Monday assorted links

by on December 12, 2016 at 1:36 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 BenK December 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

Progressives care about federalism and states’ rights exactly the way they
care about free speech, democracy, and human rights.
Useful tools which fall by the wayside when no longer helpful.

2 mulp December 12, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Yep, only conservatives support free speech like “the bible is at best good poetry written in post medieval England, but is otherwise garbage that leads people into irrational beliefs and acts based on magic and the magical power of killing people to placate mythical gods.”

I grew up when bible-thumper-raised children started demanding trigger warning of facts contrary to the Bible so they could cover their ears and eyes.

And today, Trump is frequently trying to kill off free speech of facts and evidence, not to mention opinion he does not like.

3 mulp December 12, 2016 at 6:32 pm

Apologies for the deep post.

4 hgfalling December 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm

Surely one of the best parts of the 2016 post-election season, no matter who you supported, is the sudden propensity of progressive commentators to quote the Federalist Papers.

5 Brian Donohue December 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

Meanwhile, the GOP is now rediscovering the dubious wonders of “multipliers”.

Bittersweet at best.

6 albatross December 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm

This is, of course, *completely different* from conservatives’ commitment to limited government and balanced budgets.

7 JWatts December 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm

Republicans in government seem to be better than Democrats with respect to limited government. They merely give lip service to balanced budgets however.

8 Jay December 12, 2016 at 8:35 pm

I would have named linked 2 as “Progressives in praise of Kim Davis”

9 Brian Donohue December 12, 2016 at 2:04 pm

7. Just started reading. Looks hopeless. Cowen’s third law likely applies.

10 JWatts December 12, 2016 at 3:13 pm

The least popular law.

11 aMichael December 12, 2016 at 2:07 pm

2. I welcome my progressive brothers and sisters to the cause of federalism.

Cheers to “Live and let live.”

12 Gadi December 12, 2016 at 5:54 pm

“Live and let live” as long as you’re not gay, a person of color, an immigrant, or a woman.

13 whassssup December 13, 2016 at 1:01 am

Like Peter Thiel, Clarence Thomas, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Kellyanne Conway?

14 Bill Kilgore December 13, 2016 at 1:55 pm

Those people are NOT real minorities.

It’s easy to tell too. If they were real minorities, they would love the Democratic party.

15 Heorogar December 12, 2016 at 2:15 pm

Quick, someone tell Clinton, Inc. to not use “password” as the DNC password.

Anybody other than a progressive idiot (redundant) would recognize that for the utterly self-unaware liberal it’s states’ rights, free speech, democracy, and human rights for themselves, illegal invaders, muslims; but they deny those benefits to Republicans, whites, Christians, et al.

In latest news, both the politicized, incompetent, corrupt CIA and FBI conclude that Russian hackers interfered with US elections by (Mind Control!) forcing Crooked Hillary to call half of America “irredeemable and deplorable.”

16 anon December 12, 2016 at 2:25 pm

The news is bad, so go to a friendly forum to ramble incoherently FTW.

17 mulp December 12, 2016 at 2:34 pm

I value your free speech right to spout distortions and lies of what Clinton and others say and think.

But hey, I’m a liberal.

I hope you likewise value my clear statement of fact that Trump lies blatantly in promising free lunch political economic policies. TANSTAAFL

Trump will kill more coal jobs than Obama unless he kills all the oil and gas production jobs created since Obama took office plus all the wind jobs created for white working class people in Trump land since Bush took office, a huge net loss of jobs.

At least Clinton was honest about coal jobs being destroyed because that means getting to new sustainable jobs based on capitalist principles instead of capital destroying pillage and plunder.

If coal mining is the best version of free market capitalism, why aren’t Appalachian coal towns the richest towns in America? Given the wealth coal supposedly created, the coal towns should be incredibly wealthy.

That coal towns are among the poorest, coal is the opposite of capitalism.

But I’m sure you will find my free speech quite unacceptable.

18 mulp December 12, 2016 at 6:35 pm

What’s the deal with decaf? How do they get the caffeine out of there, and then where does it go?

19 Scott Mauldin December 12, 2016 at 3:01 pm

“progressive idiot (redundant)”

Oh my, the level of insight in your post is astounding! Let’s hear some more insightful comments, shall we?

20 Jan December 12, 2016 at 4:25 pm
21 Brian Donohue December 12, 2016 at 5:32 pm

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back”.

I’m gonna miss Barry O.

22 Jan December 12, 2016 at 6:01 pm

Oh, whataboutism. I was waiting for that one.

23 Jan December 12, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Let me know if any intelligence agencies said Russia tried to influence the 2008 or 2012 elections.

24 Turkey Vulture December 12, 2016 at 6:22 pm

We’ve always been at war with Westasia.

25 Jan December 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm

So then there must be some reports of Russia trying to impact recent elections. I’m just waiting for someone to point me to them.

26 JWatts December 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

“So then there must be some reports of Russia trying to impact recent elections. I’m just waiting for someone to point me to them.”

“The Russian leader hasn’t always been a fan of Republicans. Following a series of comments made by Romney in 2012 that disparaged Putin’s leadership of Russia, Putin seemed to offer his support to the Democratic incumbent. Speaking to RT television, Putin suggested it would be hard to work with Romney if he won office, and added that Obama was “an honest person who really wants to change much for the better.”?”

27 Turkey Vulture December 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm

Jan of course voted for Romney in 2012 after reading that Putin favored Obama, knowing that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe.

28 Brian Donohue December 12, 2016 at 6:59 pm

Remember when the US tried to get Yeltsin elected?

Grow up.

29 Jan December 12, 2016 at 7:23 pm

You don’t seem to get that this isn’t a Dem vs Republican thing. I don’t give a damn whether Putin is pushing a D or an R (he’d have tried to help whoever is good for Russia). That’s why a number of senior Republicans are saying this is a threat to our country and calling for a full investigation, despite the fact the intelligence points to Russia’s pro-Trump agenda.

I still don’t see any evidence that Russia tried to undermine any of our recent elections, JWatts. That’s not what your link shows.

If the U.S. tried to surreptitiously support Yeltsin two decades ago, that was also wrong. All of these things can be true.

30 anon December 12, 2016 at 7:46 pm

It is toeing the party line to say that any past espionage was the same as trying to influence a US Presidential election.

And so we can’t really fault uncritical thinkers who just want to toe the line.

Now the Yeltsin angle is a strange one. The Soviet Union had disintegrated, we were worried about nuclear peace among other things, and picked an ally. Since we did that .. it is toeing the line to say that the United States has disintegrated, Russians are worried about world peace, and are choosing Trump for peace?

I’m not sure we shouldn’t fault uncritical thinkers who just want to toe the line.

31 anon December 12, 2016 at 7:47 pm

Basically, some of you should wake up at 1 AM and think about the things you’ve been asked to believe.

32 Brian Donohue December 12, 2016 at 8:21 pm


What are we being asked to believe here? That, other than Russia’s malign influence, Hillary would have won?

This is almost surely horseshit, but it is of course impossible to prove either way, which gives lefties some sort of binky to suck on.

I voted for Hillary. I still think she would prolly be better than Trump. But, strangely, I am immune to believing Russia put Trump in the White House, at 1AM or any other time.

33 anon December 12, 2016 at 8:24 pm

I would certainly not ask anyone to believe “but for Russia, Hillary would have won.” It’s possible, but unknowable, therefore moot.

What is readily apparent however is that Russia is ACTIVE in US politics and a US PRESIDENT would simply rather not believe it.

THAT is what toeing the line is designed to hide.

34 anon December 13, 2016 at 8:29 am

“Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking”

Everyone “toeing the line” above is helping to gaslight that.

35 Thomas December 13, 2016 at 10:54 pm

17 agencies AKA 2 Obama appointees.

36 Thomas Taylor December 12, 2016 at 9:48 pm

Recognizing Blacks’ and gays’ human rights is a terrible, terrible oppression. Ohohohoh… I wonder if the Neo Nazis really believe whaat they say and really can’t tell the difference from real persecution and non-persecution or if they just believe they cn use those lies to convince someone who hasn’t drunk their Kool Aid yet.

37 Ricardo December 13, 2016 at 10:06 am

She called one eighth of the adult population of the country deplorable, not one half.

38 JWatts December 12, 2016 at 2:19 pm

“1. Why it matters whether China is labeled “a market economy” in trade talks.”

It’s mildly amusing that in an article investigating whether China should be declared a market economy, actually being a market economy is 2nd.

“While China agreed in 2001 to this NME distinction, Beijing interpreted its WTO membership to mean that the United States would automatically revoke NME status in December 2016. Public statements by senior U.S. officials at the time — including the testimony of Charlene Barshefsky, then the U.S. trade representative, before Congress — certainly helped form this Chinese impression.”

Isn’t that implicitly contingent on China actually having a market economy? If they don’t, the US shouldn’t change the status.

“President-elect Donald Trump indicated on Dec. 8 that “China is not a market economy,”

Trump says a lot of very controversial things. This is not one of them.

39 Baphomet December 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm

#4: Notice how nobody laughs at Holmström’s jokes.

40 Anon December 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm

2 b)
Reminds me of the literal translation of “signal” into Hindi.

” Dhooma sakat gaman aagaman sanketh chihn’ -literally “an indicator of the arrival or departure of a steam engine train” . By the time you say it , the train has already come and gone.

In such a fast-paced game by the time you say “minakanu tshetshi kutshipanitat tshetshi pituteik usham anuenimakannua nenua kueshte kametueshiniti” for penaly shot , the shot has been taken and the goal scored.

41 Art Deco December 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm

#2: she has no interest in federalism. She wants what she wants, and she sees state and local governments as a tool to frustrate federal policy. The tool will be discarded when no longer convenient.

42 JWatts December 12, 2016 at 3:18 pm

Yes, but it undermines the “federalism is evil” that is a reflexive talking point for the authoritarian Left.

43 Troll me December 13, 2016 at 3:39 am

I’ve never heard that talking point before.

I think views on the appropriate level of authority distributed to different levels of government is often determined by whether you support what the different levels of government are doing.

For example, if you support criminalization of certain substances, you probably also support a rule that allows the national government to exercise federal authority in jurisdictions which are not supportive of the rule – however, presumably a lack of support in that area would also reduce the likelihood that such authority would be applied for trivial (if any) reasons.

Another grouping of people might support national authority in the case that it enforces certain anti-discrimination laws at a subnational level.

Presumably, people in either group would have a different view of the appropriate distribution of federal and state authority if the de facto situation were opposite.

So … notions that some specific segment of an ideological spectrum might monopolize some specific viewpoint about distribution of jurisdiction, governing power, etc., just doesn’t seem likely to reflect reality very closely. But I imagine if you want to check with history, you’ll find some examples to corroborate one perspective or another.

44 Thomas December 13, 2016 at 10:56 pm

You haven’t heard many things.

45 Thor December 14, 2016 at 1:43 pm

And yet we get many many paragraphs from him…

46 pyroseed13 December 12, 2016 at 4:08 pm

#6 As expected, that Borjas piece misses the point on several issues. Of course, nowhere does it mention the fiscal costs of immigrants, which I think would be an important factor in determining whether more immigration is good for the importing country. Then it repeats the same tired arguments, such as this:

“But immigrants are consumers as well as producers; not only do they increase the supply of workers competing for jobs, but they also increase the demand for goods and services, creating new jobs in the process. As the economist David Roodman has written, “they expand the economic pie even as they compete for a slice.”

First, immigrants can similarly buy U.S. goods from their own countries. Sure, their incomes will likely be lower, but immigration restrictions are not necessarily an obstacle to trade. Even so, when they do come here, we have to ask who the “increased demand” is actually benefiting. Borjas very eloquently noted in a recent AEI interview that a country gains when immigrants bring with them skills and different kinds of human capital that the country does not currently have. If immigrants are isolating themselves in their own ethnic enclaves, then this “increased demand” is supporting the immigrant community but not necessarily the U.S. at large. As Borjas notes, all we would have done is “create two United States.”

Then the authors offer this criticism of the Borjas study: “…he excludes women from his data set; they saw their wages rise over the period in question.”

The problem with this unqualified statement is that it makes it sound as if Borjas deceptively cherry-picked his sample. But there’s a very good reason to exclude women from the paper: They were
entering the workforce rapidly, and therefore any negative effects of immigration would be obscured by their entrance.

The authors, in other words, are exactly the same victims of the ideology that Borjas decries in his book.

47 Peter Schaeffer December 13, 2016 at 12:15 pm

A statement like “economists favor immigration” has no more credibility than the claims of court astrologers and clairvoyants. One of most notable developments of late has been the admission by prominent economists that they habitually and chronically lie. In other words, economists have all of the legitimacy of snake oil salesman and politicians. Why do economists habitually and continuously lie? At least we can get the truth on that point. Economists lie to support their ideology.

Don’t believe me. Here are some of the applicable statements from Dani Rodrik

“It has long been an unspoken rule of public engagement for economists that they should champion trade and not dwell too much on the fine print. This has produced a curious situation. The standard models of trade with which economists work typically yield sharp distributional effects: income losses by certain groups of producers or worker categories are the flip side of the “gains from trade.” And economists have long known that market failures – including poorly functioning labor markets, credit market imperfections, knowledge or environmental externalities, and monopolies – can interfere with reaping those gains.”

“Nonetheless, economists can be counted on to parrot the wonders of comparative advantage and free trade whenever trade agreements come up. They have consistently minimized distributional concerns, even though it is now clear that the distributional impact of, say, the North American Free Trade Agreement or China’s entry into the World Trade Organization were significant for the most directly affected communities in the United States. They have overstated the magnitude of aggregate gains from trade deals, though such gains have been relatively small since at least the 1990s. They have endorsed the propaganda portraying today’s trade deals as “free trade agreements,” even though Adam Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

What does this have to do with immigration? Everything, as it turns out. The public pronouncements of “economists” on immigration are at least as dishonest as their comments on trade. Like trade, immigration has winners and losers. Like trade, immigration is a net losing proposition for America and Americans. In other words, the losses from immigration exceed the gains and make American poorer, not richer.

Borjas (unlike the LARB) tells the truth on these subjects. Immigration does produce (in his calculations) a surplus of $50 billion a year. However, that surplus is consumed by the welfare (food stamps, TANF, health care, WiC, EITC, Medicaid, Medicare, Disability, Section 8 housing, Obamacare, SSI, Social Security, etc. Of course, that’s not the end of math. Immigration also “redistributes” $500 billion from workers to employers. So the net is no gain to the American people and a $500 billion wage loss for workers.

As for the National Academy of Sciences. More lies from lying liars. Some of the actual conclusions from the report.

“There has been a slowdown in assimilation during the immigrants’ lifetime (User’s Guide, 1). “As time spent in the United States lengthens, immigrants’ wages increase relative to those of natives and the initial wage gap narrows. However, this process of economic integration appears to have slowed somewhat in recent decades; the rate of relative wage growth and English language acquisition among the foreign-born is now slightly slower than it was for earlier immigrant waves.””

“Immigration has a harmful effect on the earnings of low-skill workers (User’s Guide, 2):”When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact of immigration on the wages of natives overall is very small. However, estimates for subgroups span a comparatively wider range, indicating a revised and somewhat more detailed understanding of the wage impact of immigration since the 1990s. To the extent that negative wage effects are found, prior immigrants—who are often the closest substitutes for new immigrants—are most likely to experience them, followed by native-born high-school dropouts, who share job qualifications similar to the large share of low-skilled workers among immigrants to the United States.””

“Immigrants and their dependent children create a fiscal burden (User’s Guide, 3; and User’s Guide, 4): “On average, individuals in the first generation are more costly to governments, mainly at the state and local levels, than are the native-born generations…For 2013, the total fiscal shortfall (i.e., the excess of government expenditures over taxes) was $279 billion for the first generation group…Viewed over a long time horizon (75 years in our estimates), the fiscal impacts of immigrants are generally positive at the federal level and negative at the state and local levels.” But these fiscal impact estimates are, rightly, stamped with a Consumer Warning label: “Assumptions play a central role in analyses of the fiscal impacts of immigration.””

48 CM December 12, 2016 at 4:12 pm

Agree with AD but don’t think this is a knock on her. No one has any interest in federalism per se. Federalism only has instrumental value which depends on particular circumstances (like the filibuster). For conservatives, federalism was a problem when States tried to use to block child labor and mandate an 8-hour work day but became a useful argument when the federal government moved to grant equal rights to African Americans, protect access to contraceptives and abortion, and enforce the separation of church and state.

49 Art Deco December 12, 2016 at 5:04 pm

No one has any interest in federalism per se.

You really should not assume your own guises and poses are everyone else’s, or project your bad disposition on them.

The utility of federalism is that it allows local communities to be self-governing in matters where central co-ordination and control do not influence service quality or legal security all that much. This requires a certain appreciation for someone else’s viewpoint and a willingness to abstain from second-guessing other people’s decisions. You cannot manage that and neither can she.

50 CM December 12, 2016 at 7:24 pm

I think we agree about the ideal value of federalism: (1) on many issues, locals will make better decisions about their localities because they have better local information and do not suffer from the coordination and agency problems faced by a distant capitol, and (2) local control promotes accountability and dignity. But very few people value federalism above others values in their basket. It’s all fine to abstain from second guessing other people’s decisions in the abstract but its very different when you are faced with a concrete issues: locals who enrich themselves by looting or polluting the commons, engage in repression against one minority or another, use corruption and other tricks to entrench their own power, enact regulations that impoverish you by making the larger economy less efficient, use their market power to distort the options available to everyone else, or permit or prohibit women from terminating their pregnancies. FWIW, I will be happy to be proven wrong if the Trump administration demonstrates a serious commitment to federalism above their other policy preferences. But I don’t think that has ever happened in American history and I don’t think it will happen now.

51 Art Deco December 13, 2016 at 1:13 am

But very few people value federalism above others values in their basket.

Again, quit projecting.

52 Art Deco December 12, 2016 at 5:08 pm

moved to grant equal rights to African Americans, protect access to contraceptives and abortion, and enforce the separation of church and state.

The federal legislature never asserted an interest in any state exercise of police power re the traffick in contraceptives. That was the federal judiciary, and their reasoning was ‘because we said so’. Of course, abortion is a grave crime, which is why it is unlawful. You need a law degree to produce so much verbiage that the horror of it is concealed. And, of course, there is no such thing as ‘the separation of church and state’. There is constitutional language which prohibits the federal government from setting up a state church. That was not a live issue in 1962 and it is never at issue in any controversy in which the character string ‘separation of church and state’ is trotted out.

53 AlanG December 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

#3. Why???? Nocera’s writing has been steadily going downhill and there’s a good reason he was moved to the NYT sports pages. He has been overly obsessed with the NCAA running college athletics. Maybe he can continue this at Bloomberg where nobody will read him.

54 Ray Lopez December 12, 2016 at 8:25 pm

Don’t know much about Joe N, I’ve seen him once on Marketwatch I think, but this caught my eye: “Bloomberg editor in chief John Micklethwait”. J.M. was the Economist’s DC editor, and he wrote an excellent book on corporations called The Company and has an eye for detail.

55 HL December 12, 2016 at 5:21 pm


Only a matter of time until the left denounces legislating from the bench.

56 (Not That) Bill O'Reilly December 12, 2016 at 5:42 pm
57 John Brennan December 12, 2016 at 5:23 pm

I would like to see this fact checked: “When West Virginia failed to regulate pollution, toxic clouds floated over Ohio.” The maps make this difficult, but who knows. Tyler likes VOX, so it must be OK.

58 Borjigid December 12, 2016 at 9:00 pm

Huh? West Virginia and Ohio share a long border. What’s stopping a toxic cloud from crossing it?

59 Plucky December 12, 2016 at 10:51 pm

Prevailing wind patterns in general mean that in the eastern half of the country, SO2 & NOx float from Southwest to Northeast, with demonstrable downwind air-quality effects. “Toxic cloud” is over-the-top polemical rhetoric, but the the cross-state nature of pollution is very much demonstrated and is the main basis for it being federally regulated. It’s also why such regulation only applies to some states ( Many procedural aspects of those regs have been and are being litigated as are their adherence to the letter of the Clean Air Act, but the reality of cross-state/downwind effects are not disputed. In the specific case of OH and WV I wouldn’t know for certain off the top of my head, but it’s quite likely OH gets downwind from pollution given they are adjacent and that a number of the coal plants in WV are right on the Ohio river (delivering coal by river barge is cheaper than by rail) and thus right on the southern border of Ohio.

60 Borjigid December 13, 2016 at 2:41 am

@Plucky Good info, thanks!

61 Turkey Vulture December 12, 2016 at 6:08 pm

2. I think that more of the left, broadly defined, is succumbing to a belief that the ends justify the means, and that “process” is expendable if it may not immediately achieve those ends.

To be clear, I do not mean that I think this is a feature of the left only. Rather, I think it is a natural consequence of any ideology that believes itself and its truth to be inevitable.

For some on the current left, this belief would be summed up in the oft-repeated “being on the right side of history.” Well, if the left is on the right side of history, why care about a pesky “process”? It can only serve to delay the inevitable triumph of righteousness and cause needless suffering in the interim. Best, then, to make use of “process” when it will help achieve desired substantive ends, and to fight, evade, or destroy it when it will hinder those substantive ends.

I don’t believe that the moral arc of the universe veers in any particular direction, nor in any earthly utopia. I believe that a well-designed collection of processes can help to buffer human disputes and affairs so that we spend somewhat less time killing each other and more time pursuing our individual desires. But it seems to me that this only works so long as there is some agreement on all sides that process, both in the general sense and in terms of the specific processes used in political and social life, deserves some respect.

62 Turkey Vulture December 12, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Though I suppose there would be no need for a change in belief to explain what we observe. Process is paid respect so long as political power is lacking. When political power is gained, process is discarded. The underlying belief remains the same.

63 Not A Communist December 12, 2016 at 6:10 pm

Immigration (and trade policy) questions at their core seem to be procedural justice versus distributive justice debates. If a certain policy increases the sum of the utilities of a group, but reduce the utilities of some members of the group, you have a procedural justice problem. Who gave policy makers the right to make this distributive justice trade-off and penalize certain groups for the average benefit of the entire group? This is different from taxation arguments as the people who suffer from immigration or trade policies are generally not the rich. They have high marginal utility of income.

The other large question looming here is what group are policy makers trying to maximize the utiliy of: the exisiting country, the existing country + new immigrants, the world? I think you can see Trump’s election as a protest against procudural justice violations and policy maker group misidentification by high marginal utility of income voters.

64 Jan December 12, 2016 at 6:12 pm
65 Turkey Vulture December 12, 2016 at 6:29 pm

If Baltic markets were tanking, would you similarly disregard them as evidence? Call me skeptical.

66 Jan December 12, 2016 at 7:35 pm

Yes, I would. Baltic fears of Russia are all about tail risk, but the magnitude of damage if something happens is so high you see those governments taking a lot of significant measures to protect themselves. No, Russia is probably not about to invade, but the risk is higher than it was. In any case, I don’t look to stock markets to predict anything, and I’ve never advocated using them as such.

67 Anon December 12, 2016 at 8:21 pm

The normally disinterested Jan shitting his pants over Russia… Haha. I guess everyone has their buttons. Does Putin remind you of your abusive daddy?

68 Sam Haysom December 12, 2016 at 9:18 pm

That’s not fair- Jan clearly is a product of foster care.

69 Ray Lopez December 12, 2016 at 6:15 pm

@#7 – sad to see Cochrane make the below statement yet fail to connect the dots, that money is neutral, that fiscal policy has no effect. Japan has proved that. In short, monetary and fiscal policy are a null. But it’s tough for him to become a heretic so he clings to fictions. He discards ‘classic’ monetarism but embraces neo-Keynesian monetarism/fiscalism, which has the fiction of ‘rational expectations’ as a fudge factor. Sad.

Cochrane: “Now, any theory, especially in economics, invites rescue by epicycles. Perhaps infla- tion really is unstable, but artful quantitative easing just offset the deflation vortex, Or perhaps wages are much “stickier” than we thought, or money is taking a long time to leak from reserves to broader aggregates, so we just need to wait a bit more for unstable inflation to show itself. Perhaps a peg really does lead to indeterminacy and sunspots, but expectations about active ( > 1 ) monetary policy in the far future takes the place of current Taylor rule responses to select equilibria. Perhaps the Earth drags the ether along with it. Occam responds: Perhaps. Or, perhaps one should take seriously the simplest an- swer: Perhaps inflation can be stable and determinate under passive monetary policy, including an interest rate peg, and with arbitrarily large interest-bearing reserves. Clas- sic contrary doctrines were simply wrong. ” AS IS NEW-KEYNESIAN THEORY. Money is neutral, and monetary nor fiscal policy have no affect on real variables, long or short term.

70 Faze December 12, 2016 at 6:17 pm

Mozart’s Requiem. I avoided it when younger, believing that a requiem could only be slow and ponderous. But Mozart’s Requiem is fleet-floored, dramatic, and uplifting. Some libertarians I know never miss a performance of Orff’s “Carmina Burana”, but I tell them for real, stirring choral magnificence, nothing compares to Mozart’s Requiem. (Also pleased to see so many of the classical bigwigs choosing “Idomeneo”. Something else to check out, beyond the obvious Daponte operas and “Magic Flute”.)

71 Todd K December 12, 2016 at 6:54 pm

” nothing compares to Mozart’s Requiem”

And I thought I was the only one…

I knew Mozart composed a few “best of” collections back that he would play when touring but didn’t realize over 200 CDs worth. And I thought Kiss was prolific!

Ah, Requiem…

72 Aldeberan, Luna, and tonight's Christmas lights in New York December 12, 2016 at 7:54 pm

5 – I did not know Brendel was a poet. Good link. For what it is worth, the piano and violin sonatas (and the piano sonatas -not often mentioned as the best of Mozart) lose an awful lot from being reproduced and heard through speakers. Last time I heard (live) a violin and piano sonata by Mozart – from about thirty feet away – I noticed that the piano not only went up and down in tone depending on which note was being played but that a skilled pianist could make it sound, along with the ascending and descending notes, like the piano itself was going up and down hill, further away from the listener (and from the violin) and then closer, in actual physical space (and from the violin) depending on not even very subtle changes in how each note was played (as compared to the notes before and after). Since then I have tried to imagine that effect when listening to a recorded version. Vocal music loses quite a lot too, as the vibration and echoes of the room or of the church is something that most good singers enjoy playing with. Those are two examples, I guess every kind of music has a similar example. The Requiem is good; the Kyrie is so good and so Mozartean it is almost funny. If you listen closely to the rhythms you can hear every kind sound in a normal life transfigured – the rhythm of a hungry dog in a happy home gradually getting the attention of the cook, a cat deciding to begin to purr or to stop purring, an exhausted friend tiring of complaining and slowing down a crabby conversation to a resigned but more hopeful and friendly talk, a grandparent praying in a corner with passion but forgetting, as old people do, exactly what their passion is… And all that is in just the first 40 bars ….

73 Aldeberan, Luna, and tonight's Christmas lights in New York December 12, 2016 at 8:00 pm

Sorry I was describing the Kyrie from the Mass in C minor…The Requiem Kyrie, as far as I can tell, is just as good, but there is no transfiguration of reflective cats deciding to purr or not to purr anymore anywhere in the first 40 bars, I think. The dogs and grandparents are still there, however, I think.

74 Faze December 12, 2016 at 9:10 pm

Okay, I gotta go back and listen for the reflective cats.

75 Aldebaran Luna and tonight's Christmas lights in New York December 12, 2016 at 9:27 pm

The Monteverdi choir (available on youtube) does the sublime feline hesitations in question beginning somewhere after bar 72 (where the sopranos have the field to their lovely selves) and before bar 85 (after the sopranos and tenors have traded prominence and there is a new consensus) (there are similar rhythmic effects in the first 40 bars but it is really really clear there, in the 10 to 12 or so bars following the 72nd bar). (the performance in question was posted by olla-volgala, Oct 21, 2015, and includes the score). If you don’t hear it then you may feel confident I made it up. If you do hear it, well, think about it – what kind of composer is this? (By the way if you are patronizing me, that is fine – I am a mostly untalented piano player, although I did study for a year with a near-genius who had been taught by a musician who had been taught, in turn, by a student of a student of Mendelssohn’s, who reminds me of Mozart in numberless ways).

76 Aldeberan Luna and tonight's Christmas lights in New York December 17, 2016 at 12:45 am

When the great plays of the next century are produced – like, let us imagine, a Rosalindiade written as the ultimate imitation or development of Shakespeare’s surviving works – there may be no such thing in the performance as anything like an echo of anything resembling sublime feline hesitations. Or maybe there will be. I am humbly uncertain of the specific truth in this regard.

77 Simonini December 12, 2016 at 10:31 pm

The hack piece on Borjas was ridiculously smug and condescending. As if Borjas isn’t aware of the lump of labor “fallacy” and the book doesn’t address it.

78 Thanatos Savehn December 12, 2016 at 10:44 pm

You missed a chance to demonstrate that fiat money is just another way for the powerful steal from the powerless: Or maybe you knew that but demurred; the (former) Mayor being known for bringing lots of persuasive Benjamins to the V.I.P., after all.

79 Careless December 12, 2016 at 11:11 pm

2b has got to be the least useful and/or informative link in the history of MR

80 Massimo Heitor December 13, 2016 at 1:15 am

#6. This isn’t a “profile” of Borjas, it’s a sharply opinionated rebuttal that cites strong allegiance to Bryan Caplan’s open borders model.

The Caplan quotes are absurd as ever. All the open borders arguments apply directly to open doors model of eliminating private property:

The op-ed concludes:

“For most people in most countries, a world with looser immigration restrictions is, ultimately, a better one.”

Repopulating the nations of Europe would have some cost to the pre-existing peoples of Europe but would provide benefits to millions of others. And the argument is that this isn’t charity, it’s just equal rights. And it is quite literally equal rights. Why do the inhabitants of Europe have more rights to Europe that foreigners? Opening up bank accounts to strangers is also equal rights in a literal sense. Opening up private property to strangers is literally equal rights and fits some definitions of fairness. And arguably the wage losses are small.

81 Agammamon December 13, 2016 at 5:38 am

“The group of journalists have been waiting for years to be able to host the game and use sports glossary in their own language, even if it’s only partially.”

So they waited for ‘Top Men’ to tell them what to do? Doesn’t sound like its they language. Sounds like its Rene’s language.

82 Agammamon December 13, 2016 at 5:40 am

And unless they speak *really fast*, it looks like they should have just borrowed the terms from another language of choice – I doubt that any of their hockey fans don’t understand what ‘penalty shot’ means already.

83 Patrick M. December 13, 2016 at 8:40 am

I’ve never been too impressed with Nocera’s writing. He’s obsessed with the NCAA, which is fine but his arguments are never convincing. Lots of righteous hand-wringing over football and basketball players. His article about the Naval Academy prep school was especially poor. He correctly notes that NAPSters are paid while attending school but fails to mention that this is because they’re considered enlisted members of the military. But whatever, the full truth doesn’t matter when you’re looking for scalps.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: