Thursday assorted links

1. Should Ethiopia be more democratic?

2. The John Cochrane critique of cryptocurrencies.  And below the radar crypto innovation in China.

3. Low agricultural productivity in poorer countries is not in general due to inferior natural endowments.

4. Muddle we must.

5. Theology majors marry each other a lot.

6. Rap is capitalist.

7. “Haynes thinks it likely that investigators used DNA markers posted on genealogy websites to identify a possible ancestor of the killer and then followed the ancestor’s family tree down to the present, looking for male descendants who fit the profile.” Link here.

Comments

4. While I get that certain elements (right and left) like the struggle, surely work-a-day Americans are ready for a little normalcy.

Elect boring pragmatists from your particular side of the aisle, and enjoy with much less clickbait as governance.

My parents who lived through it said the mood today reminds them of 1972-4, with all the Watergate mess. The economy was doing ok to good, but there was a sense that the system was in trouble thanks to the president. One difference was there was far more bipartisanship, with both sides at least respecting the other and assuming good faith in their differences. When Nixon resigned it was because his own party's leaders came to him and said you gotta go. That will never happen with Trump, even though it should.

No it shouldn't. Trump was elected democratically, but Dylan Mathews thinks we need to thwart the election result in the name of 'democracy'. That takes a limber mind comfortable with cognitive dissonance.

Ever since Reagan, the party that loses tries to gin up some impeachment wheeze. The idea that you accept election results only if your guy wins sounds like more of a democracy crisis to me, and it's been going on for over three decades.

There's a lot more to the USA than the stupid federal government. This nation has endured plenty of mediocre or worse Presidents. Normalcy is still all around us if we have eyes to see, but Mathews and his ilk just sit around their bubble swapping fantasies. Did you read the article? Unhinged and delusional.

I did, and I agree with you it was not a good article. Way to much TDS, like our friend Anonymous/polar bear here. And I agree with you both sides are way too quick to call for impeachment.

I'm not very bothered if Trump serves his full term, which he almost certainly will. I'm just opining that he shouldn't be president, and the voters (the minority in the right states) got it wrong.

So let's talk about the electoral college with the following question - since China has the most people, why doesn't it get to rule the world?
Put another way, why should a handful of states with a small fraction of the geography get to determine matters of national policy?
One SURE way to a kind of endless civil hot/cold war is to allow population majorities in CA, IL, etc. set national politics.
The electoral college, or something very like it, is surely required to allow a nation as large as the US to exist.

Also "a government that can JUST DO STUFF" - see Hitler and Stalin for why such abilities in government are a really bad idea.

"So let's talk about the electoral college with the following question - since China has the most people, why doesn't it get to rule the world?"
Because the rest of the world did not accede to the People's Republic. You seem to be confuses about what a country is. Also there are about as many Indians.

Immigrants killed most of the Indians and took all their good land. A "final solution" of democracy.

And all of the states which are NOT CA, IL, NY did NOT accede to be ruled by them - a key aspect of "what is a state"
Also, lots of territory in China is not there by people acceding...

1. It is the Chinese Century. Atm they pretty much rule, this will only become more apparent as time goes on.

2. Geography? Why shouldnt Siberia rule the world? Why should 400k ppl in WY tell the worlds 8th largest economy what to do?

It is different.

"Ever since Reagan, the party that loses tries to gin up some impeachment wheeze. "

Going to war unilaterally with an ally, Britain, was not a reason to impeach Reagan?

If Raul Castro had sent an invading force to Peurto Rico to protect Cubans there, would Trump consider that NOT an act of war.

Reagan invade Grenada, an act of war, and PM Thatcher did not react as if that was an act of war against the British Commonwealth, but she must have thought it to be an outrageous act.

By what authority did Reagan start a war with the British Commonwealth?

What was Reagan thinking???

Urban Dictionary: TDS - right in 2016.

Dylan Matthews is a pinhead. As soon as I see his name on the byline I know its going to be crap and I just hit skip. Looks like it was a good call on this one.

Did he really complain about the "vetocracy" while Republicans control all branches of government?

I don't think he's coming to the correct conclusion. Our checks and balances aren't the problem, they are part of what keeps things "muddling."

My parents who lived through it said the mood today reminds them of 1972-4, with all the Watergate mess. The economy was doing ok to good,

Yeah, wage and price controls, inflation in spite of wage and price controls, shortages, shortages of gasoline in particular; witless strategems like year-round daylight savings time; contrivedly low speed limits, and time-rationing at gas stations according to the last digit on your license number; imploding share prices; horrible personal grooming and sartorial taste; and, every year, MOAR street crime.

On the plus side, rock music was much better. And I got a new bike in 1973.

Yeah, and the pimps were more flamboyant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9GppbuStzo

I hadn't been born then.

Good points, their memories are probably not sharp.

Good perspective. Also, high interest rates, "stagflation," an uneconomic tax code. My parents and their peers didn't lose any sleep over Watergate.

#4: here let me save some of you some time...

Typical Cowen leftism, linking to Vox. Reading Vox takes 30 points off your IQ, I never read that librul claptrap.

Get outta here, you dummy.

Delightful!

You're a hauty cuck.

Get out of here you CUCK!

Not sure who it is you're mocking here, 'cause Vox does kinda suck. This particular article may or may not represent an exception to that rule.

I'm mocking the people who refuse to read a link just because it's from Vox. If you think Vox sucks, don't go there. But if you are a regular here and you rip Cowen for linking to something he's interested in there, you're kind of dumb.

I read it

I still think it's usually pretty stupid

Like this article, arguing for more centralized power, publicly funded elections (politicians choosing which politicians can succeed??) and other bullshit as the necessary aims to 'fix' our democracy.

I can agree with some of the problems they've pointed out, but I think they're proposed solutions are clearly idiotic.

Also, he notes the instability of a system that lurches from one party to the other, producing constant policy flip-flops, then proposes that the entire federal government, Senate, House, and President, change every four years, which would exacerbate the problem.

Great job preemptively ripping people for doing something they hadn't actually done yet, msg. Very public spirited of you.

Yeah I'm obviously the first poster around here to do that. Jeez why so serious?

I mean, I was clearly referring to the posters who do indeed come here to rip Cowen for being a pinko commie because he links to Vox.

Like Bob from Ohio just below

Well, Vox is pretty bad, but I read the links anyways. Nothing wrong with dishing on it though, you'd do the same if Tyler linked to Breitbart all the time.

Why would he do that? LOL

But no, I wouldn't, I'm not the lefty you guys consider me. I'm pretty centrist, which means I'm lefty here and righty in other fora.

You are mostly in the center, but do have some hard partisan reactions often enough.

I think it's more that I'm eclectic, with pretty lefty takes on some issues and righty ones on others. But not a libertarian, as I'm all about practicality over principle.

I didn't rip him, I just explained why he does it

I tend to react negatively to people with an unearned sense of superiority.

Self-hating?

On the contrary, I'm humble and grounded despite my many achievements.

Heh, I see what you did there.

Vox is objectively awful.

But TC likes to troll his own readers a bit. Nothing wrong with that.

Plus, his boys Ezra and Matty founded Vox. TC has always loved the juice box mafia.

To be fair, it struck even me as kind of hyperventilating.
Trump is awful, but I think American democracy will survive. The Republican Party might not.

Of course it's hyperventilating, every time a lefty writes about Trump as a fascist Hitler wannabe I roll my eyes just as hard as when righties did that about Obama.

Re: "Typical Cowen leftism, linking to Vox. Reading Vox takes 30 points off your IQ, I never read that librul claptrap"

Boy, you failed to understand the words written.

"It feels like this moment in history deserves a definitive ending. It won’t get one."

"In the liberal imagination, that blowup typically takes the form of Trump’s removal from office, an event that sets us back to a path of normalcy and sane politics."

Of course, the right wing believed getting Obama out of office would result in things becoming really really great!

So, a year in, Trump is angrily lashing out at the right-wing for being total losers in failing to deliver a replacement for Obamacare that was free market, cheap, universal because health care is so cheap, and highly profitable, as they had promised they could do for 8 years.

"This yearning is understandable — but it is both dangerous and misplaced. Ending the Trump presidency will not fix, or even substantially ameliorate, most of the problems plaguing the American political system."

Of course, the same can be said for replacing Democrats in a huge number of elected offices, as well as appointed offices.

Why are Trump voters so angry today after the highly successful campaign to replace Democrats across the nation, with only a few States remaining with Democrats in control. And the Democrats in control of California, Mass, NYC, Maryland, Chicago, are more moderate than Democrats in those places in the 60s.

Yet, the places the GOP conservatives have taken greatest control seem to focus on how much better off California and NYC and Mass are, as if those Blue States doing well comes from impoverishing the Red States.

Note, the attacks on Blue States focus on the high costs in Blue States, which by the way pay the high wages and incomes of those in Blue States paying the high costs of Blue States.

Granted, Wall Street wants every consumer to pay the same high costs as paid in California. Ie, $40-50K for a vehicle. And leftist tree hugger California promotes by media and example driving trucks instead of cars, trucks being much more costly and profitable.

If girlie leftists are driving trucks, what must macho rugged invidualists conservative real men buy and drive? I am amazed that vehicle loans today take as long as many home mortgages took to pay off in the 60s among conservatives who considered debt a moral failing.

"The truth is the Trump years will likely end with a whimper rather than a bang — just as the conclusion of Watergate did not lead to a cleansed and more ethical politics, and just as the financial crisis did not usher in a new era of ethical banking."

Ok, so it's liberal to reject free lunch magic bullet political economics.

Repeal Obamacare and health care cost will fall for everyone deserving by 50% minimum!

Repeal Dodd-Frank and housing construction in West Texas will hit 1000 units per month.

Slash the minimum wage and employment will soar and with it consumer spending and thus GDP growth, because lower wages means higher consumer spending.

Make credit easier to fund consumption.

Cut taxes and balance the budget from higher tax revenue.

Eliminate immigrants and tens of millions of US citizens will slave 12-16 hours a day as farm labor or food processors at $8 an hour and get into the middle class. It is the immigrants in those jobs taking away all the great middle class jobs!

#4: It would be easier to take all this Anti-Trump hysteria seriously if I didn't remember the Bush years. Or the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, where moderate Republicans were painted as "threats to Democracy" as well. I did not vote for Trump and I can see his "style" as detrimental. But threat to Democracy? Give me a break. Hillary had most if not all of Trumps issues, just dressed in a more polite facade. So far, the outcome of all Trump's actions has been very moderate. Economy continues to do well, we are not involved in any additional conflicts, and the trains continue to suck as much as they did before.

Agreed on most parts, but his detrimental 'style' is a big deal. The president matters as much as a symbol as anything else, and what he symbolizes about our country isn't good. Hillary at least respected the office and the nation. Hell even Nixon did.

Maybe that is the debate we should have. Or maybe that is the debate we are having, but in a proxy / muddled way. I agree that his used car salesman style is a problem. But how much of a problem? Is it a problem in practical ways, or is it a problem for people who care about the image of America as a "sophisticated' people? I am not sure. For instance, do I really care that he had an affair years ago with a porn star? I kind of do... but really, how much?? I definitely do not care about the size of his hands, whether he wears a wig or how much ice cream he had. A lot of this is about signaling (to use a term that Tyler likes). I am not sure this is something that really impacts the country in real ways.

I agree. I liked Obama's style much better. He politicized the FBI, CIA and NSA against the Republicans and the American citizens. He corrupted the DOJ to hide crimes by his administration and used the EPA to oppress business and extort money from business owners. Much better style don't you think? He did nothing at all of any honest value before becoming president and he is continuing that unbroken legacy in his retirement.

I wonder if you are completely deranged in real life, or if you are one of the old poor souls dragged along by the Fox News narrative?

Regardless, I think that is a crazy talk which Americans want to move beyond.

Definitively deranged. The EPA would never do anything unreasonable:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/19/feds-target-private-pond.html

Not sure where you are coming from, Viking. If we give that a direct reading it was possibly overzealous interpretation of the Clean Water Act. Or perhaps not.

No sign of politicized attack on Republicans.

You are willfully blind.

@FYI: Fair enough, I'm not a 'oh noes the country is doomed!' guy about Trump. Frankly I don't think it matters that much who is president. But I was just pointing out why Trump is terrible, and why I preferred the almost as terrible Hillary.

I think it was more of a "fling" than an "affair," and I would be surprised if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing at some point. None of which bothers me much, since I despise all politicians.

"Hillary at least respected ... the nation. "

I need some evidence of this assertion.

Trump earned eternal thanks for denying Clinton the office.

Yes Bob, your opinion is already well known and banal. Partisans are boringly predictable.

"Hillary at least respected the office and the nation."

Kind of like a pimp and his hooker.

Oh the Stormy irony.

lol. To be fair though, 130k is peanuts to a Clinton.

If you are implying that the Clintons are richer than Trump you'll make him angry.

No. I was comparing her to Stormy. (Don't visualize that)

Buddy, at this point most us just watch the bullshit drama, like the Ronny Jackson story, roll past us.

But don't pretend there is any precedent for this kind of daily ineptitude, nor pretend that you can invent a Hillary counterfactual with the same base stupidity.

This is fundamentally different.

I know a lot of people feel this way. But is it really true? Can't you imagine a scenario where Hillary is president and we are having very, very similar conversations and controversies? Instead of Stormy, it could be some other bimbo that Bill had an affair with. Instead of Russia, it would be Bengazi (or something like that). I think we are way too emotional about this, and we should look at tangible, real issues we have right now and try to understand if the situation is really that bad.
Not to mention that President Pence would surely continue to draw anger from 99% of people who are angry now. That tells you that while Trump is "a" problem, he might not be "the" problem we are talking about.

Can anyone be rationally conversant with the facts and think Russia and Bengazi are a "both sides to it" pair?

Hint: Consider equal effort and count the indictments.

So have you bought your slave from the Libyan markets yet?

The theme of the day was supposed to be moving from crazed bullshit and on to basic and boring governance.

(My sister has been to Libya. Her boyfriend posed with the guard's AK. Oil people, what can you do.)

Actually that did represent a historical footnote. In the period after the revolution, and before Bengazi, the experience of the oil people was that everybody loved Americans and was ready to do business.

The tragedy of these places is that it doesn't take that many militias to ruin things.

By the way, I think Bengazi and Niger are a better pair. They both fall in the category of "shit happens when you engage the enemy" and in NEITHER case should you make the claim that a Secretary of State, or a President, should remotely manage the engagement.

It's probably some weird sexist thing anyway, that Clinton, as a woman, should be a super-woman. I really don't think you'd expect Rex Tillerson to prevent the same sort of incident from halfway across the world.

Nah, if it happened on Kerry's watch he'd get the same unhinged blowback. And if under Tillerson he'd get it from the left.

I think you are missing something. The left did NOT go unhinged with crazy right-style blowback on Niger.

Niger was settled quickly, it did not become a dog and pony show going on for years and years.

I honestly think on the right madness justifies itself, and the mirror is expectation of the same on the left, not examples of it.

It ties into equating Bengazi with Russia. There is no feedback loop for what is real and what is not.

Or, do we have a left-equivalent of the birther thing?

Are you kidding? The left has been saying that Trump is too fat, too unhealthy, mentally ill, too stupid, hands too small, eats too much ice cream, etc., etc....

Just to be clear, you are equating random criticisms of Trump with a bizarre conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in the US, and thus was not legally entitled to be President.

I would say "Seriously?" But sadly you are serious. "Trump is fat" is equal to "Obama is a secret Kenyan" for you.

That's right. Stupidity is stupidity, and all these issues are equally stupid. Unless you give more credit to the birthers, which would be in itself stupid.

I think "both sides do it" is a retreat from reality and responsibility.

The birther thing was a much higher profile and determined madness than "look, Trump is fat."

The people who post Trump in tennis shorts laugh and move on. They do not call for congressional investigations.

"On December 6, a second privileged resolution on articles of impeachment, H.Res. 646, was brought on the floor by Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas. The resolution listed two articles, i.e. proposed reasons for impeachment: "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred" and "Inciting Hatred and Hostility"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

Like I said, stupid is what stupid does.

You are jumping all over the place. That's a bad sign, when you can't stand with one argument.

HRes 646 might have had some stretches, but it was a flash in the pan. One guy who put some words you don't like in a Resolution isn't really a conspiracy theory. There is a difference between that and this:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794?s=19

Once CNN and the Washington Post are closed down by presidential decree, we will be able to get a more balanced perspective about this question of the meaning of democracy.

Fox, as a middle-of-the-road or possibly centre-left outlet, which is both accurate and highly reputed, need not fear such pro-democracy decrees.

No need for any decree. CNN can't field a top 20 show, it'll go away all by itself. Fox has 7 of the top 10 so, as the most centric, it appeals to the most people.

In the second quarter of 2017, Fox posted 2.35 million total viewers in primetime.

That would be impressive in a nation of 325 million, if it wasn't for that pesky decimal point in there after the 2.

I clicked on the 2nd link because I thought it said The John Coltrane critique of cryptocurrencies. Note to click-baiters.

2. Cochrane makes sense; crazies go crazy.

4. Trump makes no sense; crazies go crazy: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/trump-threatens-to-seize-control-of-justice-department.html; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-for-first-time-that-cohen-represented-him-in-stormy-daniels-case/2018/04/26/43c48962-4951-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

5. My nephew, who is still in college, says he wants to take off a year or two before attending seminary. Why? He isn't ready to get married.

"Why is agricultural productivity so low in poor countries relative to the rest of the world?"

The real question is what makes them poor countries and do these same factors prevent effective productivity. Often it is simply an oppressive or dictatorial government, excessive taxation/confiscation. Sometimes it is culture where anything you have, grow, make must be shared with your family/tribe which is a disincentive to have, grow or make anything.

The second of those is relatively under-discussed. Certainly, one does not want to discourage the potential entrepreneur from feeling some social obligation toward betterment of their local community or even country. But at the same time, in many places, productive capital could accumulate faster if redistributive pressures from success were not so socially acute.

But that's like asking successful people to be more greedy, or for people who need help to not ask for help from those who have the ability to help them.

So ... then what?

You could encourage a culture where the people who need help offer some sort of service in exchange, instead of charity. Something that would collaboratively help grow that capital instead of redistributing it. Absent a minimum wage, there might be productive jobs some people could perform.
I'm sort of imagining something along the lines of, say, a young woman in a town with a small factory, who needs some sort of employment to feed a baby, instead of getting charity she could do some medial task like ironing the uniforms of the factory workers.

"The real question is what makes them poor countries and do these same factors prevent effective productivity."

The number one constraint is transportation. Before circa 1800, water transport access enriched farmers and everyone in the farm value chain. Most poor nations lack water transport. And this applied to the much of US territory circa 1800. Early development was of water transport for agriculture, e.g. canals. But railroads were built quickly in the US to open up a lot of land to more than subsistence farming.

Railroads built to open up access to agriculture required enormous mineral resources, and thus railroads enable large scale mining, increasing metal production by an order of magnitude per decade for probably half a century, and then growing as a slower but still high rate. But it was building railroads to open up agriculture land the drove national economic growth.

Railroads provide markets to farmers, and provide transport for inputs for industrial farming. The Guano Acts make no sense without water and rail transport. What good is fertilizer if the cost of transport to farmers is more than the added price of crop production?

In India and Africa, fertilizer costs much more than in the US due to lack of cheap transportation. US farm production depends on high mineral inputs, minerals from mines at significant distance from farms. US farms will spend $1 a bushel for fertilizer, but the cost could easily be $2 elsewhere.

Since circa 1980, economics has become free lunch. Costs are always ignored, with price being the only thing that matters, other than people being lazy. Farmers should work hard and produce crops for $1 a day even if he goes into debt at $2 per day. Any farmer who fails to produce at $1 a day is lazy, not rationally looking at the debt growing exponentially to pay for inputs, and stopping the losses by not farming.

I wonder if Noah will get in trouble for trying to appropriate rap into the capitalist narrative?

Noah is a major cuck, I think he has enough problems.

Should KSA be democractic or are they exempt from good American neocon ideas?

6 can be said of all art. But the best of it isn’t.

We are watching the fall of the American Empire, which, slowly but surely, is being destroyed by its own internal contradictions.

Cara, o Brasil sempre foi um lugar medíocre. Você não para de inundar o Marginal Revolution com comentários sem pé nem cabeça. Um nacionalismo estúpido, falta de argumentos, reações infantis e histéricas a qualquer coisa que te contrarie. Thiago, numa boa, você só piora a qualidade deste blog, infelizmente.

Concordo plenamente!

It is sad to see how some Brazilians feel a need for kowtowing before their American masters and behaving like lackeys.

Não é tão triste quanto ver seus posts

Is it why Brazilians fought and died in Monte Castelo, Uruguaiana, Avaí, Humaitá and Laguna? Is it for that that a dozen Brazilian martyrs resisted the attack of hundreds of Paraguayan invaders? I do not think so. Yet, some Brazilians insist on behaving as ungrateful children.

I agree with this diagnosis. These SJWs will destroy what is left of the Western Civilization. Brazil included because it imports garbage from the US and Europe. I may need to move to Singapore or Hong Kong to save my family from this.

I am pretty sure human garbage like you would feel freer to suck your brothers' blood in Red China or other Han-controlled regimes. I prefer Civilization, thanks.

Lol. There's nothing Western about Singapore or Hong Kong. Besides HK will be fully red in 10-15 years and SG is just technocratic socialism with lower taxes.

#6. Deserves to be emphasized to those who imagine that non-white people are incapable of appreciating libertarian ideas.

Expanding on this point, if you look at even the protest rap, the protest rap mostly isn't even a critique of capitalism, it's more protest against the criminal justice system, and if you throw in luxury rap, you really get a cornucopia of libertarian themed ideas. Rappers hate the government and want to get rich and live large. Which shows that black culture is closer to libertarianism than most libertarians imagine.

Some of my best friends are black!

Which shows that black culture is closer to libertarianism than most libertarians imagine.

You can take the girl out of Spergotopia, SK, but you can't take Spergotopia out of the girl.

Art, that's enough! Hazel is married.

"You can take the girl out of Spergotopia, SK, but you can't take Spergotopia out of the girl."
Actually, I think I've met a person from there. Oh, no, it was Spokane.

But does she have a shotgun, and a southern drawl? There are standards on this blog!

Art managed to coin a word that actually returns zero hits on Google. Which is impressive.

But modern capitalist rap is about hard work and risk-taking in the pursuit of prosperity - exactly the kind of values conservatives ostensibly want people to have.

People go into music precisely to avoid working hard. Let's not overstate our case here, NS.

Progress is all about avoiding working hard.
If humans liked working hard, we would never have invented tractors.
Laziness is the mother of invention.
In the future, our robot slaves will do all the work and the world will be ruled by entertainers. Maybe black culture is a step ahead of white conservative culture on that point.

#4: anyone notice the apocalyptic underlying link to the Vox story?

trump-democracy-decay-decline-coup-war-collapse-impeachment

At least it left out plagues and swarms of locusts...

America: always on the brink, always outraged. Korean War, McCarthy, cold war and imminent extermination, race riots, Vietnam, oil crises, economic slump, AIDS, crack epidemic, 911, Great Recession, Trump&NeverTrump (sounds like a manual for your next bridge card game)... maybe our natural equilibrium (I know TC likes that word) is to feel always, perpetually, eternally OUT of equilibrium? Are we just bored if there is no raganarok around the corner?

Yes. The link told me everything I needed to know, so I didn't have to actually read the article.

6. "capitalist", this word doesn't mean anything from the perspective of modern economics. It's marxist jargon, hence obviously outdated fossil.

4. Funny, before Hillary lost I don't remember Vox or anyone else much obsessing over how undemocratic the Electoral College is. How about 100% of the California electoral votes going to Hillary even though 38% of voters voted for somebody else? Isn't that "unrepresentative"?

"Funny, before Hillary lost I don't remember Vox or anyone else much obsessing over how undemocratic the Electoral College is."

What about 2000? What about 1824?

Paul must be too young to remember 2000. It was definitely a topic back then.

Me, I love the EC, but Democrats didn't suddenly decide it sucked when they lost in 2016.

Also, they were robbed in 1824 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_bargain#Election_of_1824 ). Bernie remembers that.

Exactly, yes it is. Glad you favor abolishing the EC too.

OK then , as long as we assign Presidential votes proportional to votes within a state. the candidates will have to campaign everywhere instead of giving up on some states.

Sold! Let's get it done.

Paul, your idea is actually a very good compromise between the more radical shift to pure one-person/one-vote, with no involvement of states at all vs. the current system (the EC)

You still have electoral votes, so a small state still gets disproportionate weight, but you allocate those votes more democratically than winner take all in each state.

I'm sure this is something out there being advocated, and I wish there was some way to get there.

Should Ethiopia be more democratic?

Let's drop bombs and invade. It may turn out nice like Libya.

7. Don't worry, that DNA test you took will never be used against you...

I doubt collateral relatives who registered for those sites are all that distressed that their errant cousin is out of circulation.

Sorry, I thought this was a Libertarian site.

1. That wouldn't bind me.

2. Your statement makes sense only to you.

"Don't worry, that DNA test you took will never be used against you..."

That's like saying, "the photons coming off you will never be used against you."

DNA records are no different than photos.

And people frequently infer negative things, many false, from photos and use that against many people.

After the bombing in Boston, crowd sourcers looked at photos and decided that one or more innocent people were the bombers, and then used other photos to give them names, names supposedly of the bombers.

Clearly recording photons creates records that can harm people.

1. Should Saudi Arabia or Israel? Perhaps the World's role model in democracy should get off its high horse and show some leadership?

4. I'm reminded of the Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock skit on SNL, http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/11/13/dave_chappelle_and_chris_rock_watch_the_election_results.html. Buck up.

5. Why BA only? Some of us opt for BS, MS and PhD. And get this, we intermarry. I think the implications for the evolution of our species is much more interesting.

6. Capitalistic and misogynistic. Juxtapose with Lauryn Hill.

7. I will be interested to see the full story. Was a warrant required? Can we begin to have a serious conversation about privacy now or are you satisfied with a bad man in custody?

6.

#4 "This content is not available in ttour country,"

3. No, it's socialism.

#5 The reason for marrying down is quite simple and mostly depending on a single variable instead of the numerous academic majors. Under-employment is defined as graduate working in jobs that do not require university degrees, and the associating working environments will have less graduates for them to meet. Assuming the gender specific under-employment rates (not avail) are the same as that for the overall case. The results did show that the marrying down had more effect and more stats significant for women. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2eznrfd&s=9

PctMenMarDown=+0.27*PctUnderEmp+9.88; #n=22; Rsq=0.365; p=0.002896 ** (V Sig)

PctWomMarDown=+0.59*PctUnderEmp+3.67; #n=22; Rsq=0.579; p=3.905e-05 *** (V V Sig)

Comments for this post are closed