Saturday assorted links

1. Fish out of water are more common than thought: “New research shows 33 different families of fish have at least one species that demonstrates some terrestrial activity and, in many cases, these behaviors are likely to have evolved independently in the different families.”

2. Can schooling increase IQ and fluid intelligence?

3. Google vs. Apple maps.

4. The Mystery of Millennial politics.

5. “As people get older, they become choosier about how they spend their time and with whom they spend it. Now, researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on June 23 find, based on a series of experimental and behavioral studies, that similar changes take place in Barbary macaques.”  Link here.  Is this a theory of Brexit voting?

6. Paul Krugman on Brexit.  Linton Kwesi Johnson on Brexit, sort of, video.  And a region’s recent change in income does not predict its Brexit vote, though income level does to some extent.  And here is Reihan on Brexit as an immigration backlash.


So Krugman has acknowledged the importance of regulatory uncertainty. IIRC he has continously claimed it as not being important for investment in the past

Shh, we are supposed to pretend that Paul Krugman is something more than a Machiavellien ideologue willing to lie to benefit himself.

I have had enough of Paul Krugman, but I did read the linked column. He hasn't changed; he is still a venomous little man. Here and there, a rational man seems to emerge, but then he goes back to vitriol. I can't believe that such anger and hatred are good for his soul, or his readers.

For a more balanced view of the UK vote see here (via Instapundit) -

I don't know if this is all true because I am no expert on the UK and its people and politics. I do know that I would resent the sucking away of my sovereignty to Brussels - it seems to have taken place very subtly, until the UK was caught. Good for our political forefathers to say no more.

5. Of course this is a joke, because it would reflect badly on Dr. Cowen if it is not.

The disdain for elites, non-transparent policy making in a far-off place and discomfort with immigrants is surely worth paying attention to, but there will be tradeoffs. There are a lot of references, however, to the lies the Leave campaign and sensationalist press have been pushing. Here is the main one I've seen so far, but I wonder if there is a list of the others. Maybe there aren't so many, but I'm not sure:

...being a Machiavellian Ideologue & Leftist Curmudgeon apparently benefits Krugman extremely well in fame and fortune. Is there a formal university career category for that job path?

Krugman is a master of something I'm calling the Two-Step for lack of a better rhetorical description. He's quite intelligent, and in each article will take a Reasonable Position. That Reasonable Position will change depending on his goals. An example in the culture war is the movie Gods of Egypt (cast with mostly white actors), last year, and the comic book series Thor (now Lady Thor). Reasonable Position A states that you should TRY to be faithful to the source material, and Reasonable Position B states that they are just entertainment, and you should just relax. Neither A nor B are wrong. However, you will undoubtedly find people who take Position A in Gods of Egypt, and B in Lady Thor. The same people will change their rhetorical footing in what is essentially the same debate in two different instances, and it's why our culture is starting to be built out of logical contradictions.

Krugman is quite intelligent and very familiar with the terrain of any debate. He is very careful where his footing is, so you can't trip him up in any one post - it's when taken as a whole that his contradictions and agenda become apparent. That's my two cents, anyway.

The contradictions may come about because Robin Wells writes the columns bar when they're fobbed off on one of his research assistants.

Links where Krugman claims that regulatory uncertainty is not, in general, important for investment please.

They are all over the web. Have you ever used a search ingine?

The moderator needs to ban the sock-puppets. This is all quite tiresome.

Why not embrace economics and not reject it?

3: design people is too visual, Mr. O'Beirne can't understand a map is the visualization of a database. vectors with associated attributes and some topology rules are the database, spatial analysis allow functions such as "directions" or "nearby". labels are the last worry. among people I know, the approach to apple or google maps is the "directions/navigation" function: take this street, then left, right, etc. this functionality depends on the database, gps, spatial analysis, not on how beautiful it looks.

Oh, be sure to let Google and Apple know that cartography is irrelevant because people you know don't care about it. They probably never thought of all the money they could save on cartographer salaries.

Per #2: Am I reading that study correctly? It sounds like increased schooling reduced emotional control across all groups. From the conclusion: "Emotional control was the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality." But the spin on the research is so positive, I feel like I must be missing something. It seems like the conclusions ought to be, "Additional schooling is very bad for children with middle class or wealthy parents, and we're not sure about its impact on everyone else."

That's what I see, unless maybe "lower is better"on the Emotional Control (EC) scale?

Extra one year before secondary school is equivalent to repeating 8th grade.

"""It costs taxpayer money to educate students twice, and most districts’ budget projections do not account for voluntary grade repetition. As one critic of voluntary grade repetition wrote, “That we are all paying for successful students to repeat a grade in a public school is bad practice and an abuse of public funds. Add this one to the long list of policies that denies protection of taxpayer investment in education.” UNESCO agrees. “Grade repetition represents inefficiency and wastage of resources for society, but its voluntary forms may be beneficial to students in certain circumstances,” its report said."""

6. On Brexit it was obvious that psychopaths run the EU when Merkel let in millions of third-world savages.

I've yet to see any plausible explanation for her folly. At least the lamentable W only destroyed Iraq: she may prove to have destroyed Germany.

Well, one could speculate that a Lutheran pastor's daughter, heading a party called the Christian Democratic Union, may not have been influenced by East German doctrinaire atheism as much as she was by the words found in some apparently obscure text, a text where one of the more prominent figures talks about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked as a moral duty.

But really, who believes in that sort of mamby-pamby Jesus stuff anymore, right?

Apparently, she does, if this reporting is accurate - 'Merkel also said that the “Christian framework is the basis of what we do”.'

It might have occurred to the pastor's daughter that you can see to the feeding and housing of refugees in camps in Turkey and Jordan without importing them into Germany.

Those silly Christians, always thinking about charity, and the necessity to practice it in daily life.

Those silly Christians, always thinking about charity, and the necessity to practice it in daily life.

I second that. A christians unlike the HBD folk believe people can change and that many muslims given the chance in the USA, will convert to become Christians.

And she gave up her own home to house refugees? Because foxes have their holes, birds have their nests, but the Chancellor of Germany has no place to lay her head? Unlikely. I suspect that she kept her home and her bodyguards, while consigning her fellow citizens, whom she despises as racist yahoos, to rape, molestation, and poverty.

'whom she despises as racist yahoos'

You really do enjoy making things up, don't you? And such fantasies seem to indicate a certain projection on how you apparently feel other people look at you.

So Germany is something close to a theocracy, run by something close to a USA style Bible thumping politician, making decisions based on faith?

This surprises me, as we in the Anglo world often think of Germany as run by, well, thoughtful technocrats with engineering backgrounds, soberly doing what is in the national interest. European decision making is irrational and sentimental in wholly different ways than expected...

Demographics. Germany has an ageing population. In order to maintain the tax base it needs more workers than the population can provide. Unlike many of the people the German political class are aware of this. Refugees are a rather easier sell to the public than non-EU immigrants more generally as they are in danger where they are.

'Unlike many of the people the German political class are aware of this.'

Your average German is fully aware of this, not just some group known as a political class.

Yeah, but the Merkel ruling political class is actually doing something about it.

Of course the Merkel-Cure is proving worse than the original problem.

Just the standard way all politicians think and act:

- We have a problem.
- We must do something.
- This is something.
- We must do it.

Poor Germans, with no access to hardworking Mexicans.

"Poor Germans, with no access to hardworking Mexicans."

The Germans have the Turks.

So they need an every increasing number of foreigners imported in to pay taxes to keep the system afloat? Isn't that called a ponzi scheme?

And what will they name the place after they have replaced the German people with Turks, Syrians, Somalis?

There use to be a place called Constantinople, then it got filled with Turks and its now called Istanbul

Let me change just a couple of words -

'There used to be a place called Byzantium, then it got filled with Romans and it was then called Constantinople.'

And one should note that the religion of Byzantium was completely supplanted by those who renamed the city to Constantinople.

"""Let me change just a couple of words –""

Exactly, the lesson is don't let mass amounts of strangers into your country since they will make it their country

'Exactly, the lesson is don’t let mass amounts of strangers into your country since they will make it their country'

You do know that neither the Romans nor the Turks cared about being 'let in,' right?

'So they need an every increasing number of foreigners imported in to pay taxes to keep the system afloat? Isn’t that called a ponzi scheme?'

The German system continues to extend retirement age, along with providing numerous ways for people to cover their retirement over the past 15 years or so.

The limited point I was trying to address is whether Germans are aware of the future of their labor market - they are, yes. Broader questions, such as how Germany looks to the future (Germany is a very big supporter of the free movement of labor) in terms of demographics are also discussed publicly, and not merely by whatever one considers a political class - unless we go back to the old idea that citizens in a democracy are the only political class, of course.

However, the comment was not in regards to pension systems, but to what Germans are aware of in terms of demographics, and how that works in terms of motivations for allowing people to immigrate.

As a side note - the German state pension system originated essentially in the 1880s, and has been functioning since then - regardless of whether the government is imperial, democratic, totalitarian, or today's version. The basic way the German pension system works is through simple redistribution - it is not a Ponzi scheme, and is called a 'generational contract.'

Talk about being conditioned - any mention of tax and Ponzi instantly leads to the conclusion that it must be a discussion of pensions.

No, it needs more workers than the population does provide. Germany would benefit from pro-natalist policies.

As for immigration, even in its current state, 320,000 net settlers from abroad would be about adequate. Require people to pass a written and oral proficiency test in standard German, pass a quick-and-dirty background check, and pass a physical and then take a place in a queue and immigrate when called. You could influence your immigration profile by your placement of the consulates where the examinations are given, by your placement of any language classes offered by the consular service, and by limiting immigration from problem countries (Arab countries and adjacent) to married couples with children or older married couples. Put the consulates in Europe, in the Far East, and in the Americas.

Exactly, you could easily get plenty of immigrants to Germany who were highly productive and ready to integrate. But that would be racist??

Or threatening to the elites to bring in their competition?

They don't need to be 'highly productive'. They just need to be healthy enough to work,to have no gross history of outlaw behavior, to be able to converse with their boss and to be able to walk down the street without experiencing uncontrollable urges to assault women not dressed in a niqab. You can see to their productivity by requiring immigrants to work for x number of years to qualify for one sort of common provision, x + 2 years for another, and so forth.

Wow, given a choice of admitting well-educated Christians from Eastern Europe versus ignorant Muslims from Syria, I know which I would choose, but I might not be as smart as the German political class. Their century-long record of good judgment is a standing rebuke to all of us.

'Wow, given a choice of admitting well-educated Christians from Eastern Europe'

Clearly, the British disagree, and have voted to ensure they will not be overrun by any well educated Christians from western or eastern Europe.

At least the lamentable W only destroyed Iraq:

Iraq has not been in a non-destroyed state economically since 1980, nor civically since 1968. W did not do that.

Here is one theory:

So far I see nothing horribly wrong with Reihan Salam's piece, but some wider view is needed. Brexit didn't happen in Britain rather than some other country becuase of a unique anger immigration.

People all over the EU are angry about immigration, and if anything, the UK's relatively liberal stance only existed because Britains are more tolerant of immigration than many other Europeans. But Britain has also *always* been the most Euroskeptic of the the members.

4. Here's the key to understanding millennials: they don't exist. Only somebody with an IQ low enough to work in marketing believes that a huge population, born over the course of 30 years in different part of the world, think alike. Are there trends, some driven by the shared experience of being alive at a certain time? Yes. But this habit of generational thinking that started with the Baby Boomers is absurd.

Yep. I was a senior in high school on 9/11. Other "Millenials" were in kindergarten. We have had incredibly different life experiences based on the timing of external events and the spread of technology.

Maybe we could find something interesting by examining people by birth year, as they would have experienced important societal events and changes at approximately the same age. But certainly not in 20-30 year lumps.

Great point. Some "Millenials" were teenagers in the 1990's and some are teenagers right now. I think that alone makes it kind of a silly term. Same with the "Baby Boomers" to a certain extent. The oldest ones would have graduated high school around 1964 and the youngest ones around 1982. Does it make any sense to lump both of those groups together as part of the same generation?

The cohorts are messy, and naming has been given to the popular press, but professors and bosses will report the same changes.

The big one is that Americans think less of a job as a job. In fact a recent grad told me last week "there is no point in doing something I don't like."

That is definitely two generations removed from The Organizational Man. In fact that is probably what happens when the Boomer children of Organizational Men communicate even less work ethic.

“there is no point in doing something I don’t like.”

Food and rent come to mind.

Indeed. My first thought was this privileged twit has never been hungry.

But, isn't this Keynes's prediction about productivity and income gains resulting in a 15-hr work week? It's actually a good thing if prosperity leads to more leisure as long as it doesn't morph into an attitude of, "I am not motivated myself to work for money, therefore we should tax those that are to pay for a bunch of social programs that I happen to like."

Many of the people who say something like that mean something more like "I want to do something I think matters, and then I will devote a lot of time to it." Yes, some are just detached from reality and don't know what it's like trying to live on low income without parental support. But some want their job to be more than a means to an end. I'd like to have illusion that my job is meaningful in some way. I don't, so I work half-time and move us a bit closer to the 15 hour workweek Keynes was predicting.

Most of our law firm associates (like our partners) are perfectly willing to do things they don't like, since that is what produces the six figure salaries. The ones who graduated law school during the downturn remain thankful to have a job at all.

[big] Law firm associates are actually a great counter-example. Attrition is sky-high. Think of how many people, 28-30 years old, *voluntarily leave* a job paying them over $200,000 a year. That's astounding, to reflect on it. But the work, and the atmosphere, really does suck that bad that even $200 g's won't cover it.

Brexit was an interesting vote, and 52% of Brits think it's a hopeful sign, but it's not the end of the world. Really. Unless the EU decides to shit the bed just to prove a point! This is now just a big example of the Ultimatum Game. All we can do is wait and see.

Calm. Down.

But the problem is that the "European Project" has always been much more about creating a centralized European State then about economics. They repeatedly make decisions based on how they can increase the power of the EU State but make no economic sense.

Making Greece part of the Euro and giving a Association Agreement to Ukraine are two examples.

So I would not be surprised if the EU leadership take a hard line on Britain exit, such as speeding it up, cutting off trade contact which is mutually beneficial, erecting arbitrary barriers that help nobody

That is what the EU should do, as it is the only way to avoid a whole spate of Leave votes in other countries, which ultimately collapse the union. However, I think the EU is also a bunch of pussies deep down, so I think they won't take a hard line on this. The collapse is coming, but it won't be instantaneous. 5 - 10 years, I say.

But that will undermine the whole idea that they push that trade and contact fostered by the EU has kept the peace in Europe. By pushing a hard line they are saying that they are willing to risk war.

But not taking a hard line undermines the notion that the EU is useful to any country. If the UK can decide to leave but retain all the benefits, why should anyone stay? Obviously those representing the EU think the it necessary to keep trade bonds that help maintain peace, etc. I am agnostic on whether it is really needed to accomplish those things.

Taking a hard line undermines the notion that the EU is useful to any country. I hang out with my friends because I like them and we do stuff for each other. If I constantly threaten to kill their dog if they don't hang out and do stuff, my friends may not be hanging around because we're useful for each other... but because they're terrified of a dangerous loonie. The EU can prove its worth now, by being an agent of rationality, calm, and prosperity.

The EEC is great. Schengen is largely great. I think the Euro currency is also largely great. A broken constitution and political union is not, and furthermore, a political union is largely unnecessary. If going to war with Mexico means I don't get any more tequila, I don't want to go to war with Mexico. Trade is the greatest agent of peace Europe's got.

"That is what the EU should do, as it is the only way to avoid a whole spate of Leave votes in other countries"

Spare the rod, spoil the child, eh?

France ex president , Nicholas Sarkozy is not asking for Frexit but for a change in European treaties with a new Schengen2 and a stop to the enlargement of the EU. I think as a result of Brexit more countries will ask for change.

3. Maps are like Brexit: you don't know where you are going unless you know where you have been. It's surprising just how different Google maps and Apple maps are. For example, Google plots way more names of cities than Apple, but Apple plots way more roads (but inexplicably labels fewer of them than Google). The authors mention that Google maps and Apple maps are more than simply maps, they are "platforms" for other apps (such as uber, which is on Google maps - indeed, uber can only be used on Google maps). Of course, they aren't just "platforms", they are "advertising platforms". I suppose I am a skeptic, but I don't trust either of them, as I suspect they are trying to sell me something besides the best way for me to get where I am going, especially Google since advertising is mostly what Google sells (unlike Apple, which sells things like smart phones and computers). I almost always use Google maps out of habit (and because it has more street names), but also because the early versions of Apple maps would take you to nowhere (roads suddenly disappearing, towns appearing in places they aren't, etc.). Of course, once we have "driverless" cars, we won't need the maps, as Google (and maybe Apple) will take us there without ever looking at a map ("driverless" is a misnomer as Google will be driving the car). In time I suspect all travel will be virtual and we won't actually be going anywhere. Maybe the early versions of Apple maps were the virtual maps to be released later and by mistake were released as actual maps.

6. "... it looks all too likely that the vote will both empower the worst elements in British political life and lead to the breakup of the UK itself."

That's the sad part about even faux democracy, elections take place and sometimes the votes of the majority don't match those of the self-appointed leaders. Since the masses can't be trusted to embrace the correct policies, democracy is itself suspect.

And what would be so terrible about the breakup of the UK itself?

'And what would be so terrible about the breakup of the UK itself?'

Nothing, because finally, the English can take back control from Scotland, and possibly Northern Ireland.

Wait, wrong - the English will lose control of Scotland, and possibly Northern Ireland. Which may mean that UKIP will need to rebrand itself in the near future - but now, when hanging posters of immigrants, they can also depict those foreign Celtic types too, and campaign on how England is being overwhelmed by Scottish or Irish plumbers taking advantage of treaties that London is unable to simply ignore whenever it wishes.

Especially considering that a number of British Northern Irish subjects have apparently started to take advantage of a treaty provision that allows them to be EU Irish citizens is they so desire. Regardless of what the leave voters think about British subjects voluntarily deciding it is better to be ruled by foreigners in Brussels who don't understand English specialness than it is to lose the advantages of being an EU citizen.

Self-determination is so terrible. God forbid the English should "lose control" of the Scottish

With the twist that the English leave voters seem to feel that they were taking back control of the UK, and now the Scots are seemingly saying 'what UK?'

Further, the Scots are living proof that some people apparently prefer being an EU member instead of being a part of a non-EU member nation.

Losing Scotland would mean a substantial shrinking of the Labour Party base.

And don't think that a number of leading Tory lights are not fully aware of that fact.

As a testable framework, if a Tory prime minister allows a Scottish independence vote in the next 12-24 months, it would be fairly strong proof that at least a part of the Conservative Party is following a strategy to cement Tory power in the remainder of the UK for as long as possible.

5. An example of people getting choosier as they get older -

A towering presence indeed!

If you were the president what would be the priority? A free trade deal with the EU, the UK or England?

If I were the president, I would refrain from making veiled threats regarding votes in other countries, especially as a visitor. Of course his comments probably helped Leave, so that should be a mitigating factor.

If I were President why would I have to put and do them them in order? Why wouldn't I just do all of them at once? It isn't like the executive branch is lacking for personnel.



"Getting older I find that I really don't want to go out anymore:
- In my 20's I wanted to go everywhere & see everything.
- In my 30's , most things seemed worth the effort.
- But by my 40's, there remained only a few things I even
wanted to go out for at all.
- Now in my 50's, I'm done... no matter what it is-- it doesn't interest
me... I'm NOT going ! "

[ -- Jerome Allen 'Jerry' Seinfeld, Comedian (at age 55) ]

4. We are what we eat, and that applies to politics as well. As the author points out, millennials are "liberal" on some issues and not so "liberal" on others according to what they have eaten, I mean experienced, in their lives. That's not surprising: the same applies to every generation. Take mine. We formed our views from our formative years, the 1960s. I am "liberal" on "racial issues" (I will use the same issues as the author) because I experienced blatant racism (segregation, in schools, stores, movie theaters, bathrooms, water fountains, everywhere) and "abortion rights" because I experienced none (abortion was a crime and severely punished if one could find a physician willing to provide it), while millennials didn't (experience blatant racism) and did (have abortion rights) and hence aren't ("liberal") on these issues. On the other hand, millennials are "liberal" on the "middle east" (having opened the gates of Hell, now they can't be closed) and the "federal government" (the image to the millennials of competence of the Obama administration - which generally supports the "federal government" - contrasts sharply with the image to the millennials of incompetence of the Bush administration - which generally opposed the "federal government"); indeed, I would observe that the image to the millennials of the relative competence of the "federal government" during the Obama administration contrasts sharply with the image to the millennials of state governments, the image of the latter formed in large part by the defunding of higher education by the states. I would also observe that my negative view of the Republican Party was formed during my formative years when the Party's "Southern Strategy" purposely and openly recruited racists and imbeciles into the Party, a strategy that has come to full realization today and for which anyone not an imbecile should be appalled and have negative views of the Republican Party. We are what we eat: the Republican Party ate poison and has become a monster in full view of the millennials.

the defunding of higher education by the states.

So untrue. As stupid as talking about the Iraq invasion bringing democracy to the country.

1. Almost everything is more common than thought these days.

#6...Regarding Krugman, it's important to remember what he's paid for. I like to tell the story of a local sportswriter whom I got to know a bit. In person, he was a middle of the road sort of guy. However, in his column, he was fairly strident. I asked a close friend of mine, a fiction writer, who knew this sportswriter very well, why the difference in tone in the newspaper. He told me that our friend was paid to be contentious, not just express his opinion. He needed to draw readers into the conversation, and get people talking about his column in the paper. Given this mandate, I think Paul Krugman does an excellent job. He manages to write serious columns in such a way that readers can understand his views and often feel driven to confront them.

"He manages to write serious columns "

No he doesn't. His columns are filled with name calling and mud slinging. They're red meat thrown to the base.

"to the seriously evil editors of Britain’s tabloids, who fed the public a steady diet of lies."

There's nothing serious about that. It's pure mood affiliation.

Sorry, completely disagree.

Generally, when people bring up mood affiliation, it's because they are themselves ideologues. Krugman is a pretty straightforward Keynesian. I am not. However, I do agree with him on many points. I don't find his language always edifying. Following Burke, Edmund, that is, I value compromise most highly, and I find ideologies damn near worthless, if not a definite hindrance to decent government. If I had to rule out reading people who call other people names and sling mud, I would have to stop reading many of the people who post on this blog, and many blog writers. I try and overlook such language and see if there is a point to be made, however.

#5 - reading a book that notes this type of behavior is similar to explore/exploit algorithms - that is efficient to become choosier and more set in our ways as we age, both because we've already discovered things that we like, as well as with age exploration tends probabilistically have increased likelihood of worse results than pursuing (exploiting) wide scope of things you've already discovered that have a good return. The declining amount to time to exploit the benefits of exploration (enjoying new friend, new restaurant, new anything) diminishes the present value of the benefit (vs. discovering at younger age).

6. British anti-immigration rhetoric zeroes in on EU immigrants because the British government has criminalized opposition to non-EU immigration.

2. Do we need everyone to have high IQ because we want market Darwinism? Is there something wrong with a lower than median IQ bus driver having a good apartment and 2 weeks off in August?

" Is there something wrong with a lower than median IQ bus driver having a good apartment and 2 weeks off in August?"

No, as long as you're not attempting to force other consumers to artificially support his salary.

Your framing is idiotic.

Do you think "I" force democratic, social, decisions?

Bus drivers don't have to worry. They are in the 40% of the population that live either directly or indirectly from government. It is the 40% who aren't smart enough to be competitive in the globalized world that have to worry. Or rather now have found a bit of a voice and have the elites in a lather.

News to Greyhound, and the airport shuttle.

Basically I think weak arguments ignore or caricature longstanding American social and political decisions. It is true that public school bus driver is a better job than airport shuttle, for a number of reasons, not excluding rent seeking.

But it is also true that America has transferred from consumers to less productive elements of society for a long, long, time.

The serious question, if you want to rise to it, is whether the existing American safety net is sufficient and moral for a world where IQ is more birth lottery than individual effort, initiative, or applied education.

Whether IQ is birth-lottery lr or not is a matter of empirics.

If you don't believe that IQ is a birth lottery, you're a creationist to put the Discovery Institute to shame. It's an incredibly ignorant position

2. News this morning is that Los Angeles has a new plan for the ~8000 people living in beater motorhomes along city streets.

Should we hope that education can make sure everyone is smart enough to avoid that market outcome? Or is there a problem we should attack more directly?

Maybe we should all give them enough cash so they can compete with the Chinese moving their money out of reach of the Communist Party into coastal real estate.

I thought the Democrats running California would be right on top of this. Or is it rather the enlightened progressive agenda coming to it's obvious and predictable fruition? Like Venezuela?

Let the city with no social workers throw the first stone, eh?

Perhaps you don't wish to live in a beater motorhome on an LA sidestreet but that lifestyle might appeal to some people. In fact, it's the goal of a certain percentage of retirees, albeit with different locations.

Living in a van, down by the river, is generally considered one step up from homelessness. A beater motorhome is often in the same park.

It is not snowbird, steaks on Sunday, living.

#6. I thought Megan McArdle's post-Brexit column was great:

I think it was good, and I think that many who get over-excited by the "win" or "loss" from the American perspective are overplaying similarities.

America chose a much more moderate immigration policy. O"pen borders" here has only ever been a canard or straw man (very occasionally a dream). We have pretty much kept immigration at a pace that matches our melting pot ideal. Pretty much, if we overshot I don't think it was by much. We have isolated incidents, not immigrant ghetto riots.

We are not in the same straights economically or socially.

Open borders is just one of the problems with EU membership.

The UK never had open borders (was never in Schengen) and it's a lot easier to police borders on an island than for land-locked countries

The important thing is not Schengen (which is just an absence of border controls) but the right to work in a country without visa. And the UK was certainly part of the visa free work system of the EU.

How is it a mystery that Millennial believe in the exact values as pop culture?

They care about gays gays gays.

Blacks? Until 2 years ago who told them to care about blacks?

The poor? Aren't the poor mostly dumb white rednecks who hate gays?

Like every other generation, Mililinials believe what they are told to believe.

Comments for this post are closed