Assorted links

Comments

#7. From the comments: "Yeah, Ackman might be a giant dick (hint: everyone in IB is a giant dick), but he’s on the right side of this trade. Herbalife is a parasite."

To me, the real arrogance comes from those who hate Ackman and think they can make him choke on Herbalife, if in fact it's a lousy company. Do these people think themselves masters of reality?

BTW "status competition" in the link label is missing an adjective ... I thought you read the comments?

Shorts are tricky and this one seems especially tricky. Warren Buffett is an investor in Pampered Chef. Does their revenue go down as they attract more distributors? Probably not. If Ackman was secure in his short, he wouldn't really need to make a big deal about it, maybe. Thought timing is critical, for shorts. But he's donating the profits to charity so he doesn't need the money. But he has a potentially infinite loss if the Herbalife just stays a lousy company indefinitely.

A commentor on CT pointed to this link. Also very fascinating, and very much in theme with the status competition meme.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/03/05/prince-alwaleed-and-the-curious-case-of-kingdom-holding-stock/

#8 Sometimes prizes cascade and have a snowball effect, I think. Duflo's prizes seem incommensurately many as compared to her actual work.

But often, I think, accumulating a critical seed volume of prizes nudges other awarding-bodies to do the same.

#1 is missing a reference to Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List, Kohler and Mazieres, 2001. http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

clever title for link #7. its hard to read it and not think of it as part of the same competition imo.

> its hard to read it and not think of it as part of the same competition imo.

I had the same reaction.

"Sour grapes are the best!"

Glad to see the author for #7 is a Nietzsche fan. I wonder if he ever feels a bit a recognition when he reads all those passages about the priestly class preaching slave morality as a strategy to usurp power from the ubermenschen with whom they cannot otherwise compete.

I don't think he is exactly a fan. He's versed in him because one of the theses in his book is that Nietzsche is a founding father of conservatism.

I briefly looked up his (horrible) book (read the NY Times review if you don't believe me). A major conservative antagonist seems to be Edmund Burke, who wrote about 100 years before Nietzsche. And, even granting he is unsympathetic to Nietzsche, my point still stands that his commentary on Ackman is soaked through with ressentiment

Robin is an unabashed leftist. As such, no way is he a "fan" of the reactionary Nietzsche. Rather, I think Robin considers Nietzsche useful both as an important exponent of reactionary ideas as well as someone who thought very carefully about the genealogy of some modern cultural practices and moral intuitions.

>> its hard to read it and not think of it as part of the same competition imo.

> I had the same reaction.

> “Sour grapes are the best!”

I'm having the same reaction.

6. Do the Democrats face a demographic problem of their own?

The interesting thing about that experiment is that it only tested one effect of immigration on white liberals: the physical presence of non-whites. The Latino subway riders in the experiment were just peaceably riding the subway. They weren't committing crime or disturbing the peace, so they weren't testing any of the other effects of immigration. They were simply testing the effect of the physical presence of non-whites.

The fact that the mere physical presence of non-whites influenced white liberals' attitudes to shift in an anti-immigration direction reveals how shallow white liberal support for diversity, immigration, multiculturalism, etc. is. At root there is a visceral aversion to non-whites that isn't even suppressed so much as just avoided by avoiding non-whites.

I suspect it's just (just!) something atavistic: no group wants to feel that it might be swamped/outnumbered. I'm not sure this is realism or depressing.

In the journey towards civilization we've had to suppress several pesky atavistic traits.

Once in a while when an unpalatable trait surfaces, it is indeed depressing.

Civilization existed on a very high plane long before the modern enshrinement of diversity. (Where do people think 'diversity' came from?)

In fact, I'd say modern efforts on this front are downright dystopic, and will culminate in the totalitarian view of human biological diversity as an evil to be eradicated.

#3 Does the structural integrity of lower levels of a building ever depend on the levels above itself? If time / labor is not a factor one can always slowly gnaw at a building starting from the top floor and never have a problem of explosives, debris, dust etc. right?

Or am I missing something?

Does the structural integrity of lower levels of a building ever depend on the levels above itself?
It can but I doubt that would be an issue in this case. That said, I can't imagine the process can be economical. It's probably at least 10x the cost of blowing a building in place. And I suspect it's much more dangerous.

One wrong calculation and a few internally cracked beams and the building could easily collapse during the tear down process.

If time / labor is not a factor one can always slowly gnaw at a building starting from the top floor and never have a problem of explosives, debris, dust etc. right?

I would agree that this looks like an extremely over engineered solution. This is the Segway of building demolitions.

#2 Concrete tents - That seems like a pretty good idea. The ease of setup and the strengths of the results look promising. If the inventors can manage a big contract to jump start the production costs they should become rich, assuming the production costs are low.

I think the killer here is the water. How clean does the water have to be? In the middle of a humanitarian disaster, clean water might be in even shorter supply than shelter.

I doubt the setting cement would mind if the water carried typhoid or cholera. As to mud n muck, I don't know. But a filter ought to sort that out.

#7 " As one rider notes, “I’ve never had an experience where someone has gone from being so aggressive on a bike to being so hopelessly unable to even turn the pedals…. His mind wrote a check that his body couldn’t cash.”"

This happens all the time to middle aged alpha males who take up cycling [and probably running...]. The real test of character is whether you show up again the next week.

There's a Crossfit variation of this - the ex-athlete joins a Crossfit gym, quickly pushes himself much further than he should, and gets rhabdo. A normal out-of-shape person who tries a really intense workout is likely to give up way before getting hurt. A crazy competitive person who has previously been very fit is more likely to push himself into injury.

6. Yeah, I've long suspected that New England isn't really any more enlightened or egalitarian than the rest of our country. There was a beautiful positive correlation between the portion of a state that's African American and the portion that went for Romney. Vermont, which might as well be all-white, was the farthest left, and Mississippi, which is very black, was the farthest right.

This is really counter-intuitive if your measure is the idea that whites go Romney and Blacks go Obama – but the existence of blacks changes the white mindset. Solving our domestic racial segregation might end gridlock, and the curse of Mr. Nixon...

More thoughts here... http://ashokarao.com/2013/03/11/democrats-and-demographics/

I'm not sure what you mean by "solving" "domestic racial segregation". You seem to be advocating the use of covert and overt manipulation and force to inhibit free association and force interaction among people against their preferences. I don't see why you should be able to impose your preferences and beliefs on people who have demonstrated that they don't share your views.

Actually it has nothing to do with my preferences. This isn't like cigarette bans or anything like that.

I just want corporations to work on increasing physical mobility of latinos and blacks who are disproportionately represented in the south and southwest. This clearly affects voting patterns in an irrational way and is a latent cause for racism.

It has everything to do with your preferences. Your preference is for greater diversity and integration, and you want corporations to enact measures that work towards increasing diversity and integration, regardless of people's preferences. You want to violate free association and impose your preferences and beliefs on people who don't share your views.

And how exactly do you expect corporations to do that?

Delta to offer discounted Black-only fares for flights into Vermont?

The correlation is not exact, of course as West Virginia is strongly Republican.

My main problem with #6 is that California presents a test of the hypothesis and the hypothesis does not hold up very well at all. Some whites might become more conservative when living in more diverse areas but this effect appears to be swamped by pre-existing political inclinations and the voting patterns of minorities. 53% of white Californians went for Romney in 2012 which wasn't nearly enough to counter the 70+% votes Obama got among non-whites who also make up about 45% of California voters.

The four states with the smallest non-Hispanic white populations are Hawaii, New Mexico, Texas and California. Of these, three went for Obama in 2012. White Texans are more conservative than whites in these other states for reasons independent of the ethnic composition of their state. As John Quiggin has pointed out, U.S. electoral patterns make a lot more sense once we start treating whites in the South as a distinct "ethnicity" that really is distinct from whites in the rest of the country. Unless white southerners as a group start to grow faster than other ethnic groups and emigrate to neighboring states, California and New Mexico probably provide a better preview for what other states will look like in a few decades.

6. It has long been true that as the minority population of a state increases in percentage terms white voters move to the Republicans.

But the Republicans problem is that popualtion growth in the country is almost entirely non-white. So the issue is can Republicans increase support of a stable population while the Democrats draw thier support from that portion of the popualtion that is increasing.

That is why Dukakis and Obama basically ran at a little over 40% of the white vote in Presidential elections with dramatically different outcomes.

A simple and stunning way to put it. I wonder if Obama worrying about his 'base' is also in part about himself at base being uncomfortable with the white Republican Senators etc. 'bus riding' in his neighborhood. In that case, hopefully he might get more comfortable and talk to them.

What Republicans should really introspect is whether they want to continue to alienate non-white populations?

Maybe non-whites should embrace free markets, capitalism, etc.

Think Republicans want to tie their political future to a fantasy of what non-whites ought to be embracing?

I'm cool with losing on principles, especially if those are the ones that are attracting these people. Maybe Republicans could (1) sweeten their lip-service, taking hints from Democrats and (2) go straight at the Democrats lies and (3) embrace the correct positions on things like gay marriage ("I don't give a f&*%) and (4) rationalize immigration policy.

Republicans don't have to get non-whites to embrace anything. If they start winning more white votes, they then only need to drive a wedge between one racial group to achieve victory. There will be no principles per se, just the white party and the minority party. The white party only needs to convince one minority to break off from the Democrats. Chances are natural black/hispanic racial conflict will fall into their lap.

#7 To me this is only good as Schadenfreude and it's going to need another pound of Schaden; cf. Venice, Merchant of.

The inflatable concrete tent and the 3D unprinting a building in Japan presents an interesting contrast of the human condition.

#6 The republicans desperately need a black presidential candidate and the democrats need to avoid having another one too soon.

Comments for this post are closed