Tuesday assorted links

by on November 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 prior_test2 November 29, 2016 at 1:50 pm

Oh well, I can never remember which baseball league has the pinch hitter rule anyways.

(And that is in relation to Prof. Tabarrok stepping up to the plate with the previous collection of links.)

2 Bill November 29, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Do you think

Donald Trump will put me in jail or strip me of citizenship

If

I burn

A Trump Hat.

3 The Free Market Is Not God November 29, 2016 at 2:16 pm

#2 The article about the Libertarian architect was interesting. A former Marxist. It’s easier to run from one extreme to the other, politically or economically– than to go from an extreme to a more moderate position. Because people who love extremes, and who love black/white thinking, just love them without end. So they just switch poles. No wonder so many Libertarians seem to think that there are only 2 types of economies: Marxist or Libertarian.

4 Troll me November 29, 2016 at 5:10 pm

In some ways, Marxists and libertarians have more in common than Democrats and Republicans, including the fact that many are reasonably well-versed in the political philosophy of those portrayed as their ideological opposites. In many cases such a transition could actually be rather logical with only some minor adjustments in world view, despite them otherwise being viewed as about as far right and left as you get.

(The distinction between Marxism, which includes the concept of the “withering away of the state”, and Leninism, which begins with a highly technocratic state-directed trajectory, is key to being able to see this possibility. I.e., what most people refer to as “Marxism” is actually “Leninism” or “Stalinism” most of the time, all three of which extremely different.)

I think those who can sustain the “38% government share of GDP is capitalism, 40% is communism” sort of thinking demonstrate greater ability to engage in black and white thinking when debating closely related shades of grey.

From what I’ve seen of libertarians, very few have troubles with black and white thinking, despite being able to staunchly uphold a preference which seems extreme or absurd to some other people. Whereas, there seem to be many memes emanating from the alt-reicht these days which not only express, but appear designed to promote, black and white thinking in ways which can generally be expected to drive division between individuals and groups in society.

5 Michael B Sullivan November 29, 2016 at 5:39 pm

Libertarianism is basically a tweaked version of Marxism. They are both ultra-materialist philosophies that are concerned with coercion, freedom, and economic power. They share basically identical views of history before the modern era. They share critiques of most other political philosophies. They end up with substantially different policy preferences based on basically a single point of difference, and since most people know them principally due to their policy preferences, they end up looking quite different. But, honestly, they’re super similar.

6 Troll me November 29, 2016 at 5:50 pm

So you don’t know anything about either of them.

Freedom is the main objective of both.

7 Michael B Sullivan November 29, 2016 at 6:03 pm

You seem like you’re responding to something that I didn’t say. Did you imagine I was claiming that either was opposed to freedom?

8 Cliff November 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm

What is the single point of difference?

9 Michael B Sullivan November 29, 2016 at 7:02 pm

Cliff, I don’t have a super succinct version, but it’s basically what you would think.

Given a situation in which a person is being offered a narrow range of bad choices by entrenched powers, libertarians tend to believe that that person is pretty good at choosing the least-worst choice and that when enough people choose the least-worst choice, the entrenched powers become less entrenched.

Marxists tend to believe that in the same situation, people need to band together into a new power bloc that can create a new, better choice, and that the new power bloc is likely to be better than the existing entrenched powers (libertarians are probably skeptical about that last bit).

10 Cliff November 29, 2016 at 10:45 pm

Eh, I don’t really see it. I don’t think libertarianism is really about entrenched powers. Isn’t it basically about autonomy being a value in and of itself? Also libertarians tend to believe that minimal intrusion into personal choice will maximize overall welfare. I don’t think Marxists really agree with either of those. Don’t they favor forcing people to do things against their will, taking their property away etc.?

11 ChrisA November 30, 2016 at 12:22 am

I am a public choice libertarian. I do value liberty, but more preference for more libertarian solution is about the inability to properly restrain governments/bureaucracies once they are given powers. Governments are perhaps necessary for managing externalities and “law and order” but it seems to me that more harm has been done by Governments abusing power in the last 150 years than any externality or law and order issue. Traditionalists and socialists believe that Governments can be trusted with powers either due to social pressures to be good (like the idea that all teachers are saints unlike say bankers) or by good leadership. But surely the lesson the 20C with Stalin, Pol Pot, etc is that is not a reliable mechanism.

12 Thiago Ribeiro November 30, 2016 at 2:55 am

“But surely the lesson the 20C with Stalin, Pol Pot, etc is that is not a reliable mechanism.”
The lesson of the 20 C is that parents raising their kids is not a reliable mechanism after all their parents who torture, sexuallyassault or kill their kids.

13 JWatts November 29, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Do you think

Raul Castro will put me in jail or strip me of citizenship

If

I wear a

Make Cuba Great Again, hat?

14 msgkings November 29, 2016 at 4:08 pm

You’re a Cuban citizen?

15 JWatts November 29, 2016 at 4:27 pm

No, which is why my comment is about as likely as Bill’s to be true. Basically 0% chance. Obviously it would be completely different if I were a Cuba citizen.

See, my post was a subtle an ironic rejoinder to Bill’s post. I was pointing out that in a really terrible country, such Communist Cuba, you could indeed be harassed and even potentially arrested and imprisoned for such a mild protest. Whereas, despite all of the panicked protestations against Trump, there’s is zero chance that anyone will be punished for burning a Trump hat (assuming no extenuating circumstances). It’s also noteworthy that certain individuals who have praised Fidel Castro (a ruthless, violent dictator, who ordered mass killings of Cubans) seem so much bothered by Donald Trump, a man who has never done anything as remotely heinous.

16 msgkings November 29, 2016 at 4:31 pm

You….don’t understand humor much.

But putting that aside, not every person bothered by Trump is a fan of Castro. In fact I would wager most aren’t.

17 JWatts November 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm

“You….don’t understand humor much.”

Oh I find it mildly amusing that you would post a comment and then insult me when I gave a thoughtful reply instead of just ignoring the post.

“But putting that aside, not every person bothered by Trump is a fan of Castro. ”

Yep, that’s probably why I used the phrase: “certain individuals “

18 msgkings November 29, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Why so touchy? Your guy won. Sheesh.

19 Bill November 29, 2016 at 4:59 pm

JW,

Burn the Cuban hat too, as I would defend speech that offends either Raul and Donald. Both are hotheads.

Curious, though, who has the bigger fingers. Raul or Donald. Or, how did we ever get into discussing finger size in a Presidential debate, and what does that say about the candidates.

20 Bill November 29, 2016 at 5:10 pm

JW,

I sometimes teach using the socratic method, so let me try this on you:

What if I burned a Trump hat WITH an American Flag on it, would Trump strip me of citizenship or put me in jail for a year?

Is that any longer a 0% chance, or does it have to be a product that is solely a flag but not a product which has a flag on it with other decorations.

Inquiring minds want to know.

21 Brian Donohue November 29, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Maybe JWatts is a Trump guy. I’m not, but I understand his point, and Bill’s self-satisfied and churlish vers libre does wear a little thin.

22 JWatts November 29, 2016 at 5:19 pm

“Curious, though, who has the bigger fingers. Raul or Donald.”

I think that the more interesting question is who has the more magnificent hair.

Is it the great golden orange aerodynamically stream lined comb over of the Trump?
https://assets.rbl.ms/6609264/980x.jpg

Or the magnificent Latin American beard/ cigar combination of Fidel Castro?
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/fidel-castro-beard.jpg

23 Bill November 29, 2016 at 5:29 pm

Brian,

Verse libre?

Do you think this is some kind of highfalutin website where you can throw around those fancy French words without losing the audience.

Hell, I even had to look it up.

Don’t you threaten me with an iambic pentameter, you hear?

24 Derrill Watson November 29, 2016 at 2:01 pm

[Disclaimer: I read the abstract only]
Am I wrong in asking if the link to #1 should be titled “Can you draw meaningful inferences by reasoning from a price change?” Because 135 countries over 20 years sure sounds like we’re going to be ignoring *why* interest rates changed all over the place, and therefore it would be impossible to draw meaningful inferences from a price change.

25 Meets November 29, 2016 at 2:48 pm

I enjoy going through Ted Gioia’s list one by one.

Some I skip quickly but usually I find several gems I listen to over and over.

26 Zeitgeisty November 30, 2016 at 11:00 am

Did Gioia reallly think that particular Zorn disk was outstanding or did he just throw it in for the sake of eclecticism?

27 yo November 29, 2016 at 2:53 pm

The list is too high-brow for me again. One wouldn’t infer from it that House music or Reggaeton is even a thing. But it had a few good picks, most of all #66 which is a real gem. At least he’s not so america-centric as in the past any more.

28 yo November 29, 2016 at 4:21 pm

If you leave out the Jazz, he’s mostly promoting African experimental music right now. On that count, I agree fully with Gioia. Rokia Traore, Al Jawala, Noura Seymali and Okoroba are all top notch. I’d add a few others, mostly Kizomba – Nelson Freitas, Asty, or Fabyan & Juanmi for instance. Most are in French or France-based.

29 conchis November 29, 2016 at 4:54 pm

“One wouldn’t infer from it that House music or Reggaeton is even a thing.”

Or indeed, electronic music at all. But that’s ok; still some interesting stuff to check out. I much prefer lists (like this and the Quietus) that point me to even a small number new things I haven’t come across before, rather than just regurgitate the same stuff everyone else is talking about.

30 jimmy November 29, 2016 at 7:16 pm

I don’t think it is “high brow” so much as “contemporary middle-age music.” I’ve been sampling through the first 25 records and very little of it is holding my interest for more than a song or two. Lots of pleasant precision or sweet melodies, but very little energy.

31 rayward November 29, 2016 at 3:03 pm

1. This is interesting if confusing. Higher interest rates usually correlate with (expected) higher inflation rates, the latter encouraging current consumption (prices will be higher tomorrow) while the former encourages current savings (to take advantage of the higher interest rates on savings). Lower interest rates usually correlate with (expected) lower inflation rates, the latter discouraging current consumption (prices will be the same tomorrow) while the former encourages current savings (to offset the lower interest rates on savings). Or not. Lower interest rates supposedly encourage borrowing and consumption (the macro view), but how does that explain low interest rates and low consumption (demand) over the past eight years? I suppose the difference lies in the (expected) rate of economic growth: if it’s low, then low interest rates won’t encourage consumption (making the expected (low) rate of economic growth self-fulfilling); on the other hand, if it’s high, then low interest rates will encourage consumption (making the expected (high) rate of economic growth self-fulfilling). Another example of mood affiliation. I would point out that billions aren’t spent on propaganda for nothing. Baa.

32 Ray Lopez November 29, 2016 at 3:13 pm

@#1 – Hard to tell from the abstract, but I think this one is saying that for certain advanced countries, as interest rates drop below 2.5%, they save more (substitution effect), (“However, among industrial and emerging economies, the substitution effect is detected only when the nominal interest rate is lower than 2.5%”), but, for Third World Asian countries, as savings rates drop, they simply save less, i.e., an income effect (“In contrast, emerging-market Asian countries are found to have the income effect when the nominal interest rate is below 2.5%”)

@#3 – “3. A problem for industrial policy: export specialization is not as stable as you think.” – I think this is a bit of ‘revisionist history’, since keep in mind when, post WWII, or even pre-WWII (Meiji restoration) there was no ‘industrial policy’ for Japan, meaning whatever capital they got for industrialization was from farming and cutting down trees for timber, etc. Joe Studwell actually says as much, and claims governments “confiscated” farmers, forcing their savings to finance favored industrialists, and forcing farmers to move to the city to become factory workers (Joe Stalin did the same thing with kulaks and Ukraine). So of course ‘resources’ helped Japan industrialize. Same is probably true for Korea, Taiwan, etc. Same was true in the USA: in the early 1800s capital was used to finance the ‘base’ needed for industrialization, and workers suffered (like JP farmers confiscated) then only later did workers benefit. Econ historian Allen calls this “Engel’s Pause” (since Marx was right in that early Brits suffered under industrialization, though their kids later benefited). Once however the ‘base’ was in place, to claim that export specialization is unstable is like saying Samsung is crying and will go bankrupt because some of their phones caught fire, or because fashions change (tiny flip phones are out, big chunky phablets are in, but Samsung will adapt, it’s not a big deal). Unlikely therefore resource specialization is a big problem. Exporters of high tech are much better off than some poor sub-Saharan African farmer depending on scratching out a living growing some commodity.

33 Troll me November 29, 2016 at 3:50 pm

on 3: somewhere between spinning cotton and Pearl Harbour they built a sufficiently industrial army to conquer a good portion of Asia for a time. So I think something’s missing from the story … not sure exactly what.

34 JWatts November 29, 2016 at 5:04 pm

“Joe Studwell actually says as much, and claims governments “confiscated” farmers, forcing their savings to finance favored industrialists, and forcing farmers to move to the city to become factory workers (Joe Stalin did the same thing with kulaks and Ukraine). So of course ‘resources’ helped Japan industrialize.”

I think the process was slightly more complex than you’ve stated. I suspect that the forced removal of farmers, resulted in larger, more efficient farms, as well as, a surplus of starving labor for early industrialization. Thus you have two forces driving growth. Clearly, in Stalinist Russia, the creation of larger state owned farms was intentional, but it would have been the obvious result in both cases.

35 Troll me November 29, 2016 at 5:20 pm

The previous form of economic organization in rural Russia was local aristocrats who regarded peasants largely as chattle, no?

There was the Bolshevik revolution in between the two, but presumably that would be relevant in understanding (or guessing, without fully researching the question) about the nature of any purported forced rural-to-urban movements for the purpose of providing labour for industrialziation.

Given the situation of rural peasants, I think quite a fair few would have been drawn to the cities to try their luck. Say, in cases where they’d previously been tied to the land, observed the poverty around them, and then left for the cities. But … maybe there were still some local aristocrats who basically dragged their human chattle into nearby cities or towns as labour? Or .. what was the organizational ability of the Red Army by that point in time to conscript peasants in the thousands as forced labour?

Mostly, I think the process was a lot freer than one would guess (in terms of individual decisions to make the rural-urban migration), especially in the earlier stages (Stalin did not take power until this process had already been well underway for quite a few years, recall), despite whatever constraints on political activities rapidly formed after the Bolshevik Revolution.

36 JWatts November 29, 2016 at 5:50 pm

The previous form of economic organization in rural Russia was local aristocrats who regarded peasants largely as chattle, no?

That’s correct, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Particularly since, for the Ukrainian sub-population, Communism was far worse than feudalism had been.

Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

“the Holodomor has been recognized by the independent Ukraine and 24 other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet Union.”

Mostly, I think the process was a lot freer than one would guess

You seem to have had a deficient education, so allow me to point out the historical record regarding the well documented horrors of Communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

“The Soviet Union enforced the collectivization of its agricultural sector between 1928 and 1940 during the ascendancy of Joseph Stalin. It began during and was part of the first five-year plan. The policy aimed to consolidate individual landholdings and labour into collective farms … ..In the early 1930s over 91% of agricultural land became “collectivized” as rural households entered collective farms with their land, livestock, and other assets. The sweeping collectivization often involved tremendous human and social costs.”

“in the first two months of 1930, 11 million households joined collectivized farms, pushing the total to nearly 60% almost overnight. To assist collectivization, the Party decided to send 25,000 “socially conscious” industry workers to the countryside. This was accomplished during 1929–1933, and these workers have become known as twenty-five-thousanders (“dvadtsat’pyat’tysyachniki”). Shock brigades were used to force reluctant peasants into joining the collective farms and remove those who were declared kulaks and their “agents”.”

I don’t think a reasonable person would consider this a ‘free process’.

37 Troll me November 29, 2016 at 5:56 pm

In saying “freer than most would guess”, I’m specifically referring to the rural-to-urban migration decision and nothing else whatsoever.

Also, I explicitly referred primarily to this decision in the pre-Stalin period and alluded to things being different from then.

I could pose the question as this: “How free was the rural-to-urban migration decision in post-revolutionary Russia between 1918 and 1923?”, more or less. That’s what I’m thinking of.

The rest of the historical events you mention are in a different time period and context than I was thinking. As for the forced collectivization, the peasants famously gorged on meat for some time after the announcements rather than hand over this tasty capital to the state/collective. Alongside a similar failed experiment in 1950s China, I’m pretty sure the lesson has been learned to never ever try this again except on a super small scale between people who can easily opt in or out.

38 So Much For Subtlety November 29, 2016 at 6:13 pm

There was remarkably little rural-to-urban movement in Russia between 1918 and 1923. They were the years of War Communism, ie actual Communism. They nationalized industry and assumed peasants would just hand over their crops for free. They did not. So they had to send armed columns into the countryside to steal whatever grain they could find.

The result was a flow of workers out of the cities and back to their villages because at least in their villages they could eat.

As for the lessons learned, Marxists never learn. Stalin told Mao not to collectivize the peasants. He did anyway and millions died. Despite that Ho Chi-minh collectivized the peasants of North Vietnam. 100,000 or so died. Despite their Soviet advisers telling them not to, the Communists of Ethiopia collectivized their peasants. Care to guess what happened next?

Reality is an irrelevance to the Left.

39 JWatts November 29, 2016 at 6:23 pm

“As for the forced collectivization, the peasants famously gorged on meat for some time after the announcements rather than hand over this tasty capital to the state/collective. ”

You mean they ate the food that was there’s before it could be forceably taken from them? I would hope so. And I hope they shot the first commissars who showed up on their land. However, I suspect the feudal policies that preceded Communism kept the peasants largely disarmed and thus allowed the “socially conscious” industry workers to later come in and enforce the brutal tyranny with little effective opposition. Communists may claim to be attempting to maximize freedom, but revealed preferences indicate it’s really about forced state control by a party elite on the despairing masses.

40 carlospln November 29, 2016 at 6:23 pm

Pol Pot?

WAIT…Hitler!

41 Troll me November 30, 2016 at 1:09 am

Recall the historical context within which that (Marxism), was a freedom-enhancing philosophy.

Workers who attempted to negotiate collectively with the collective owners of a production establishment could face substantial state-sanctioned violence, or (I think) more often that the state had no problems with the companies hiring their own thugs to beat up (or worse) those who negotiated too hard in any collective sort of sense.

Peasants (Russian case) with any such similar thoughts could be killed, perhaps with less concern than the loss of a strong draft animal.

The state was very much a tool of oppression, and so obviously the state would not originally have been seen as the solution from the perspective of the working class.

However, Lenin’s somewhat practical technocratic leadership ideals gave way to Stalinism, which is now nearly synonymous with evil. And Mao’s battlefield victories did not translate into abilities to manage an economy (I gather he was exposed to a lot of ideas over the years, but from what little of Mao I’ve tried to make sense of, I don’t think he understood European philosophers at all the way they understood themselves).

The point I’m trying to make is that for both libertarians and Marxists (by which I mean explicitly not Leninists, not Stalinists and not Maoists), the state itself is the enemy of freedom in both cases.

Where libertarians tend to give in a little is in recognition of externalities which justify government involvement in education and infrastructure (also, law and order). Where Marxists tend to give in is to acknowledge that evil profit seekers do in fact produce things that can be taxed, which makes it possible to address the “to each according to his needs” part of the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” ideal.

For the libertarian, is it the inherent nature of man that is the origin of how the state is a threat to freedom (including by wasting money that others must labour to pay for), much along the lines of what the framers of the constitution were trying in so many ways to constrain in order to have an effective system of governance which would not fall into tyranny.

For the Marxist, it is the role of capital, i.e. owners of production facilities, etc., within the state that is at the origin of the oppression from the state against citizens and workers.

So, both see the state as the origins of oppression and standing in the way of freedom, but have different explanations for this (which do not need to be considered as mutually exclusive). And at the same time, utopian ideals of the end of the state aside, both Marxists and libertarians, from their radically different views, both are extremely able to see the benefits of state or government powers, even though each staunchly opposes the entrenchment of certain powers within the state which may become a locus or source of oppression.

Neither stream of thought seems to have much interest in “social contract theory”, wherein we give up certain “natural freedoms” in order to be overall more free by agreeing to let the state constrain us from doing things that in aggregate stand against freedom.

42 JWatts November 30, 2016 at 9:54 am

Nathan, someone has to be historically ignorant and willfully blind to accept any of that twaddle. This is not the site to convince gullible people with pro-Marxist philosophy.

“Recall the historical context within which that (Marxism), was a freedom-enhancing philosophy.”

Sure according to Marxists, but the results speak otherwise. Scientology is a freedom-enhancing philosophy according to Scientologists. Most rational people look at the actions and results not the words.

“Peasants (Russian case) with any such similar thoughts could be killed, perhaps with less concern than the loss of a strong draft animal.”

The historical evidence is clear. More Soviets died under the brutality of Communism between 1917 and 1937 than died from the direct actions of the Russian Empire in the preceding half century.

” and Marxists (by which I mean explicitly not Leninists, not Stalinists and not Maoists), ”

So, in theory it works GREAT!, let’s just ignore 70 years of the practical application of Marxism.

“So, both see the state as the origins of oppression and standing in the way of freedom,”

No, that’s not true at all. Marxists think that state oppression is acceptable as long as they’re in charge.

Here’s the classic Pournelle chart. It’s over 50 years old, but it still conveys the differences pretty well. There’s little overlap between Libertarians and Communists. The only significant difference is that American conservative have moved to the Left on the Statism axis, lining up below Libertarians just below the middle of the Rationalism axis.

43 Troll me November 30, 2016 at 4:01 pm

I think it’s going over your head that Marx (1850s), Lenin (1920s), Stalin (1930s), Mao (1950s-70s) and Pol Pot (1970s) are not the same ideas in the same time and places.

I’m speaking of the philosophy of Marx, not what some dictators did 100 years later.

If you’re going to try to tell me that it is historically ignorant to consider 1850s London England (Marx’s time and place) and 1970s Pnom Penh (nothing much to do with Marx) as historically different times and places, then … wtf. What to even say?

I’m not sure if you’re intentionally trying to misrepresent a position or just constitionally unable to consider the legitimacy of any argument which in any way contains any linkage whatsoever to the first person to do serious work on the macroeconomy (duh, he got a few things wrong in the process – but we still do 150 years later).

Recall, there might have been just a teeny weeny bit of brainwashing on the matter between 1950 and 1990. That’s when you learned what you know about the world, no?

(P.S. – I do not blame capitalism per se for the fact that the USA is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons in an offensive manner, TWICE, with wanton disregard for lives other than American ones. The Soviets were closing in from the other flank. The nukes did not have to be used.)

44 Roger Sweeny December 3, 2016 at 2:40 pm

The point I’m trying to make is that for both libertarians and Marxists (by which I mean explicitly not Leninists, not Stalinists and not Maoists), the state itself is the enemy of freedom …

If this is true, why does just about everyone who calls herself a Marxist want a bigger and stronger government, and why do all Marxists in power try to create a state with a monopoly of “the means of production”?

45 pyroseed13 November 29, 2016 at 4:30 pm

I don’t understand why Tyler links to Ted Gioia’s lists every year. That guy seems pretty out of touch with modern music. Realistically, how many interesting jazz albums have been released since the 1970s? Probably not enough to fill up yearly top 100 lists.

46 John Sillings November 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm

+1

47 Donald Pretari November 29, 2016 at 4:44 pm

#4…It’s “The 100 Best Albums of 2016 (all styles, all genres)”…read the post.

48 Thiago Ribeiro November 29, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Where are the Brazilian albums?

49 msgkings November 29, 2016 at 5:37 pm

Providing roofing material for the Rio favelas.

50 Ray Lopez November 29, 2016 at 6:04 pm

None of your comments are anything but racist drivel. You one of ssailor’s groupies that trolls here?

51 msgkings November 29, 2016 at 6:32 pm

Ray, stick to chess and hookers, blog commenting is so over your head.

52 Thiago Ribeiro November 29, 2016 at 6:46 pm

There are many other materials that can be used.And the Brazilian government is engaged in a plan to eliminate all the favelas?

53 Thiago Ribeiro November 29, 2016 at 6:48 pm

Correction: where there is a “?”, it must be read “!”. I am tired of this ingferior Korean keyboard. It is made for people with tiny hands.

54 Ray Lopez November 29, 2016 at 8:34 pm

@msgkings – don’t deny your racism, rojo-neck, embrace it. You’re in the silent majority now with your man Trump in the Blanco Casa

55 msgkings November 29, 2016 at 8:49 pm

@Ray: it would surprise every other poster here to learn I am a Trump supporter, including myself. Hookers and chess, Ray.

56 Troll me November 29, 2016 at 6:09 pm

Not marketed outside of Brazil?

57 Thiago Ribeiro November 29, 2016 at 6:45 pm

It makes no sense. So they market Hindustani African whatever in America, but not Brazilian albums?

58 Troll me November 30, 2016 at 1:22 am

Doesn’t make any sense to me either. Brazilian jazz is very cool, but I don’t think I’ve heard it more than a handful of times ever at music stores, cafes, malls, bars, clubs, etc.

I think most people with awareness of Brazilian jazz outside of Brazil are aware of it as a result of influences in certain types of electronic music which incorporates jazz influences, including Brazilian ones.

59 Ted Craig November 29, 2016 at 7:59 pm

No. 57 Caetano Veloso & Gilberto Gil
Dois Amigos, Um Século de Música

No. 82
Sociedade Recreativa
Sociedade Recreativa

Honorable Mentions:
Hamilton de Holanda Samba de Chico
Vox Sambou The Brasil Session

60 Thiago Ribeiro November 30, 2016 at 3:11 am

“Honorable Mentions”… We don’t need his charity.

“Tashi Dorji & Shane Parish
Expecting
Bhutanese/Appalachian Guitar Duets”

We have cities bigger than Buthan.

61 nap November 29, 2016 at 11:00 pm

zero hip hop or rap albums. Doesn’t seem to include all genres and genres.

62 Zeitgeisty November 30, 2016 at 11:04 am

Jazz left NYC because it got too expensive

Oslo is the place

63 boober bunion November 29, 2016 at 4:33 pm

https://pirecordings.com/album/pi64
Henry Threadgill’s “Old Locks and Irregular Verbs” doesn’t even get Honorable Mention?
FEH!

64 Silas Barta November 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm

#2 Just to nitpick, what make Roark Roark, was not simply being an “architect with libertarian views”, but rather, being one who designed buildings to be useful for the people who used them, instead of to please some social norms about how a building should look at the expense of function.

65 Dan Culley November 29, 2016 at 7:18 pm

@#1, seems like if the income effect generally dominates, then we’d see much more macro stability as rates react sharply to small investment demand changes: when demand to invest was high, there would be a spiral of high rates to ratio tamp it down, when demand to invest was low, there’d be a spiral of low rates to bring more in.

Since that isn’t what we observe, seems more likely this is reasoning from a price change. Need to separate out why each interest rate change occurred.

66 Ray Lopez November 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm

If you read the abstract it talks about a world-wide survey, not just one country, and all countries don’t respond in the same way, BTW proving indirectly there are no universal laws of economics.

67 ricardo November 29, 2016 at 9:13 pm

#4 Any music list featuring John Carpenter can’t be all bad.

68 Philipp November 29, 2016 at 11:42 pm

The Gioias are great. Btw. Ted Gioia said the following about econ: “The microeconomic modeling and game theory analysis I learned […] has helped me explain developments in the history of music that I would never have understood if I had spent my entire life in the arts.” Link here: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2643/the_artsagents_of_change_and_source_of_enchantment.aspx

69 Philipp November 29, 2016 at 11:59 pm

And Dana Gioia said this about politics in his 2007 Stanford commencement speech: “Of course, I’m not forgetting that politicians can also be famous, but it is interesting how our political process grows more like the entertainment industry each year. When a successful guest appearance on the Colbert Report becomes more important than passing legislation, democracy gets scary.” Link here: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/june20/gradtrans-062007.html

70 anonymous as usual November 30, 2016 at 12:10 am

Having had the pleasure of spending some time on the GMU campus (the best secular university in Virginia, by the way, not by a little but a lot) I enjoy picturing these comment threads as if they were pieces of paper sequentially posted (tacked to) bulletin boards in the basement of the building which I mistakenly, for years, thought was the building where the economics courses were taught. Outside the building are several magnificent academic evergreens on a grassy slope where the pine needles lie in the hillside sun and shade just as they might have in the days of Homer or Aristotle. In my youth the slope looked out over a large parking lot (the academic parking lot that so many people who desired the academic life pictured, until they achieved it, as the Platonic ideal of a parking lot where they would put their cars while achieving their academic goals). They have built a boring parking garage where the beautiful expanse of parking lot used to be, with its tender geometric bygone borders of fraternal gray-green pine trees, side by side. Still, most of the trees are still there, but you have to walk around a lot to picture how they used to look at a distance over the formerly heart-breaking broad asphalt of “Parking Lot G”, the parking lot where those without real parking privileges would park while they went about their hopeful academic business, waiting for the weekend and the wonderful ways the weekend would be passed – foreign movies shared with friends, that in those pre-Criterion days were like unexpected intellectual treats; or the playing of albums -even academic albums – that were the soundtrack to those sad university love affairs that withered so quickly when the salaries did not keep pace with the hopes; or the great meals that people who cared about each other so often prepared, in those days, just like today, for people they cared about. Who would have guessed, all those years ago, that the really cool picture on the cover of Jackson Browne’s album about parking his car in front of his girlfriend’s house on some weird California daytime street under an even weirder Matisse night sky – framed by a nighttime line of trees and a nighttime suburban house – would be a pale imitation of the Commerce Secretary’s art collection at its best? Better yet, who would have cared? None of us. God is good.

71 Steve November 30, 2016 at 12:35 am

More, please.

72 anonymous as usual November 30, 2016 at 1:44 am

Steve – I hope you are not patronizing me (!) – if you are, write what you want to write – if you aren’t, go ahead and do the same…. anyway, If I could only have lived better than I did I would have made a heaven out of my days working at Home Depot – the customers who knew a little about math loved the zone they were in talking to me, with the sort-of-Heinlein references that half of them got and half of them with a satisfying click (Steve jobs and Dave Chapelle would understand) thought they got – but on day two of my two days working at Home Depot I actually realized that the money flow from being the guy who was told “seriously, you are perfectly good with the mop” was, morality aside, not leading anywhere comfortable in the near future (and who among us does not care about the near future with infinitely greater passion than the less-near future). The funny thing is, I still like them all – the boss who made me quit with his praise of my mopping skills, the chubby girl who looked like a young Rosie O’Donnell and whom I, not alone among us – let us be honest – was passionate for and whose time preferences were so far off from the Home Depot management time preferences – every single customer I met – dozens, at least, not a single one of them rude (my pals who work at Target today in 2016 tell me that it is not possible to have a week’s worth of good customers in a row – I am sure they are right, but today is theirs and 1978 was mine) – God only knows I had no idea that decades later I would sit and think that the almost the happiest times in life of everybody I knew (leaving aside the love the lucky ones had for each other and the compensations the unlucky ones had – the wind in the trees over the edge of the field where the bride looked so pretty and where, after she had left with the groom, the rest of us – forget about LPs and cassettes, we wanted to sing our own songs -sang our own songs) were those loud discussions, after the boring or exhausting work day, at the local Pizza Hut or the local NCO or officer’s club, about what we planned to do to make this world (actually, to make our little work-places – we knew that and did not care) a better place, as if we were all voyagers on this earth farther from where we should have been than the Admirals of the Pacific War were from their naval academies when they met somewhere unwanted in the middle of the Pacific, ready to die, ready to save, ready to simply grow older by a day if that was all that we were called to do – and still, reading these comment threads, to which I could almost be addicted if I had an addictive personality (which I don’t) I can’t help thinking that the internet reading one does is just a small reflection of one’s dreams at night where so much is said, and (active voice now) tracks, slow thought after slow thought, some of them insightful in that weird dream-like way, some of them accurate characterizations of an alien viewpoint – onto a large bulletin board in the basement of a building at a university that is, simply and without being more than it seems, a comfortable place of unhurried thought years after – or before – whatever important things happened in one’s life happened – or will happen (every word until now has been true except Home Depot was Burger King – no kidding – and I made up the letter G for the parking lot in the previous post. It was a real parking lot, and many days there was a real car parked there (blue Volvo, “coral blue” Ford “Tempo” sedan, tan “Mercury”) that people I loved had sat in, engaging in conversations with me that I would give a million dollars (if I had a million dollars) to hear again. Seriously, if the people I know are no different than the people anyone else knows, you can make people laugh just by quoting some of the more realistic verses at them – it rains on the just and the unjust (!) or “I will repay” the “years the locust have eaten” – that is a particularly good one to share with people who have, as I sometimes (truthfully, of course) claim to have done, worked brutal workweeks for the last several decades.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: