Assorted links

by on November 27, 2011 at 1:31 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 Sandeep November 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Hmm. You don’t like Sarangi? Or Ustad Sultan Khan?

2 Brett November 27, 2011 at 2:24 pm

I just read the Levine book. It’s much better than I expected, particularly since he puts some effort into explaining the economics of it. The “Music Industry” is the most detailed, although I was most convinced by his section on the Newspaper Industry.

3 John Thacker November 27, 2011 at 3:02 pm

About Pearlstein- Warren does live a frugal lifestyle for one so rich, unusually so.

More to the point, I don’t quite understand why eliminating deductions, as proposed by both the President and by the supercommittee Republicans, necessarily should be paired with raising rates.

The Republicans were willing to reduce deductions aimed at the wealthy, but the Democrats in the end preferred getting more revenue by raising rates and keeping deductions the same; that is, letting the rate cuts expire.

4 farmer November 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Best of luck to N. Fergusson. that Mishra piece was absurd and an affront on decent scholastacism. I’m normally not an advocate for defamation suits, but this might encourager les autres

5 TGGP November 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm

The guy seems to have already admitted he was wrong. Defamation lawsuits are bunk. Your reputation isn’t something you own, it’s an aggregate of others’ opinions of you.

6 Sandeep November 27, 2011 at 3:47 pm

Why are defamation lawsuits bunk in general? Defamation can, if false propaganda is involved,
cause material harm.

7 Cliff November 27, 2011 at 11:23 pm

It doesn’t matter if it’s your property or not. We are talking tort law (wrongful damage). It’s the person you are damaging, not the reputation as an abstract construct.

8 Bill November 27, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Nial better get himself a good lawyer, because as a US citizen seeking to sue under British defamation law, he will have some jurisdiction issues to deal with, which, if he wins, means that if you say something defamatory on the internet, and there is some jurisdictional nexus to England, you may have to go to court.

Let those who attack me with their defamatory comments be warned. I plan to be in England this spring, and if you say anything about me while I am there, you will all hell to pay for it. And, I may even test the limits of jurisdiction later with a new theory by claiming, while I live, like Mr. Ferguson, in the United States, my reputation has been damaged in England.

Be forewarned.

9 just dreaming November 27, 2011 at 4:03 pm


10 Bill November 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Goodnight sleepyhead.

11 NAME REDACTED November 27, 2011 at 5:49 pm

Um, its already been this way for years. Its actually pretty standard in the UK.

12 Careless November 27, 2011 at 8:23 pm

There’s no way Bill hasn’t heard of “libel tourism”, right?

13 Professor von Nipples November 27, 2011 at 8:43 pm

Bill doesn’t know shit about shit. He’s a genital wart on the cock-head of intelligent discourse.

14 Ricardo November 28, 2011 at 1:06 am

Bill, I don’t know where you are getting your facts from. Niall Ferguson is a British citizen and I can find no evidence he has yet naturalized as a U.S. citizen (and even if he did, he would still ordinarily retain British citizenship). The article that allegedly libeled him was published in the London Review of Books which, as you might guess from the name, is a British publication. There are some sticky issues that come up with British libel law but this would hardly be a case to illustrate them.

15 Frank November 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Why would anyone wish to interview Timothy Garton Ash on Europe and the Euro?

16 JL November 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Niall Ferguson may sue Pankaj Mishra.

Tyler must shocked, shocked that someone could be sued over such a “Good, biting review”.

17 Chris November 27, 2011 at 3:25 pm

I’m shocked that opinion can ever be defamation.

18 Rahul November 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm

And rightly so. There is indeed an “opinion privilege” which can be a valid defense to defamation (if it was clearly stated as an opinion and not fact). Not sure of the legal minutiae.

19 Bill November 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm

I see the Coase theorem in this, somewhere.

20 Professor von Nipples November 27, 2011 at 8:44 pm

I see a sack of dogshit somewhere, specifically in you.

21 anon November 27, 2011 at 4:38 pm

“racist” is a word that has lost almost all meaning as invective. It’s like being called a “Nazi”


22 Professor von Nipples November 27, 2011 at 8:43 pm

“Tyler must shocked, shocked that someone could be sued over such a “Good, biting review”.”


23 Bill November 27, 2011 at 3:41 pm

Re: Orbit Baby.

Public choice economists see the Coase Theorem in everything.

This is an occupational hazard. Seek help.

24 dearieme November 27, 2011 at 4:22 pm

“Nial better get himself a good lawyer, because as a US citizen seeking to sue under British defamation law..”. It’s English Law he’s considering using, surely? There’s no such thing as “British defamation law”. Moreover there must be a good chance that he’s got dual citizenship, though I doubt if that matters. Go to it, Ferguson.

25 Bill November 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm

English, British, Limeys…their all the same.

26 Alan Gunn November 27, 2011 at 5:26 pm

England and Scotland have very different legal systems. Scotland isn’t even a common-law country. No lawyer ever refers to “British law,” because there is no such thing.

27 Bill November 27, 2011 at 5:35 pm

This lawyer did, with sincere apologies to the Queen.

28 NAME REDACTED November 27, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Scotts’ law and Common law both share very similar roots however in how they formed.

29 Alan Gunn November 27, 2011 at 6:45 pm

No. Scotland has a civil law system, more like French law than English law, though, unlike French law, it isn’t codified.

30 anon November 27, 2011 at 4:35 pm

The Orbit baby stuff is very expensive, and, at least 2 years ago, even when you could find an Orbit stroller used it sold for almost as much as new.

31 Robert November 28, 2011 at 2:08 am

Liberal Elitist groups like the EFF have complained that HuffPo exploits writers. But they think it’s A-OK to steal from big media. Levine’s book is a welcome point of view.

32 David Littleboy November 29, 2011 at 6:12 am

The thing is, though, that the good content on the net is currently free. As a displaced Bostonian, I’d like to read the Boston Globe occasssionally, but they want money and the quality just isn’t up to the blogs, or even to the original stuff on HuffPo. In Japan, there are multiple quality newspapers with good writing and reporting, but in the US, it’s a long way down from the NYT. So the idea that HuffPo and the like are getting a free ride on the quality work of the traditional media is simply wrong. Whether HuffPo pays their writers enough, is another question, of course.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: