Assorted links

1. Italy chose bad austerity.

2. Are migrants happier? (Don’t forget about their children, by the way)

3. Claims about Canada.

4. Is the CBO forecasting that the ACA exchanges will end up shrinking?

5. Quantum fridge cools object a million times heavier.

6. Cute animal pictures, or toward a theory of facial affect, via Michelle Dawson.

Comments

Bad austerity, bad ... raising taxes.

Good austerity, good ... cut spending.

Is there a two legs bad, four legs good sort of slogan making going on, because I seem to recall the same sort of chanting in the later 90s -

Bad surplus, bad .. increased tax revenue.

Good surplus, good .. cutting spending.

That's comparing a boom economy to a bust economy. May as well compare a Toyota to a Yugo.

Good Cheap, good.... low cost parts

Bad Cheap, bad.... low cost parts

Or something like that.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Veronique de Rugy? Seriously?

Well, I didn't want to be the one to mention it, but let us just say that certain cliques arise in the rarified world of certain donor circles.

The aspect of linking within this donor sponsored broad framework is part of what this circles purchases - many people are unaware of the interrelationships, preventing many from even being aware of how this game is played.

Then why don't you enlighten us? You seem to be alluding to all sorts of intrigue and take a spectacularly dismissive tone. I don't spend a ton of time on the econoblogosphere so I'd love to hear some justification for an ad hominem dismissal.

Oh, PA is the resident crazed Mercatus Center conspiracy theorist.

Comments for this post are closed

Sadly, I can't actually post a link to the site itself (automatically filtered, just like the pirate bay), but googling this should get you the proper place -

'Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.'

You just might want to google other names to see what their owners proudly proclaim (Kling, for example). The fact that people don't mention what is to them completely obvious is not a conspiracy. And the fact that other people are utterly ignorant of such obvious things is just a chance to find out more, because these sponsored interconnections are not exactly accidental.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

There are very few people I'll outright dismiss without even bothering to read them. It's not a matter of disagreement. Many people with opposite views have great insights, some may even sway my beliefs. Veronique de Rugy is one of the few I just skip entirely. She's just plain gets things wrong, time and time again. I don't consider it worth my time to bother anymore.

She's part of the Mercatus Center / George Mason / Libertarian / Koch Industries clique that Tyler is, so, unfortunately, her writing is bound to be promoted on this blog. Wish there was some warning though. I don't like thinking my clicks add to her page views.

It'd be interesting to know how much of her stuff Tyler agrees with, vs. how much of it is just self-promotion (either contractual or voluntary) within the clique.

Aren't you embarrassed to make a point like this without noting that the piece is co-authored with a famous tenured full professor at Harvard Department of Economics?

Haha. Tyler Cpwned.

Comments for this post are closed

I think it's the famous tenured full professor who should be embarrassed.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Koch Industries.

The less sophisticated way of saying BOO!

Comments for this post are closed

Mercatus Center / George Mason / Libertarian

Sound like interesting folks. However, if you are a statist (of the left or the right) you might not agree.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

#5

Prior to opening the door, the milk is both spoiled and unspoiled at the same time.

Like.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Really? What if some massive fraction of the deficit is due to rich people evading taxes, like in Greece? Make me a rational and moral argument why poor people should lose government services in response to rich people breaking the law.

Because the state is out of money and can no longer enforce compliance?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

re #1. But that's Italy- taxes in the US are lower and need to be raised, although this is just making a commonsense effort to pay your bills, an idea so ridiculous that any move in that direction is immediately christened 'austerity' nowadays. Not helpful.

Comments for this post are closed

I really enjoy readong your posts and wish you well. If you so wish, please do visit www.poverty.ac.uk, the PSE website, which is a free educational resource for academics, students, NGOs and policy makers interested in evidence-based research on poverty and social exclusion in the UK. It is a comprehensive research tool, containing information on: methodology, conducting original and ethical research, research findings, international surveys, as well as up-to-date articles and a searchable digest of news stories and reports on welfare, poverty, inequality and more. We will also be publishing the results of two major surveys, exclusively on this site, over the next few weeks. Or you may like to follow us @PSE2010.

Thank you.
Sasha

Comments for this post are closed

Speaking of cute animal pctures.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PrS8pokH28A/UJC0f2tre5I/AAAAAAAAI2M/m0BIaznoGvI/s1600/cute-vampire-bats1.jpg

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

How can anyone discuss the economic out look for a country (Canada/Italy) without discussing what the central bank ngdp target is?

Comments for this post are closed

I guess the bias of 4. is that US health care has been in decline for 30 years compared to health care systems in the rest of the rest of the world, that decline must continue, and likewise, the economic well being of workers who have suffered for 30 years will also see continuing decline, so obviously the number of people requiring subsidized health insurance is going to climb endlessly, with the only option being to opt out.

Once Obamacare is implemented fully, why would the number of people needing subsidized insurance increase when the playing field is leveled for small businesses so they can offer health benefits at the same costs as big corporations?

Unless the point of corporate America is the US government should takeover health care from the corporations so operating in the US is as easy and cheap as it is in the EU or Asia where the government provides the health benefit, not the employer.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed