Saturday assorted links

1. The re-promotion of Peter Navarro.

2. Norway is worried about winning too much (NYT).  They even offer aid to other countries to compete against them, for fear that otherwise the rest of the world will lose interest in those sports.

3. Profile of Peter Sloterdijk.

4. Were women better represented in Victorian fiction?

5. A lot of the gains from tax reform are going to domestically-oriented firms (The Economist).


The thing to admire about Norway's performance is that most of their wins come in the traditional events. The embarrassing thing about the US performance in this time around is that so many of the wins are in the stuff just recently added that was invented in the US, much of which it is difficult to even call a competition.

Also, though, I wonder how much the banning of the Russians as a team has left the Norwegians with significantly reduced competition in that country's strongest areas. In any case, there is no reason for them to feel apologetic- they are dominating this Olympics in a way rarely seen, and in events they should feel proud to be winning.

Well, apparently the USA curling team won gold vs the favorite Swedish team, so you can't say that was bad for the USA. What is curling anyway? Why is it a sport? Is it anymore a sport than 10 meter air pellet rifle competitions? Why is chess not an Olympic (TM) sport? I have to be honest, I've not watched the Olympics in the last couple of cycles, either summer or winter.

The ultimate turnoff for me was the Summer 2004 Olympics in Athens, when I could not get tickets despite the stadium being empty (corporate sponsors had bought tickets and failed to show up). I could actually hear the Greek blonde woman hurdler win from the roar of the crowd (we have an apartment outside the main Olympic stadium) before the 5 second TV tape delay showed her winning. After that, I gave up on the Olympics. I think pretty much the only people who go to the Olympics to watch are the families of the athletes, and their support staff. Not unlike chess, where the live viewing is mostly journalists and everybody else is watching online live or finding out who won the next day.

I'll watch the women's beach volleyball event any day of the week. Is it a sport? Who cares?

That's sort of the way my wife feels about the men's snowboarding. Cute guys showing off for me? It's like I'm still 16.

My brother once told me that curling is the only teal Olympic sport (vs paraolympics) in which he actually saw a handicapped individual play for gold. He told me that this Canadian guy was pushing the stone (?) sitting in a wheel-chair pushed by other people.

Curling is a real competition- defining losing and winning is unambiguous, and it looks like a lot of fun to play, too.

Aren't all the clean Russians still competing in team and individual events, just under the OAR flag? Actually, it turns out some are still doping but anyway.

Efim Dmitriyevich Bogolyubov (Russian: Ефим Дмитриевич Боголю́бов; also Romanized Bogoljubov, Bogoljubow; April 14, 1889 – June 18, 1952) was a Russian-born German chess grandmaster who won numerous events and played two matches against Alexander Alekhine for the world championship.

Off your meds again?

After pursuing separate musical careers for some 15 years, the brothers performed together at a show in North Carolina: John sat in with MMW following Lee Chong's opening set. "I realized we should be playing music together," Ed recalled. John always wondered at the sorrow and the mirth that Ed spelled at the bums and the pimp George, and the Madam, and the gray men in the gray worn puddles from the culverts and the rivers that overflowed that spring. "The time Ed spent wondering with the bums and the money he spent on feeding me music were equal," I thought as he lay there torn from limb to limb. It was as the doctor said, very bad. But it wasn't anything unexpected for a paleontologist.

Victor Ahn was barred without explanations or allegations of any misconduct.

Norway's feat is incredibly impressive, and the US has had a pretty dismal Olympics, however. . .

Calling it more impressive because it is a traditional sport isn't really right. Do you really think there are more people in the world cross-country skiing than riding a half pipe? Traditional does not mean harder. In fact, often it's easier. Bobsled has been in the Olympics is traditional, been around since 1924. How many people in the world do you think do it? I can't imagine it's many, access to one of the few bobsled tracks in the world is rather essential.

My point is very few of these sports are widely contested. Norway is obsessed with nearly all of the sports they compete in, and their whole country is conducive to doing them. While impressive, Norway doing this in sprinting or basketball, sports that hundreds of millions play, would be on a whole different level.

Traditional versus new shouldn't be the measure, world participation should.

#2. Norway is worried about winning too much

Absolutely nothing in that NYTimes article factually supported its headline:
"As Medals Pile Up, Norway Worries: Are We Winning Too Much?"

Dumb, Fake News... total cr@p from the Times professionals.

But sports coverage set the original American standard for contrived, superficial, trivial news reporting -- that standard migrated to political coverage and everything else.

+1. This is my standard argument for why the Winter Olympics are far inferior to the Summer Olympics. If you gave every single human five years off to train in sprinting or basketball or weightlifting or whatever they wanted and then held a Summer Olympics, the competitors and results would probably not be that different. There is no way that the, what, <= 1 million people who have ever seriously tried skeleton or ski jump represent the limits of that sport.

I wish we had analogous summer sports that were only practical in desert countries. Here, let's see who can run up this enormous sand dune fastest!

The traditional events are largely devoid of subjective evaluations. As time has gone on, we end up with more and more judged events. The same thing happens in the Summer Games, too. I simply think it more impressive to win an event by being the fastest, strongest, most accurate, etc.

“Do you really think there are more people in the world cross-country skiing than riding a half pipe?“

Without question. Not even close. Cross country is cheaper and easier to learn and you can do it when you are 75. We even had x-country skiing in gym class in high school. You must be from a southern state.

I think you meant luge.

Norway, Norway, Norway...
More talk should be about Germany - they are tied in Golds (the medal which counts - see official medal ranking) with Norway. The current world champion of the most popular sport in the world is also in the final of the coolest winter sport (ice hockey). Btw Germany is leading the all time winter olympics table and is third in the alltime summer olympics table (if you count it properly)

Unfortunately, the Germans are one ahead in golds.

The old, and possibly more correct way of counting, is who has most golds, and if equal, go down to silvers and so on.

"Btw Germany is leading the all time winter olympics table " Agree, Germany should be able to claim both east german and west german medals, but should subtract those medals, where the athlete was born in current day Poland.

so those who got expelled from Poland should count for Poland? I was born outside of Germany, so I cant compete for germany?
you make no sense

Big fraction of the land area of current day Poland used to be Germany. Since Germany couldn't keep the area, they shouldn't keep the medals that originated there.

I know but again this doesnt make sense as we talk about people not land. These guys were German, identified as German and played under the German flag and got the support of Germany. No offence but you sound like you are racist against Germans.

The East Germans cheated though. Massively.

not only the East Germans.
after watching the tour de france (
Lance Armstrongs period) I am pretty sure everybody cheats in every sport. thats why the "banning russia due to doping theme" is so amusing imo

'Were women better represented in Victorian fiction?'

No. 'Upon looking at the data and sectioning it by time, the researchers were able to see trends over certain periods: between about 1800 and the 1970s, for instance, a “steady decline” in the proportion of women authors—from about 50 percent to less than 25 percent. In the same period, they saw a decline in the number of named women characters. Those trends start to reverse in the latter part of the 20th century. And over the course of their study, dramatic and rapid shifts in the words used to characterize gender--as well as a decrease in the number of specifically gendered words.'

Well, at least if one is talking about actual female authors, or actual named female characters.

Of course, if one only read the headline - 'Women Were Better Represented in Victorian Novels Than Modern Ones' - then the answer would probably be incorrect, as it seems the headline writer did not bother to actually read the article. Of course, the same could be said of the person that wrote the headline to the Guardian article from Feb. 19 -

Admittedly, the Guardian article is a bit more precise, mainly because it actually cites the work when talking about the authorship decline, placing it starting at 1850, which is definitely Victorian era - 'As well as the drop in the number of characters who are women or girls, they also found “a fairly stunning decline” in the number of books written by women in the first half of the 20th century, writing that “the proportion of fiction actually written by women … drops by half (from roughly 50% of titles to roughly 25%) as we move from 1850 to 1950.”

As seen in figure two of the actual work - - modern novels authored by women around 2000 are about the same as the number of novels authored by women in 1880. The decline is real, of course, but 1880 is certainly the Victorian era, without any need to qualify it as early or late.

Regarding #1, Jay Rosen's line has been:

"There is no White House, really. Not in the sense that the term has been traditionally used. There's just Trump and people who work in the building."

So I don't think this would signal policy, not in the sense that the term has been traditionally used.

1. Who ya gonna believe: Peter Navarro or Greg Mankiw. Being anti-China might win a few friends in the Trump White House, but it won't win any trade wars. Engagement with our global partners and competitors strengthens America, promotes peace, and enhances America's and global prosperity.

Navarro is indistinguishable from Obama and H.Clinton. Obama put a 35% tariff on Chinese tires and claimed "Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires." H. Clinton claimed Trump stole her China trade ideas: Navarro-phobia is so much partisan gas from the usual partisan gasbags. While the Republicans still have a voice in Congress, if they really want to demonstrate that they are committed to national debt reduction and free trade, should pass a bill to replace the current tariff system with a flat 10% tariff on all imports. This would be a huge increase given that the average tariff rate is about 2% and fully half of imports face no tariffs at all. After accounting for tit-for-tat tariffs on US exports, such a tariff would still significantly increase US government revenues. Nevertheless, a flat tariff rate across the board would provide an even playing field for foreign producers and eliminate the favoritism in the current system and do away with all the bureaucratic labor and environmental boondoggles that trade agreements promulgate. To overcome the fungibility of cash and prevent the funds raised from being used to finance increased spending, the tariff, call it a National Debt Reduction Tariff, could be set aside in a 'lock-box' National Debt Reduction Fund to be used solely to redeem an amount of treasury bills equivalent to the amount by which previous year outlays are decreased below the level of outlays in the year preceding that, thereby incentivizing reduced federal spending in order to release the tariff revenues into the economy.

Compare apples to apples, economists to economists, not economists to politicians. This is a blog about economics, not politics.

Dr. Junot Diaz's experiment ended with one line: I am a warrior without weapons.

It's reward.

For extra credit, explain why a specific anti-dumping penalty is not a tariff on everything, above or brlow cost of production.

"Commerce Finds Dumping and Subsidization of Imports of Truck and Bus Tires from the People's Republic of China"

27. white bishop to F6. Happened twice.

In the same game?

Mr. Donner, who won his first Dutch chess title in 1954 by dethroning Max Euwe, the former world champion, said he remembered the day he learned to play chess, Aug. 22, 1941: it was the day he came home from school to find his father had been arrested by the Nazis. He died when he was 61. In both matches he considered his finest, his final move was White Bishop to F6. In both, he opened with the Nimzo-Indian defense.

Typical New Yorker piece -- after finishing it you have no coherent idea what the guy believes or even why he is referred to as a "philosopher," but know that he likes his white wine quite cold.

I got to “The car is like a uterus on wheels," and decided it must be parody.

Apparently, New Yorker requires more adept editing. I think the writer meant "vagina."

Or, maybe they didn't want to offend feminists and prudes.

I wouldn't know. I don't have time.

Uterus makes perfect sense. Both, the uterus and the car are vessels. In both, you feel comfortable and in both, you are isolated from the outside world.

He is anti-immigration. That was the key takeaway. Almost as if the New Yorker is trying to soften up the ground to allow the left a tactical retreat on immigration.

Sloterdijk is at least an independent thinker. And not a SJW masquerading as a philosopher.

#2 seems like a good example of the transfer paradox

4. Were women better represented in Victorian fiction?

Women have always been the dominant subjects of novels, and very well represented as authors. Read Ann Douglas's brilliant "Feminization of American Culture" (1977), which is not feminist polemic as you might suspect from the title, but a review of women's overwhelmingly dominant, and insipid influence on American culture in the 19th century.

Their partners in crime, according to Douglas, were clergy, whose books of sermons crowded the best seller lists alongside the women novelists.

Somewhere in Herman Melville's personal papers is a complaint about how little chance of success he has breaking into a market so totally dominated by women novelists and books about and for women. To this day, women dominate literary fiction as customers, subjects of novels, and as authors. I read literary novels and non-fiction. But my wife reads novels 100% of the time -- good ones usually, and although she doesn't admit it, she mostly reads novels by women.

So if I understand that article correctly, as women moved into the mainstream, words associated with the specific world of women have declined?

Well that is not a surprise. I bet that Arab novels talk a lot less about harems as well. As African American novels are likely to talk a lot less about segregation. Actually I expect both of those still do. But mainstreaming women's lives means mainstreaming their language.

2: Pathetic. Probably the worst humblebrag I've ever seen, and therefore naturally the NYT is eager to be the messenger.

Although it does make you wonder.... what if the USA prioritized immigration from such clearly awesome places as Scandinavia? Has anyone ever been sufficiently forward-thinking to suggest this?

Why would Scandinavians want to immigrate to the US?

#3) If German-American, Peter Thiel, can't justify the MR ration of BS world-view, time to go find a real German to provide cover and justification.

2. I find Sweden's lack of bronze medals more remarkable. Some sort of a national "top two or nothing" attitude?

4. If insipid, romantic chattel is better representation. This article is a solution in search of a problem. The convergence of masculine and feminine has produced an environment where we can be our best and worst selves.


Navarro is gaining influence? The guy made terrible arguments during the campaign.

It just gets worse and worse.

Sloterdijk is underrated.
Conservative and actually "German" in his philosophy, dense and with a slight mystical element. Yet he's highly intellectual and penetrating.

He will be talking to Zizek later (this month?). Might be interesting. Two philosophers both ostracized by the anemic liberal rabble.

Comments for this post are closed