by Tyler Cowen
on March 27, 2012 at 12:08 pm
in Uncategorized |
1. von Wachter and Steve Davis paper on the costs of job loss (pdf).
2. Fukuyama reviews Acemoglu and Robinson.
3. Dan Klein lecture on “Mere Libertarianism.”
4. This guy doesn’t like Chuck Norris.
5. This guy doesn’t like Esperanto.
I don’t see anything in the essay that indicates the author doesn’t like Esperanto. He’s merely pointing out its vagueness with regard to certain constructions makes it resistant to linguistic analysis. That’s an observation, not a condemnation. It’s like saying that your favorite programmable calculator is not Turing-complete. If it does the job, who cares?
4. When are services scheduled?
The biggest problem Esperanto has is that there is already a language that is extremely regular, has vocabulary closely related to European languages and the other advantages of Esperanto. That language also has the advantage of being spoken in 20+ countries by half a billion people and is known as Spanish.
If you have the choice between Spanish and Esperanto, mainstream reasoning will always lead you to Spanish.
true. esperanto = poopytalk.
Spanish is NOT that regular. Spanish conjugations for common words are horrible.
So, Chuck Norris supported Proposition 8, just like a majority of Californians, and he is against gay marriage, just like a majority of Americans and President Barack Obama.
Yeah, this guy is a fringe loon. He must be stopped.
He’s a loon for so many more reasons. Being for Prop 8 just makes him a bigot.
Also, I don’t think a majority of Americans are ‘against gay marriage’
Latest I could find, almost a year old: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/19/poll-more-americans-favor-same-sex-marriage/
In the past year it’s unquestionably gone even more ‘pro-’. Sorry, brother, your side is getting old and has no chance. On this issue anyway.
Libertarian freedom for all persons FTW.
51% with a margin error of 3.5. Also, the only polls that count are the ones where people actually vote on laws. I’m not saying this as one way or another on gay marriage, but your refutation is weak.
Ted, gay marriage is going to be legal in the not-too-distant future, and you and I and everyone else knows it.
And the folks who don’t like it get fewer and fewer every year.
Perhaps, but offering your opinion as fact still differs from offering facts to support your opinion.
Agreed, and I like the turn of phrase.
As you can see I was just countering The Other Jim’s latest inanity. His opinion (majority of Americans oppose) is wrong, and I gave my opinion counter to his.
He isn’t a fringe loon because he supported prop 8 and opposes gay marriage. Those beliefs would make him a loon, but not a fringe loon. It’s the nature of his support and opposition of these and other issues that put him on the outer edges of the fringe.
opposing gay marriage qualifies one as a loon? funny, before, oh, twenty years ago, the billions of humans who ever lived must have all been loons.
You have data on the opinions of those billions on gay marriage?
On this and many other issues, yes. The difference is they didn’t know any better and couldn’t really be expected to have known any better. But we do know better today, except for the loons, who revel in not knowing. That’s the difference, although I don’t have much confidence that someone who chooses to call themselves “feminist hunter” will be swayed by this line of thinking.
No, Chuck Norris supports prop 8, is a biblical literalist, a creationist, wants to teach the bible in public schools, believes in Atheist and UN conspiracies, is anti-vax, &etc.
Presumably that makes him a fringe loon.
on link 2.
There is a good fellow researcher Garett Jones at Mason http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/
so there is chance to fix the situation.
As concerning Acemogly and Robinson The Colonial Origin of Institutions article and the book,
if only IQ is taken into account the whole ‘achivement’ of the research fades: US and africa were different in average IQ in past as well, and being a great factor it could not be ignored ( but is ignored by Acemogly/Robinson)
I always ask myself, how it turned that Acemoglu did not even check his theory against competing and obvious hypothesis, that IQ might play role here.
The problem is, as a review suggests is
“This conclusion about the primacy of institutions and politics for development has important implications for policy”
for example in Russia no one concentrates on catching TFP ( though we have 1/3 productivity of developed countries like US or France ), but everyone speaks on institutions.
This way there are not just academical reasons to refute so called ‘research’ by Acemoglu, but practical. His conclusions do harm in real world. Example elected pres Putin favors to have 30 million workers in Russia up to 2020 ( compare this with 11 million workers+engineers in industry in US ) no word of automation ( not even near Obama call for more robots ), so there are plans still to lag behind the world 3 times in productivity in 2020. Just for the reason. The idea of TFP had not touched much the minds of russian economists, but Acemogly coauthor ( Sonin and also his colleagues ) which favor institutions change are quite influential here.
4. I’m crestfallen. Clearly public schools should not condone the Bible but should condone homosexuality. How can Chuck Norris think there is a cultural conflict?!?
It’s not about ‘condoning’ things. You seem like a smart guy, you should know that there’s something good about keeping religion out of the state (like public schools), and for being tolerant of the lifestyles of those who differ from you if they aren’t hurting others.
I don’t want public schools to be The State.
And the author said it’s about “condoning”
Oh, and I guess I should say, I do think I am smart enough, and it’s that kind of condescension and arrogance that really gets me going.
Perhaps ‘getting you going’ is the goal.
And it doesn’t matter if you want a leprechaun butler, Megan Fox’s phone number, or the state to not be involved in education. Because that ain’t the world you live in.
In this world, the founders were very adamant about keeping religion away from the state and I applaud them for it.
Way to admit that you’re a jerk msgkings. I have a strong suspicion that you’re pretty selective about the founders’ directives.
I admit nothing. Returning Andrew’s jerkery in kind.
I have a suspicion you are equally selective re: the founders.
ladderff, today we are all “pretty selective about the founders’ directives” given that the founders created a government under which slavery was legal.
Check out ladderff’s blog at the link he provided, he might actually be ok with slavery.
That’s quite the originalism fail, msgkings.
I think the government should condone religion, with condone meaning “overlook something objectionable.”
How about the Church of Scientology punishing their top executives with months or years in a secret church-run prison camp, with frequent mental and physical abuse, imprisonment in “The Hole”, etc.? Somehow, the church has managed to deflect government scrutiny of this and other crimes.
Hey, Andrew’, news flash: gods are imaginary.
AIDS isn’t, if I’m going to go down that road.
Otherwise I might just say that saying your preference for how you want other peoples’ children raised is better than other peoples’ or, newsflash- the parents themselves, is I could just say, not very objective.
Btw, the idea that homosexuality should be condoned in public schools is imaginary. That’s a fact, not a value judgment. It exists in the mind of the author and others. It’s not a reality-based item. How ’bout schools stick to reality first, then do what the parents prefer. If the parents want homosexuality condoning lessons, then fine.
Or, we could make it a never-ending national debate ultimately resulting in things like marriage amendments.
That statement is remarkable in its incomprehensibility. I either very much agree, or don’t agree at all. Congratulations?
Item 5: The author clearly likes (and uses) Esperanto; the article disagrees with Chomsky’s famous dismissal and concludes simply that because of the absence of authoritative native speakers, Esperanto — like any artificial language — offers some particular challenges to linguists.
Excellent review by Fukuyama of Acemoglu and Robinson. AR are extraordinarily dogmatic and reductionist. I often caution people not to accept Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel as the final word on why some places prosper and why others don’t, but I want to tell AR that they need to take Diamond’s emphasis on geography seriously: some places are more blessed by geography than others.
don’t get too excited, loon. heritable national IQ levels are still very important.
As Fukuyama notes, the problem with this sort of research is that it leads to fuzzy thinking and throwing around buzz words as a substitute for hard-headed analysis.
It’s pretty easy to look at certain national borders — U.S. versus Mexico, South Korea versus North Korea, Hong Kong versus the mainland (especially 30 years ago), former East versus West Germany, etc. — and see that politics in some form or another clearly matters for development. This is the question that AR focus on but even here, it is not clear how to clearly separate “institutions” from policies or the quality of governance or the legal system.
Geography presents further difficulties for AR, though. Can it really be the case that Mongolia or Tibet would be as wealthy as Singapore if only they had the right “institutions”?
“Geography presents further difficulties for AR, though. Can it really be the case that Mongolia or Tibet would be as wealthy as Singapore if only they had the right “institutions”?”
Why not? Look at Japan or Iceland, they have challenging geographies but are wealthy.
How much does it cost to send a shipping container to Iceland or Japan from New York? Now, how much does it cost to send that same container to Mongolia or Tibet? Or how about D.R. Congo? I’m not saying geography poses insurmountable barriers to development — rather, that being a landlocked country with “challenging geography”, minimal natural resources and being pretty far away from other existing population centers or industrial hubs are all rather large hurdles to clear.
Why would someone equate Mongolia and Tibet geographically with Singapore?
Chuck (his real name is Carlos, by the way) is surely a bit loony but that’s why we like him.
Also, he was probably the FIRST North American to see and appreciate Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and he was instrumental in bringing successfully to the attention of the North Americans
For that also, we like him.
They must be running out of people to try to railroad.
What are we going to do, put him on unpaid leave, make him take sensitivity classes and take away his ass-kicking license?
Chuck Norris’ ass-kicking license is tattooed on the back of his fist. He did it himself with his hunting knife.
He did take a sensitivity class once. Now he only uses 3 roundhouses to kill you in 5 seconds instead of 10 over the course of 10 minutes.
Chuck Norris dove in and ate that poor salamander head first.
“Norris is a social conservative so I don’t like him.”
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Exports to China as a share of total exports
Next post: Random thoughts on hysteresis
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.