Assorted links

Comments

Nothing personal, but that's not Bruce Lee. It's still cool, just not not Bruce Lee. Sorry.

It's all done with computer graphics.
A load 0f pixels flying bout. Big deal.
If it had actually happened it would be wonderful,.

Most people, even including some smokers, detest smoking. Lots of people like football a lot, and those who don't mostly manage to avoid second hand football. The tobacco lawsuits were politics all the way down, with no legal merit; they were "settled" with deals that gave the states money from tobacco sales and the companies protection against competition. So the analogy is very weak.

Even if the NFL lost an enormous suit, I don't see how that would spell the end of the NFL. Even if put in receivership, wouldn't the NFL still look like the NFL?

There is also the lack of political cover from the "they are making my healthcare cost more" meme. Which is interesting about smoking. If you manage to fool everyone, you first get away with it, then people get really mad.

Are we equivocating "the NFL" with "football" now? Because that's like claiming the part floating above the water is "the iceberg."

Bruce Lee died in 1973 making it rathe unlikely Nokia paid him to do a commercial for them. This video screams fake.

http://www.agency.asia/issue-02/126-interviews/237-jwt-beijing.html

3. While it may sound odd that india exports food to Australia, over 90% of Australia's food imports is what's called "substantially transformed". That is, Australia takes advantage of low wages in other countries to import processed food. Also we import a lot of supermarket items for our Indian population. In terms of kilojoules (calories) Australia exports much more food to India that it imports, so we're not taking food from their mouths, at least not without India choosing to buy more back.

That ping pong video is a fake, btw.

The ping pong video is fake? NO WAY!

The original link on this blog presumed it was real. WAY

Since the Chicago school of economics provided political cover for the de-regulation of Wall Street and the subsequent (and ongoing) looting of America they should probably just slink away quietly into the night now.

I don't know much about the Chicago school, but even if the great recession was 'caused' by Bill Clinton's signing of Glass-Steagall repeal, think about how ridiculously flimsy the system the government created and regulates must be. They perhaps put some more money at risk, but the major effect on the way up and the way down was that on the money supply, which is wholly the responsibility of the government, as is the decision on who to bail out and whether to let Lehman go once they started breaking their own laws. After all, Clinton told us that repealing GS would "enhance the stability of our financial services system"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Commentator_response_to_Section_20_and_32_repeal

Vulgar aggregate regulation doesn't count. You have to know what you are doing. They don't.

Not to mention, as Russ Roberts says "if de-regulation was the problem, put the regulations back on!" Else, you are just talking about aesthetic gross regulation level, or what I refer to above as vulgar aggregate regulation. And you are dealing in such negative deflationary zeitgeist marketing at the point in the cycle where we are already at the lowest sentiment. Not a great plan.

Proximate cause: official corruption
Yet one-fifth of its people are malnourished — double the rate of other developing countries like Vietnam and China — because of pervasive corruption, mismanagement and waste in the programs that are supposed to distribute food to the poor.

Ultimate cause: paternalism.

But most officials say they are worried that if India switched to food stamps, men would trade them for liquor or tobacco, depriving their families of enough to eat.

Actually "proximate" and "utlimate" are not correct, the corruption and paternalism feed off each other in a vicious cycle. For example, many officials will make paternalistic arguments purely for their own self interest. The real paternalism comes in when well-meaning people take them seriously, and vote accordingly.

Dodgy geezers will always be dodgy, but if you are thinking "oh dear, how can we fight corruption", then one thing to try is to cut down on the paternalism.

AGREED, as I have to point out to people in real life. Corruption is just the rational response to overburdened and bad rules. If you fix the framework, then the incentive for corruption decreases.

Regarding #3, this is relevant: http://www.economist.com/node/21541024

Heck, the NFL is the tip of the iceberg. What about high school football? Can anyone possibly believe that it makes sense for a 16 year old boy, who can't legally sign a contract, to expose himself to a lifetime of disability for the benefit of a high school athletic program, maniacal coaches and dreaming parents? As has been said elsewhere, if high school football was a disease, billions would be spent searching for a cure.

Football, Fathers and the Future, in the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303807404577432342842686180.html

Is football losing the dads?

Just the other day, Tom Brady Sr., the father of the celebrated New England Patriots quarterback, gave an extraordinary interview in which he said that continued reports about the long-term implications from football head injuries would make him reluctant to allow his son to play the sport, were Tom a teenager today.

You don't play high school football for the prospect of making the NFL, you play it to get girls right now. I'm not sure that making it sound _more_ dangerous will make it less effective in achieving that goal.

I'll buy that parents might try harder to stop their kids playing.

I read this piece of writing completely concerning the comparison of most recent and previous technologies, it's remarkable article.

Comments for this post are closed