Assorted links

Comments

#5 - These plans never seem to mention how they're going to ration out all this cheap, sustainable housing. Or how they expect "the homeless" to maintain or insure the property or pay for utilities. IOW, I don't think we have a "housing" problem.

No. It's WAY worse. That isn't even a mini-housing article. It is an advertising article.

I wanted an article about coroplast houses.

Here is the rationing procedure: Peter Thiel gives me a million dollars. My brother starts building and then giving them away.

#6b,

The coolest people are the ones with removed tattoos.

Are these two supposed to be related? Or did TC run out of numbers?

Figuring out how Tyler groups his links is all part of the meta-game here. My guess is that they are both about retroactively fixing mistakes. In one case it's by empowering the Fed, in the other case it's with a laser.

"did TC run out of numbers?"

The internet ran out of assorted.

tattoo removal and lender of last resort bailouts both relate to time inconsistency problems

I never took a positive view of Dodd-Frank, but Samuelson's critique of it makes me think it might actually do some good.

Principals: "It’s also possible that an outside factor is driving the results of the survey question." What could it possibly be? It's a mystery.

Tattoos.

And piercings.

#4. If you ever talk to a public school educator about trying to improve education, this is the first thing that comes out of their mouth.

Not only does it give them a good excuse for low performance and resisting any reforms (how can any reform work if all of the problems are caused by poverty and broken families), it jives well with both conservative and liberal educators -- the former due to their concerns about the failure of the family, the latter due to their desire to turn the school system into a massive social service provider for any and all problems.

The end result is little educational progress but lots of spending.

Yeah, the whole, "Oh, the kids are POOR so we can't possibly be expected to educate them" thing pisses me off something fierce. Oh, sure, we'll just put education on hold until we solve poverty. That probably won't take long.

Really? I've never heard of anyone say that "we can't educate kids because they're poor" its usually along the lines of its harder to educated them and education is less effective because they 1) are to worried about where their next meal is coming from to care about education 2) they parents are to busy working or stressed or uneducated to help them with school work 3) early stress and poor nutrition especially early in live results in poor brain development resulting etc etc etc. Perhaps I'm wrong and a significant amount of educators think that but I'd bet its really you just strawmanning and putting words into others mouths.

Didn't you just say the same thing stated differently?

+1, he did exactly that

43% of us students eligible for subsidized lunches. Nyt has the low SES% below 20.

#3. Steve Sailor in three, two, one ...

These are my choices???

Number 3 was quite informative. Things I knew existed, but had never heard a name for.

After reading 3c. I had to come down by watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayu_otEGWlE

http://youtu.be/fMLdFwyRx6I

They basically seem to be a less talented version of the conservative revolutionaries of Weimar.

Hey Juston, I bet you any sum of money that a dark enlightenment blogger named Steve Sailor does not show up.

"The Achilles Heel of Dodd-Frank"

Quote from the article

"Dodd-Frank’s restrictions on 13(3) loans include: (1) the treasury secretary must approve any lending; (2) loans can’t be focused on an individual firm (example: a wobbly money-market fund) but must be open to a broad class of borrowers; (3) the names of borrowers must be disclosed to Congress within a week; and (4) there are stricter standards for loan collateral. “I’m concerned that the restrictions . . . limit more than is wise,” Donald Kohn, the Fed’s vice chairman during the crisis, said at a recent Brookings Institution conference. Other commentators agreed. "

Does anything really think these bulletproof pieces of tissue paper will restrain any future administration for even a second? The answer must be yes, because the article was published. Let me rephrase...

Does anything, with even a modest knowledge of recent history, really think these bulletproof pieces of tissue paper will restrain any future administration for even a second?

Jeez, don't you believe in the rule of law???????

I believe in the INTENT of the law.

Which means whatever we need it to mean.

RE: #3 (Murakami): I absolutely cannot wait to read the new novel. I wonder what resonances he intends by using "tsukuru" as part of the character's name.

6. Robert Samuelson. His criticism is that Dodd-Frank doesn't do enough and does too much. As usual, he's hopelessly lost but unfailingly confident. Will Dodd-Frank avoid another financial crisis? No. It's designed to make the next crisis, when it comes, a little more manageable; nobody wants to address the root causes of financial instability. Of course, crises don't manage themselves, people do. And I fear that the next time we won't have nearly as good managers as the last time.

No. It’s designed to make the next crisis, when it comes, a little more manageable

Thanks for the best joke I will hear this week.

So do you disagree that Dodd-Frank which makes large banks pay into a fund that is used to bailout future banks in the case of a crisis makes that crisis less manageable? Do you disagree that making it so banks can't sell off their risky loans and be free of any negative consequences of them going under makes another crisis less manageable? Do think that making it so derivatives have to be traded on a market instead of in backroom deals isn't a good thing? Do you think that linking CEO pay somewhat to long term viability of a bank wont help? Do you disagree with the idea that making it so credit agency no longer are paid by those they rate will result in more accurate ratings?

I do disagree with all of those. Your next crisis will come from the engineering around all the "solutions" to the last crisis. It is like a brain-dead dog trying to outwit Houdini.

3. I think the Dark Enlightenment peaked a few years ago when Moldbug stopped posting, 2 Blowhards went away and Roissy in DC left DC and changed his name to something other than Roissy. More importantly, why doesn't Marginal Revolution get any credit for having been the nexus for the Dark Enlightenment? Without MR, how many people would have discovered Sailer, Roissy, Moldbug, Hanson, Khan and the Blowhards?

I'm not part of it, but I think you're wrong. Various bloggers come and go (and Roissy is still blogging hard), but by whatever name you call them, this group speaks to a segment of the population least served by any current ideological group. That vacuum will be filled, if not by the "Dark Enlightenment", then most likely by something much, much worse. Mainstream ideologues do themselves no favors by ignoring this challenge, and a great disservice by denying the areas in which this group actually has the science on their side.

The comments section at #3.3 is worse than /pol/.

"This much is clear: American students from low-income backgrounds are more likely to struggle in school than low-income students in many other countries (as Table II.A in this report makes clear). "

He's saying that poor people are stupid.

inre 3C:

Despite the unnecessarily wordy and opaque style of the piece on neoreactionaries (which I suppose is an homage of sorts to the subjects), I found myself liking it a good deal by the time I had finished.

There is, however, a fundamental flaw to the author's understanding. She buys into the whole front that the neorecationaries are offensive or insufficiently sensitive to classical liberal sensibilities as a sort of side effect of speaking truths that no one else dare mention. That is bunk. The supposed truth-speaking is secondary to the verbose style and the bristly demeanor. It is mostly smoke and mirrors, bad analogies and phony empiricism. If the neorecationaries just came out and said what they mean in plain English, most people just wouldn't find it very interesting.

Exactly.

Neoreactionaries are the the web what critical theorists are to academia. Both take simple ideas, wrong or right, and build dazzling castles of bullshit out of them.

+1 to both of you

Verbose style and bristly manner of Steve Sailer? I would not have guessed anyone would describe him that way.

You are right. I was thinking more of Moldbug and the neoreactionaries than Sailer and the race realist crowd; although even with Moldbug bristly is not the right word. More like their style is affected, in part, to make others bristly.

The race realist crowd, however, does has the same issue with using political incorrectness as a cover for generally shoddy empirical analysis that anyone with an intermediate level of training in statistical methods ought to be able to see through.

Both groups suffer from the same mistaken belief that saying something that pisses of progressives is the same thing as saying something interesting.

I would add that their style isn't so much as bristly as smug and overconfident. They type their stuff without a shred of doubt or even admitting to the sheer possibility that they have it wrong. That's how they ruffle feathers, in addition to non-PC topics and tropes.

The reviews of Nicholas Wade's book had it pretty much right. There really are some pieces of conventional wisdom that are simply wrong and when people like Sailer or Wade point this out, they are in agreement with mainstream science (for instance, the fact that Finns have a distribution of genes that is statistically different from that of Australian Aborigines). But going further than this into theories of national IQ or the genetic determinants of different cultures is to depart quite a bit from the science or the empirical evidence that we have now.

It is more of an attention-getting ploy and a way to rally the troops of reaction. A group of people can sometimes define itself best by who its enemy is. For the race realist reactionaries, the enemy is political correct academia and the media; the more one gets denounced by this enemy, the more one's status increases. Whether or not one is actually sticking to the science or just talking trash is irrelevant.

Comments for this post are closed