. But this still confuses me, as there should be a way to have both. After all, couldn’t you make the ad stay on-screen no matter how long an article is? Couldn’t you automatically make the ad change without changing the page? & wouldn’t the ad still steal as much attention as on page load?

Conclusion

The 1 flaw I’d say is the way the blog is a totally different website, lacking the navigation o’ the original, thus making one go back in one’s browser history to go back. Perhaps there was something ’bout Tumblr’s… social whatever? I don’t know. Something ’bout Tumblr that they wanted & couldn’t get from a blog included directly into their website.

O yeah, & I guess the graphics & the music are neat & I remember some gameplay mechanic someone said they were adding that I can’t find info for anymo’ that I thought sounded interesting.

Don't fuck it up.

It's okay...
Everything'll be fine...

But don't fuck it up.

Think how exciting it must be!
	The risks!
Throw down the dice
	& how you don't get snake eyes...
		You'll shrivel and die...

You'll do fine...
If you truly want to live,
	You'll do everything right.
The hand knows everything...
	It knows if you've been bad or good,
Knows whether you have or have not been efficient.
Would it harm you if you didn't deserve it?
	How would we know if you didn't?
The hand knows.
It knows you.
You don't know it.
You can't even see it.
You're nothing to it.

So shut up,
Calm down,
Button-up that jacket, chap,
& go to town.
Everything'll work out swell.

Everything's safe here.

Just. Don't. Fuck it up.

• The best, deepest portfolio ever
• The most useful web design plugin I’ve ever seen

As hippie white liberals love to attach every race for which they may have a drop o’ blood from to themselves so they can think o’ themselves as brave victims o’ oppression, to a lesser degree, bourgeois ditzes love to apply the vapid term “introvert” to themselves even when it doesn’t apply so they can pretend they’re badass loners. ‘Cept: 1, loners aren’t badass; since networking plays such a large part o’ economic success, they’re actually weaker than outgoing people; & 2, most o’ these people writing this nonsense would slit their wrists if they had to stay ‘way from Twitter for mo’ than a day. That “introvert” is part o’ some mindless pseudoscientific faux-psychology bullshit shat out Carl Jung’s mental asshole also helps.

Idealist Careers, a website nice ‘nough to present itself in the kind o’ bright colors demanding to be mocked by curmudgeons like me, does this—that is, after a grayscale photo o’ a man sitting on a bench that’s immensely poetic.

Also, would you assholes stop shoving your shitty pop up ads into my face. No, I don’t want to sign up for your shitty newsletter. Nobody does. They don’t like you, Idealist Careers. Nobody does.

As a natural introvert, I’m sometimes annoyed by the many misconceptions people have about us. We’re not all shy and we don’t necessarily dislike people (I love people!).

“I’m annoyed that us introverts are always assumed to be introverts! We’re just like nonintroverts; we just applied some meaningless term to ourselves to make us look cool & haven’t realized that sane adults grow out o’ this shit after high school.”

The only meaningful difference between introverts and extroverts is from where we draw our energy. Extroverts are energized by their interactions with other people, while introverts replenish their energy with time spent alone.

O, I see: the difference is the Zen that each gets. See, I’m neither: I’m 1 o’ those strange humans who derives energy from sleeping & eating.

Fortunately, it turns out that introversion may not necessarily be the disadvantage that it appears to be in a job hunt.

Well, so long as “introversion” simply means not having the imaginary “energy” mentioned ‘bove. If one is paralyzed by the mere thought o’ shaking an executive’s germy hands,—I am, but not due to introversion; I have secret files that show what executives do in their spare time with those hands o’ theirs—they’re probably not going to get a job.

Consider what personality traits you have that would serve you well in a job search. Are you highly organized, goal-oriented, and self-reflective? Do you have strong analytical and research skills? Each of these are beneficial in your job search, and your task is to maximize these qualities.

Let’s unpack this paragraph so we can understand how nonsensical it is. 1st, most o’ these traits aren’t true things, they’re just words that sound nice. “Goal-oriented”? As opposed to what? Being a vegetable? If someone goes in for a job interview, chances are one has the goal o’ getting a job. The guy who just happens to stumble into an interview room, but decides to sit down & chat, anyway, is surely a rare occurrence. & “self-reflective”? Since most interview advice tells people to lie—they tell them to be honest, but just magically change reality so that they are truly passionate ’bout sticking exec dicks in their mouths, but they truly mean lie, just also be dishonest ’bout the dishonesty—that’s obviously wrong.

& if one already has these skills, how does one “maximize” them? & if one doesn’t have them, shouldn’t one maximize them even mo’?

& now we have tips!

Look for jobs that suit your personality, in organizations that match your mindset.

This is good advice. It took forever to find a company that let me be myself—the Brotherhood o’ the Orange Kool-Aid—but ’twas worth it. I always felt so… discouraged, feeling as if I needed to pretend ‘way my fetish for sticking knives into people. My employers understand & we all do it as our job. Who thought you could get a job that you love?

After telling readers that introverts should avoid jobs that require them to do things they’re uncomfortable with, she goes onto networking. I’d presume the advice would be not to do it, since that’s all that’s consistent, but then since Kane’s very definition o’ introversion vacillated ‘tween authentic shyness & that bullshit ’bout “energy,” I was unsurprised to see advice for how introverts should do they thing that they’re s’posedly uncomfortable with, ‘cept they’re not truly.

Introverts run the risk of coming across as arrogant, misanthropic, or shy, so you’ll want to conserve your energy so you can be at your best!

Ha, ha, ha. That’s not always due to a lack o’ energy.

You can do a lot of networking from the comfort of your own home by sprucing up your Idealist and LinkedIn profiles, sending messages to former colleagues, and spreading the digital word of your job search.

Ha! I love how Kane’s deluded herself that there are people with Idealist profiles. “Surely it’ll be the next LinkedIn!”

Also, I’m still not sure if this “introvert” species is so ‘fraid o’ the true world that they scream @ the sight o’ ‘nother flesh creature or if they’re just like regular executives, ‘cept they also write shitty poetry in their spare time.

Confidence has a certain look to it, and that look includes good posture, a strong handshake, and eye contact. These are things you can practice and perfect before your interview.

The mo’ I learn ’bout the business world, the mo’ intrigued I am by their savage superstitions.

As an introvert, you may be especially good at listening and practicing “silent” leadership. Don’t be afraid to talk about these qualities and how you can use them to help move the organization forward.

Show how much you listen to other people by blabbing ’bout yourself.

‘Gain, if introverts are capable o’ this, why can’t they just act like every other prospective employee? This “introversion” doesn’t seem to be a limit @ all in Kane’s brain.

I ‘specially don’t understand this “don’t be ‘fraid…” nonsense. Do you not understand how fear works? I can imagine all o’ Kane’s introvert readers—none—smacking their foreheads & thinking, You mean I’m not s’posed to be ‘fraid? I thought that was a good thing to have this whole time! Silly me!

Introverts like to think before they speak.

Most people do. I’ve never met an outgoing person who just babbles whatever words comes to his head. They may do shoddy thinking ‘fore speaking, but it’s still thinking.

O, & the introverts are enticed to comment—’cause I’m sure introverts are the type o’ people who spring into conversations.

Shockingly, there’s no comments. Or maybe their website’s broken. I don’t know what “Blog token not found” is s’posed to mean. Probably means I have to sign up for some email-clogging shit to see the comments.

By the way, I fixed this article’s insipid image so that it better fits my mission statement:

I want to also note the conspiracy ‘tween GIMP & Libre Word wherein GIMP tried to sabotage my efforts to mock Libre Word as much as possible by working clunkily.

Ugh. In “4 Ways To Ace Your Next Networking Event,” Forbes—the same website that wrote a page on the economically-serious subject o’ “Twitch Plays Pokémon”—writes 1 out o’ the billion articles already polluting the internet giving success advice that doesn’t give any concrete advice @ all, as well as checking off almost every checkbox o’ lazy blog-post clichés.

From the 1st paragraph, one can see Ebokosia’s shoddy style: full o’ italics, bolds, & underlines, all o’ which scream @ the reader, treat this text as extra special! I hope this is keeping you up from the drowsiness caused by my unimaginative prose! As for the unimaginative style, it includes an arbitrary metaphor to cooking soup. See, soup has stuff in it, just like networking, & you want both o’ them to not suck, so they’re pretty much the same.

Some o’ her style choices are bewildering: “Let’s Say –It’s the middle of the week and you just received an invite to another networking event.” 1, every other word need not be italicized; it’s annoying. 2, what happened here? Was she starting to say something & then cut herself off to say something else, even though the 2 phrases are connected?

I should focus mo’ on the content, & not the style; but that’s hard, since there’s li’l content. For example, “rule 1” is simply “think ’bout what you do ’fore you do it,” but much less economical. I know the writer would probably defend this with the claim that many people don’t do this; but if that’s so, how can you expect them to do so ’nough to remember this tip? It has the same self-defeating logic as “don’t be stupid”: the essence o’ stupidity is that your cognition isn’t powerful ’nough to grasp intelligent thought. It’s the equivalent o’ telling an illiterate person to just know how to read, damn it, ’stead o’ actually going through the process o’ helping them learn; if this writer is so qualified to give advice on networking, she should actually give that advice ’stead o’ telling them to know the stuff she doesn’t bother to teach. It makes the whole article redundant.

Also, Forbes’ writers’ overuse o’ cliché slang—as if she’s hip with the kids, ’cept she’s much richer & she actually isn’t, ’cause they’re actually too linguistically competent to write or speak so sloppily—grows tiresome quickly. “So what’s the buzz?” This sentence serves no purpose but to make me waste precious nutrients regurgitating my lunch. This also includes the trite “a picture tells a thousand words” & a delineation o’ social media memes, which are truly just slightly newer clichés that require just as li’l creativity.

All right: back to content. O! Guess what rule 2 is! “Research: Be Informed”! ’Gain: know what you’re doing ’fore you do it. Readers don’t need a multi-thousand-word article to insult their intelligence so.

Also, the mo’ specific advice found within this section is rather stalkerish: look up people so you can shallowly pretend to care ’bout them when it comes time to talk with them. Later on, she’ll say you should be authentic; but then ’gain, it wouldn’t be an inane advice blog post without internal contradiction, since the prime goal o’ these is not to be logical or accurate, but to unskeptically regurgitate conventional thinking.

In fairness, her 3rd rule actually gives nonobvious concrete advice, though it’s bizarre: wear weird shit to catch people’s attention. This is intriguing from a sociological aspect, as it demonstrates the way the business world has become hippified as the hippie generation has aged, but without the good qualities & still retaining the smug superiority & authoritarianism o’ businesspeople.

This mild goodwill is squandered in her 4th rule, which is has ’nother obnoxious metaphor & mo’ words that don’t say anything mo’ meaningful than a sentence composed o’ randomized crossword answers. “Treat your business card like a credit card, give by connection not by sight.” My interpretation: don’t get any @ all, ’less you want to waste your money. Actually, in fairness, her advice not to just spew business cards @ everyone is the only useful advice in this section.

“Do the ’Tango’ with your conversations!” Ugh. Mo’ useless advice: don’t fill everyone’s time with just you speaking. That’s obvious. When people do that, it’s not a tactical decision, but a personality problem that’s much harder to rectify.

Then she cribs someone else’s work, probably to make hers look good in comparison:

1: Look at networking as a conversation

It is a conversation. What would I look @ it as? A video game?

2: Be who you are

Here’s a combination o’ unoriginality & meretriciousness—appearing meaningful but containing no meaning whatsoever—that I ’specially despise. You literally are you. That’s what the word means. Even when one pretends to be someone else, pretending to be someone else is who they are, so it’s meaningless. If that makes one shallow, well, then being shallow is who one is.

’Sides, this is contradicted many times in this article, full o’ judgments on how you should act & be: wear certain clothes, have a certain attitude & personality.

3: Don’t feel small

Like right here!

What’s that even mean? Don’t let yourself think you’re inferior to others? If you’re talking to employers, socially, you are, & pretending you’re on the same level as the person who will be telling you what to do & deciding whether you’re hired or not probably wouldn’t be a good idea.

4: It’s okay to ask for something

OK… Whatever that means. Should I have assumed it wasn’t? Perhaps it means that you shouldn’t worry ’bout looking as if you know less than everything? If it’s ’bout job-related facts, like how to create paragraphs in HTML for a web designer, you’d probably not want to ask that & reveal your incompetence in said job you’re trying to get; if it’s ’bout job-related facts, well, it’d be absurd for bosses to expect a prospective employee to already know ’bout a business’s work experience ’fore actually working there—though there is also the risk that the boss will straight-up lie, anyway.

When networking, always be yourself and confidently share who you are with others. People will be impressed with someone who is passionate, and if you stay in contact you never know where the connection may lead.

This single sentence is contradictory, for god’s sake: be yourself, but if you’re not confident, don’t be yourself & be a confident person ’stead, & if you’re not a passionate person, don’t be that person, & be someone else who is. Or are those criteria not part o’ the terribly specific “yourself” category? Can they be altered while leaving the same “yourself” intact?

This is why so many writing guides, like Stunk & White’s famous book, advise the use o’ concrete diction: it can harm writing so direly that it becomes incomprehensible, & fails @ its primary goal. Vague writing like this is not just bad, but useless. For someone authentically looking for intellectual assistance—since there’s no other assistance mere words can grant—will be left with no gain after reading this. In fact, they will lose precious time that could’ve been spent reading an article that actually said something. & that’s what this article’s primary crime is: distracting attention—including that o’ Google’s shallowly-designed search algorithm—from valuable content.

The last paragraph reiterates Ebokosia’s credit card metaphor, in case you missed its brilliance—which is likely, since most readers will likely glaze through most o’ it, if they didn’t already fall asleep.

Addendum

I will grant Ebokosia 1 form o’ praise: I didn’t see 1 irrelevant picture with some vague, meaningless caption. So perhaps Forbes has some minuscule standards?

After the Democrats were utterly crushed by the Republicans in congress, the senate, & governors seats, the web was full o’ liberal articles trying not to outright lie ’bout how they failed—something that conservatives would surely have no problem with doing if the positions were reversed—but not hinting that this may mean they could be failures, a writing genre that causes much joy for conservatives & bitter anarchists who hate everyone ’cept other bitter anarchists, probably ’cause it helps both groups repress the sheer horror that is our existence without giving our eyeballs to buy alcohol.

Sadly for our entertainment, the Daily Kos wrote ’bout the issue with cynical honesty—as they are wont to do—including well-earned resentment gainst the American public, hilariously pathetic—& yet also awesome, somehow—passive-aggression gainst the Republicans through the revolutionary threat o’ parliamentary gridlock, & depressed acceptance that they will only ever succeed half the time. Apparently nobody told Kos that that’s glorious socialism he’s talking ’bout: power isn’t held completely by 1 tiny club o’ rich elites but is shared by 2 o’ them. Meanwhile, grumpy reactionary Kos wants to take ’way the Republicans “Everyone Wins Sometimes Trophy,” & as a spineless liberal, I don’t approve o’ this white-&-black morality. Can’t we afford any true colors for once? Like purple or magenta or Granny Smith Apple?

The New York Times gave us a balance ’tween some guy rightfully calling Obama an inconsistent hypocrite after spewing some poetic nonsense ’bout the fun o’ standing round for hours so one can write on paper, as opposed to the evils o’ not writing on paper; some robot spewing mindless Republican propaganda without even trying to ’splain his rationale; & the typical whining ’bout negativity & how we should all hold hands, cry, & stick dicks & dildos in each others bums (I prefer to stick dicks in bums without the crying, thank you).

Paul Krugman hasn’t seemed to post anything on his blog yet, so I’ll assume he drowned himself in cheap whiskey.

I checked the Washington Post, but their shit was boring, so fuck them.

Noah Smith doesn’t mention the election; but I just want to point out this grossly incestuous article wherein he handjobs ’nother economist handjobbing economists—the very job he happens to be a part o’, coincidentally ’nough!—for being “priests of the free [sic] market” & tricking Americans into accepting an economic system, even if they lied ’bout its shitty points for propagandist purposes. This is all very true, & we should, indeed, admire economists in their brilliant trickery. Good job, economists!

But don’t worry: Smith also has hope that these same economists will fix the fuck-ups that they caused. The important point is that economists can never fail, ’cause failures are simply opportunities for future success!

Anarchist Writers didn’t write ’bout the election ’cause they’re too cool for it, even if their website looks like somebody just puked its elements straight onto the screen without further arrangement.

Zombie Marx, surprisingly, shows excitement for the Republican victory, primarily ’cause it meant “Death to Slavery” for him, though I don’t know if I should take someone who still uses the word “Negro”—with a capital, the dirty capitalist—to refer to black people as an expert in racial issues.

Admittedly, Marx may truly be excited simply ’cause 1 o’ his socialist mind servants is the Republican foreign minister, which he will surely use to conquer the US from the inside.

I refused to read any o’ The Atlantic’s articles ’cause the style o’ just the titles & sentence-long blurbs made me want to vomit. Also, 1 o’ their “headlines” is just the same “Writers, don’t stop writing, even if you don’t want to, you lazy shits” cliché every writing “guide” under the moon has spewed.

Nobody cares what The Guardian says ’cause they’re dirty Brits, you don’t own us anymo’!

O, all right, I’ll mention 1 article—just 1!—wherein they argued that conservatives won with a mix o’ aiming attention @ how shitty Obama is, hiding the fact that they’re conservatives, & aiming for the majority o’ Americans’ focus on the pettiest o’ nonissues. You can’t fault a good strategy.

Meanwhile, The Nation vacillates ’tween denialist exclamations o’ some puny victories liberals scrounged in the bloodbath—the blood wasn’t the Democrats’, ’course, who still live in luxury, but o’ Yemenese still being droned to death—& whines ’bout how the Republicans cheated, anyway, so there. Strangely, these arguments that the election is rigged in favor o’ the rich—which are, indeed, mo’ likely to be true than not¹—doesn’t stop liberals from emphasizing the importance o’ voting in this rigged election. My response would be less, “Man, this bites,” & mo’, “O my god, I just realized that the United States is a tyrannical oligarchy! We’re fucked!”

So you all understand how much better I am than all o’ these people I make fun o’ without being deigned to receive a response, I want you all to know that I consider the election rigged & invalid when both o’ the Republicans & Democrats win. Everyone knows that the only valid elections are those in which the Englesist Magical Socialism party wins².

The response will likely be the same as has always been: we must work harder to vote Democrat next election in the hopes that this time they won’t lose &/or won’t suck, I can feel it this time. Granted, what else can you do—other than bitch ’bout it during lunch break, which has already been working wonderfully.

I mean, ’course we can always just overthrow the government, blow up the white house, or call government officials mean words that make centrists cry—& making centrists cry is enjoyable—but then you know ’nother’s just going to pop up, & that gets tiring after a while. They’re like those tax-evading churches in SimCity 2000.

Which brings me to the true tragedy o’ this Republican victory: that it came without a victory by Herman Cain & his amazing 9-9-9 tax plan, as well as his mo’ obscure law mandating that “Virtual Village” play whenever a park is built.

Do you think the government’s like those tax-evading churches in SimCity 2000 & never go ’way or do you think the Englesist Magical Socialist revolution will succeed & finally end all poverty, sadness, & that groggy feeling you get after sleeping late into afternoon? Well, fuck off: I don’t care ’bout your opinion.

 

I have no one to blame but myself:
Didn't take proper care o' my teeth.
	& now they've all 
		fallen out.
Can't waste the dentist's precious time
	placing them back in.
No, I must have my just desserts.
My taste buds crave them.

But thanks to me,
	now I can't eat;
		& when I can't eat,
			I get hungry.

But you don't see complaints from me;
I took my tasty medicine, yes sire!
I can take the dose.
	I must take the dose.
		If I can't take the dose,
			I must be beat.

I can't take the dose.

What am I to do?
My stomach, it scratches for sustenance...
	& all I taste is gum blood.

Gum blood doesn't taste too tangy.

I break out into the street,
	Where I meet
		the man with the sweep.
I swallow myself whole.
	& he--
		the polite fellow--
			he sweeps 'way the debris.

I told you I'd take my medicine.
& I did.

'Cause I deserved it.

As with most ideas, I’m uncertain ’bout the intelligence o’ economists—not comfortable with accepting them as intelligence ’cause some rich organizations called “colleges” say they are, but also not comfortable with just writing them off as ditsy.

Whenever I see economists try to defend their profession gainst the mean ol’ critics in mainstream media, my uncertainty is only exacerbated. They usually only make themselves look stupider, which is hard to believe from people who are apparently able to graduate from places like Harvard. My paranoiac side makes me want to believe that perhaps these newspapers intentionally pick strawmen economists to make the whole profession look bad, though I’m not sure why they would. I dunno.

Neither precludes us from pointing & laughing, however.

I. Mankiw Doesn’t Know What the Hell He’s Protesting

In smugly-titled New York Times article, “Know What You’re Protesting,” Harvard economist Greg Mankiw protests gainst Occupy Wall-Street hippies & somehow makes them look like scientists & him look like a postmodernist-sputtering hippie. ’Gain, my paranoiac side makes me think this is an elaborate troll-job on Mankiw & Occupy’s part.

He starts with paragraphs o’ self-fellating/self-pitying backstory wherein he treats a li’l walkout as if ’twere the French Revolution. How did you live through it, Mankiw? I hope your metaphorical tweed suit was not ruffled by such uncouth behavior.

I particularly loved this bit:

I have been told that at least one of the students who walked out sneaked back in later: he wanted to support the protest but didn’t want to miss the lecture [Emphasis mine].

Apparently this Harvard-educated scientist never took a single rhetoric class, since if he did, he’d know that “I have been told” is known as weasel-words & that no true scientist uses them. They provide evidence or shut up.

To be fair, this is a believable story: Mankiw’s amazing lectures are, I’m sure, a life-changing moment that could never be replaced by, say, reading 1 o’ the millions o’ economics textbooks out there. How can anyone learn ’bout the Phillips Curve with mere text when one could hear it through Mankiw’s sexy voice? Everyone knows Mankiw’s lectures are fucking rock concerts. I bet this totally-not-imaginary student made sure to get a front-row seat with a bucket o’ popcorn in-hand.

If anything, we should expect the opposite: lazy students pretending to protest so they can sneak a free hour to smoke pot, get laid, make Super Mario World rom hacks, or whatever you punks do nowadays.

If there is any truth to this claim, the answer obviously is that some student stoned out o’ his mind saw the other students walk out; thought, O, is class over already?; & went out with them, only to learn the truth afterward & sneak back in thinking, O shit. Whoops.

So what is his—Mankiw’s, not the stoner’s—rebuke to these foolish peons? Well, after he digresses into some irrelevant bullshit ’bout the 70s, he makes a strong case for his class:

It includes ideas of many greats in the field, like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Arthur Pigou, John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman.

A whole 1 o’ those lived past the 1950s, too! Clearly Mankiw is on the cutting edge o’ economic science. Those students will surely leave that classroom with impeccable knowledge o’ how to get the most cows from bartering pigs.

Then he parrots some student newspaper’s appeal to “nonpartisanship”—an imaginary concept idiots make up so their ideas don’t have to be held up to any authentic standards, & thus have their idiocy revealed. He, ’course, doesn’t provide evidence for his nonpartisanship—as no centrist ever does, since it’s based on an imaginary scale. As true scientists, we should take his word without skepticism.

He then devolves into cretinous dick-sucking o’ Paul Samuelson & whining ’cause some bearded Marxist whined ’bout him not being a bearded Marxist. I could whine for a whole article ’bout he & Nordhaus’s Economics & how the claim that it’s nonideological is as blatant a lie as saying the sky is green; but for now I’ll simply note that Mankiw himself provides no reason why I should like Samuelson’s work other than that Mankiw calls him “left-o’-center.” I love how people who complain ’bout ideology can use nothing but ideological words to defend their arguments—almost as if they’re completely full o’ shit. The fact that “left-o’-center”¹ doesn’t mean anything concrete doesn’t hinder this Harvard economist 1 bit. What a scientist!

I think this was meant to be his bid to cater to the silly leftists, which isn’t consistent with his claim that he doesn’t serve ideology. But if he knew anything ’bout leftists, he’d know its various clans hate each other, anyway. The “left” includes some o’ the most libertarian & totalitarian ideologies in the world; “left” doesn’t mean shit.

Warning: explicit handjobbing ’head:

I don’t claim to be an economist of Paul Samuelson’s stature. (Probably no one alive can.)

Unfortunately, the vile Marxists have a rebuke: Ha! That doesn’t include Zombie Marx!

Back to serious—O, wait, I’m reading an economist’s op-ed. There’s nothing serious here.

Yet, like most economists, I don’t view the study of economics as laden with ideology.

“In our opinion, we’re not idiots.” Apparently, this “scientist” still hasn’t realized that opinions without evidence or rationale are worthless. People will decide for themselves whether you’re ideological or not—& so far you have proven yourself not so, if only ’cause ideological people require a’least some intellectual content in their loony theories.

Most of us agree with Keynes, who said: “The theory of economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique for thinking, which helps the possessor to draw correct conclusions.”

Well, that is wise, & not mindless buzzwords strewn together: “Economics doesn’t make conclusions; it just chooses methods o’ thoughts based on the conclusions toward which they inevitably lead. Totally different.”

That is not to say that economists understand everything. The recent financial crisis, economic downturn and meager recovery are vivid reminders that we still have much to learn.

So far you’ve yet to show that economists know anything. Literally, the only evidence you’ve given is points in which economists have failed.

Why do so many articles I argue with end up arguing with themse—Mankiw’s ’nother 1 o’ them! You think I didn’t notice the way you slyly snuck in that reference to Zombie Marx. You’re 1 o’ them, too. They’ve taken over every economic school & pit them gainst each other while they sneakily take over. Damn you crafty Marxists.

Widening economic inequality is a real and troubling phenomenon, albeit one without an obvious explanation or easy solution. A prerequisite for being a good economist is an ample dose of humility.

O, fuck off, David Brooks. Then you must be a shitty 1, considering all o’ the self-fellatio earlier.

I want to note ’gain that Mankiw’s basic conclusion is: “Occupy Wallstreet protesters are dumb ’cause they don’t believe I’m equipped to talk ’bout economics, & I agree with them.” Maybe that’s the humility he’s talking ’bout: the paradox o’ an economist who knows he’s an idiot—& yet ’cause he’s an idiot, his knowledge that he’s an idiot must be wrong. “I think I’m an idiot… they think I’m an idiot… I am an idiot… therefore, they must be idiots, too. QED.”

I want to point out the letter Mankiw made the mistake o’ linking to, as it ’gain demonstrates how much smarter Mankiw’s students were than him. I want to particularly emphasize this paragraph:

A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory [emphasis mine].

“Those ideological leftists! All their hippie slogans o’ ’primary sources’ & ’academic journals’!”

Mankiw should take his own advice to know what he’s protesting; others may do the same & won’t have a high opinion o’ his rebuttal when he doesn’t.

Addendum:

I have later learned that “left-o’-center” Mankiw also wrote a delightful paper titled “A Defense of the One Percent,” which is so full o’ hilarity that I may have to dedicate a separate article to it.

The briefest I could say is that its use o’ references barely rises ’bove infantile book reviews & that its overall scientific value is akin to the kind o’ papers I wrote in my freshman Sociology class. I hope this was just something a drunken Mankiw spewed out in 1 night & not something that reached an actual economics journal. I mean, I know they have the highest o’ standards & all. Not like those silly li’l sociologists!

II. Nonfalsifiability: the Apex o’ Science

Our next example is by Andrew Lilico, with ’nother modestly-titled article in the Telegraph, “Good economists are almost always right about almost everything,” forgetting to add the important adage that a good economist is hard to find—& impossible in this tripe.

Good economists are usually about as right as it’s possible to be. There, I said it.

Whoa, hold on there, George Carlin. I can’t take this edgy stand-up next to my Mutts & Family Circus.

I love how ’gain he qualifies it with “good,” & qualifies it further with “as it’s possible to be,” to maximize meaninglessness. I’d think being usually correct is what would define a “good” economist: the true debate is whether most economists are good.

That shouldn’t be controversial. After all, that’s why economists get paid so much…

Nothing’s mo’ scientific than the “Just-So” fallacy.

& I’m sure quite a few heterodox economics make a lot o’ money, too, so this assumption is not only invalid, it’s conclusion is self-contradictory.

…and why societies managed according to economic principles such as sound money, secure property rights and effective competition are much more prosperous than others.

“These societies that exist in my fantasies.”

Actually, most o’ the most prosperous countries are those vile socialistic Nordic countries & Switzerland, which are well known for lots o’ income redistribution & having some o’ the greatest tolerance for intellectual-property piracy. So “secure property rights” is wrong, & “sound money” & “effective competition” mean nothing mo’ than “good things,” & thus prove nothing. An economist’s job is to determine what money is sound & what competition is effective, not to just say that good things are good.

It’s why so much everyday government policymaking is dominated by economic reasoning, from the price controls imposed upon utilities, such as water and electricity (even called “economic regulation”), to the rules on how economic reasoning has to be used in devising regulation and setting taxes (so-called “impact assessments”).

I’m glad he emphasizes this “reasoning” aspect I’ve never heard ’bout before. I’d usually run my economy like Mario Party: just roll & hope we land on boom! Oops! Landed on a Bowser space! Gliosmar Gutenberg owes $20 trillion in taxes. Better luck next time, Gutenberg.

I love how these economists are so simpleminded & yet so arrogant that they have to make up imaginary opponents to hide the fact that they can’t argue gainst their authentic critics. This is Ayn-Rand level strawmanning: “They can’t be arguing gainst my logic, since it’s so impeccable, so they must just reject reason itself.”

It’s why the tools of economic reasoning, such as game theory, have come to dominate so many other disciplines, from evolutionary biology through moral philosophy to political science and military strategy, most famously including nuclear weapons policy — there is even a branch of physics called “quantum game theory”.

I’ve read quite a few scientists disagree. For instance, I’ve read biologists correcting some economists’ hilarious ignorance o’ biology. Meanwhile, physicists are so opposed to mainstream economics that they made up their own field. Indeed, I’ve noticed a pattern o’ other scientists mocking economists for thinking they’re smarter than they are.

I must confess that this & my broad reading o’ works by famous economists has colored my perception, which is not helped by Mankiw & Lilico. However, I’ll give other economists the benefit o’ the doubt & assume these 2 got in by sucking someone’s dick—forgive me if I doubt carpet-cleaning will get one far in the immensely progressive field o’ economics—or something.

It’s why your television screens are full of economists every day, explaining not just news events, but almost everything, from which football managers are the most skilled to why singer Katherine Jenkins is so successful.

“We may suck @ predicting recessions; but we can predict which team will make the Super Bowl—Go Tunnel Rhinos!”

Some such challenges are easily deflected. Orthodox economics tells us that it is impossible to predict significant financial crises in advance – or else everyone would predict them and trade off that and so they wouldn’t happen. There’s little point in criticising economists for being unable to predict shocks they say are impossible to predict.

“It doesn’t matter if we suck—we’re s’posed to suck. So there!”

Some textbooks will tell you economics is the study of incentives. I unpack that as follows: economics is the discipline that tells you why behaviour makes sense.

“I’ll unpack that by misinterpreting it.” The idea o’ incentives is that you try to influence certain behavior by making that behavior mo’ beneficial; that’s kilometers ’way from manufacturing explanations for why any action is “rational.” I should point out that none o’ these prove that economists are good @ setting incentives (Hint: in a society where bankers are rewarded for fraud by giving them bailouts & stay-@-home spouses are punished for doing society-benefiting work, they aren’t.)

Ironically, “behaviour makes sense” makes no sense. What behavior? Just behavior in general? Is that the bold stand he takes? “I think it’s time we behaved in some fashion, unlike all those inanimate people vegetating round. There, I said it.”

Hey, wait… Is he just regurgitating Mises’s tautological “human action” nonsense? Is Lilico an Austrian economists pretending to be 1 who doesn’t living in a cave? Get out o’ the neoclassicals’ chair, Lilico! We’re s’posed to be having a serious discussion here.

If my left arm goes up, a physicist might tell you about the atoms and molecules and forces that took it there. A biologist might tell you about the electrical impulses in the nerves in my arm and the hormones and energy transport in the blood. A certain sort of old-fashioned psychotherapist might tell you about how raising my left arm resolved the struggle between my super-ego and my ID. But economics is the discipline that seeks to explain why I raised my left arm in terms of why that made sense to me, given my objectives and beliefs.

See, the difference is that the former 2 are actually science, while the latter 2 are just shit people make up in their head that have no way o’ proving or disproving—also known as “pseudoscience.” It’s good to hear that economists presume to read every individual’s mind. No wonder “good” economists are right ’bout everything: they literally have psychic powers.

But rationality is not an assumption of orthodox economic theory in that sense. Instead, it is what is called an “axiom”. No behaviour can prove that people aren’t, in fact, rational, because for an orthodox economist the only kind of explanation of any behaviour that counts as an economic explanation is an explanation that makes sense of that behaviour — that shows why the behaviour is rational.

“So, you see, economics is nonfalsifiable, & thus pseudoscience.”

Economists are apparently like spoiled brats who just make up rules when they start to lose. “Ha! You think you checkmated me, but I’ve decided that that move doesn’t count as an economic explanation ’cause I say so, so you lose.”

Irrationality and other heterodoxy is usually little better than an all-encompassing conspiracy theory, explaining everything and thus nothing — for while many behaviours may not be rational, there is no behaviour that is not irrational.

That’s just the flip-side o’ your argument, & thus yours is just as stupid.

In the 19th century economics faced a mystery. In the Irish potato famine of the 1840s and during the Paris Commune of the 1870s, when the prices of staple food (in the one case potatoes, in the other bread) went up, demand went up also. Pondering this mystery, economists eventually reasoned as follows.

(Slaps forehead.) This makes no sense! Why would people continue to demand food when the price has gone up? You’d think their desire to end deathly agonizing starvation would transfer to cheaper demands—like kitten stuffies—to maximize their utility.

To be fair, he does answer with this very same obvious point. So apparently “good” economists are as smart as some likely-mentally-unstable bum blogging ’bout his favorite Donkey Kong Country levels². So where’s my check then?

So, his idea o’ “good economics” is psychoanalysis—making up any reason one can to ensure any possibility turns out “rational”? Then it’s fitting that he brought up Freudian psychiatry, since his beliefs are just as scientific.

’Course, psychiatry has evolved from Freudianism into something far mo’ scientific. Let’s hope economics does—or has already done—the same by ignoring kooks like this guy.

Suppose instead we had answered: “Obviously, if people were rational, then when prices went up they’d buy less. But they aren’t always rational, as demonstrated by the examples of bread and potatoes.” Then we would have missed the key insight.

We’d be dumbasses. Thankfully, the only heterodox economists who say that exist in Lilico’s fever dreams. I think they’d usually use mo’ potent examples—like pointing to a YouTube video o’ some drunk fuck in a cowboy hat & whip jumping into a bear’s cage so he can try riding it.”

Contrary to most popular commentary, the main financial economics models have worked extremely well during the financial crisis, and remain in place.

“Just look @ the good job we’ve done making up in our head explanations in retrospect for economic phenomena that happened almost 200 years ago. Where would we be without economists?” This is indeed a good sign: we need only wait till round 2190 for economists to finally figure out why this bewildering depression happened.

But even supposing they hadn’t, that wouldn’t have proved we should abandon the attempt to make sense of events; to abandon the attempt to offer an orthodox economics account. For very often it is when we are forced to grapple with a mystery, with behaviour that does not at first seem to make sense, that we produce the greatest insights.

“No matter what, we win. That’s my favorite part: I absolutely hate standards. Then I couldn’t get rich writing mindless tripe like this.”

The insights orthodox economics will eventually produce in reaction to the financial crisis will advance our social and economic life and prosperity even further than economics has done already. For good economists, given time and sound theory, are almost always right about almost everything.

Ha, ha, ha! I can’t fucking believe he repeated my joke as a serious advantage o’ economics.

You know there’s only 1 explanation for this: since, as any “good” economist will note, all actions are rational, this article’s sloppy logic must be rational. There’s a perfect explanation: Lilico’s ’nother Marxist rationally writing nonsense to discredit mainstream economics & push the public into the hands o’ communism.

They’re everywhere now.

Addendum:

For an actually intellectually-valuable critique o’ Lilico’s fine work by an authentic economist, one can read this article by Steve Keen, which claims that Lilico didn’t even interpret what he was defending correctly—which is unsurprising, as a lot o’ what he said didn’t even make sense. I’m glad my original but unstated thesis that these 2 are merely madman who snuck into the realm o’ economics has been confirmed.

Today I opened this ancient scroll in indecipherable lettering whose contents spoke o’ a world so twisted & so bleak that no mere words could describe it, even though these words did. So hideous were these words that they struck my brain like a firebolt, causing my limbs to shake uncontrollably, as if my nerves had been transformed into ants, & causing my mouth to froth. This became too much for my spindly legs, causing me to collapse onto the ground, knocking my cranium so hard gainst the wooden floor that I was knocked unconscious.

When I woke, I saw a creature too despicable to describe, with skin consisting o’ steel & leather patched together, a million poison-colored orifices dripping oil-colored drool that steamed as it burned into the wooden floor, & a shape that defied geometry. FML.