Assorted links

Comments

3. I'm skeptical of that being the cause, versus a weakening of labor protection norms and union power. Wages before unionization in factories tended not to be that hot either.

Norms is rather a cop-out, like when Acemoglu and Robinson talk about institutions. If there were no international factor-price competition, "norms" would not have changed.

#3: "Falling Wages at Factories Squeeze the Middle Class"
"A new study by the National Employment Law Project, to be released on Friday, reveals that many factory jobs nowadays pay far less than what workers in almost identical positions earned in the past."

Blacksmiths also make a lot less than they used to. The hollowing out of the middle class isn't anything new. And the decline of the smithies wasn't even the beginning. Heck, if you follow this all the way to the beginning, the hollowing out of the middle class clearly predates the industrial revolution.

#5 was hilarious! The entire piece tries to make the regulators look like wise but stern disciplinarians when, in fact, they are simply as clueless as ever.

"What Larry Summers is thankful for ... Larry Summers ... Too Big To Jail": a skilful bit of hinting by juxtaposition. Well done!

#1 & #5: "Once the process of normalisation begins or perhaps if market perceptions shift and it is expected to begin, a re-pricing can be expected.The orderliness of that transition is an open question."

It's time to declare unconditional surrender and to make it clear that our government will guarantee any financial asset that is rapidly losing value in any sort of run or panic. This strategy will, at least, help minimize the losses by backstopping as orderly an unwinding as possible, given the onset of scurrying. I'm getting tired of watching knights in full armor being threatened with swizzle sticks. There's only so much hilarity I can take at my own expense, and I mean that literally.

I imagine he's happiest about Russians being unbelievably ignorant and confused when it comes to managing an economy. To this day I don't understand how an ex superpower couldn't manage privatization and transition with home grown economists.

What makes you think the privatization of the USSR didn't go exactly according to plan?

It did go according to plan. Only that plan wasn't in Russia's interest because it wasnt formulated by Russians. The ignorant and easily duped Russians let themselves get bilked of billions upon billions of dollars because they invited outsiders in. Yes there were definitely some Russian collaboraters, but there is no way a team of Russian economist would have let Russia get looted like it did. Even people like Yeltsin who were in on the scam have to have some regret that they brought a nation to the brink of starvaruin. I doubt non Russians involved really cared.

"The ignorant and easily duped Russians let themselves get bilked of billions upon billions of dollars because they invited outsiders in.

What were the names of those Russians? The residents of the failed Soviet Union owned nothing more than the shabby clothes on their backs and some icons hanging in their dreary and crowded apartments. That was the whole point of the Soviet experiment. Like every nation/state, past, present or future, the Soviet Union had no plan for its own failure, there was no specified course of action that would move the disaster of central planning to some sensible alternative. All their chips were bet on the Communist Party. The same is true as well of the US. There's no Plan B to go to when the ridiculous mega-democracy crashes.

#1: $5M pa for working two days/wk @ D.E. Shaw.

#4 I'm surprised FSU students actually own and read the books assigned in their courses.

Obviously, if you aren't in athletics, you gotta go to class.

#2: hey, maybe we're moving toward an era when we can simply replace human judges with computer models.

we'll just have a panel of synthetic judges with, say, twenty year lifespans. then, when the president or the electorate are called upon to "appoint a new judge", they'll just select (or vote on) a handful of parameters which will be used as inputs in the creation of a new, computer-generated judge process.

eventually, we'll replace all politicians in this same way, too.

then, a bit later, if I'm not being too optimistic here, we can get rid of the electorate itself, creating instead a pool of three or four hundred million "rational citizens" in a giant simulation model hosted on Amazon's elastic cloud. Amazon will of course outsource the necessary IT work, or just import some personnel from somewhere (anywhere, really), offering them a strictly limited rights package of a limited duration. just imagine the savings on health care and pension payments. and, with the amount of solar power coming online in the next twenty years, the thing will run itself.

Re #4.

When I was in high school, some of my friends experimented with the effectiveness of various of our English textbooks at stopping ordinance (I only saw the results). Melville and Dickens were particularly effective.

4. I'm not surprised that a backpack and books stopped what I presume was a pistol bullet, but since this is an American blog I'm sure someone will soon explain the ballistics of the situation to me in great and accurate detail. On the other hand, I know that a pistol bullet can go through a considerable amount of material. When my father was in the army a soldier sitting in a bus accidently shot himself in the chest with a pistol. He survived and made an excellent recovery. Unfortunately, there was a man sleeping with his head against the seat behind him. The bullet went through the first man, through the bus seat, and into the sleeping man's head. He never woke up.

One of the "Mythbusters" episodes tested the idea, so common in tv and movies, that standing behind a car door will keep you safe from bullets. The idea was wrong. So very wrong.

A .177 lead dart from a Franklin air pistol will completely penetrate the Alamogordo, NM phone book.

I don't understand the concept of "liquidity". On the day I will be the only one in the order book, wanting to buy US Treasuries at one cent to the dollar would mean Treasuries are "illiquid" on that day? The sell side can still sell them on that day if they wish to do so, can't they? They'd just have to quit whining and settle at whatever is the current price.

LOL! Whining works!

#6: Alex beat you to that one....by over two years:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/06/markets-in-everything-the-karl-marx-credit-card.html

Comments for this post are closed