Wednesday assorted links


2. Social Credit sounds extremely lawful-evil corporatist even when it works exactly-as-designed: imagine how easily it could be abused.

It doesn't sound 'corporatist" it sounds like a typical big government program. It is set up and administered by the Chinese Supreme Court according to the article.

It's definitely a typical big-government program, and the People's Court is the muscle: but it looks like you can get on the list by not making mortgage payments or car payments - meaning that a lender (potentially a private lender) is giving the info that they have on you to the court, who is then displaying all of this info publicly (and sharing it with other companies), in order to enforce a private debt.

"...Those measures include the central government back in 2005 setting up a database of debtors' information - such as bank details, and business and property interests - to deter people from defaulting on their loans.

The top court in 2013 also started disclosing the personal details of "dishonest" borrowers who failed to repay loans."

My concern is the potential for drift in the term "'dishonest' borrowers" - does losing your job and not being able to pay your mortgage get you on this list? Do you stay on it even after surrendering the house?

The question we should be making is: why would the Chinese Government go to all this trouble because of unpaid debt by citizens?

The answer can be only one: because bad debt is becoming a HUGE problem in China....

Because as far as we can tell, the Chinese Government is not pursuing especially political opponents (they already do that..)

It sounds horrible but not that different in some aspects than credit scores in the US, which also are an opaque form of social control. Notice the emphasis on debtors in the article.

Credit scores are NOT "an opaque form of social control". Nothing could be more transparent or fair. Why would/should a lender lend to someone with a poor record of paying it back? Someone recently whined that the credit scores didn't take into account payday loans EXCEPT when the loans were not payed back or became delinquent. Well... DUH! Just someone having to use payday loans would make me not want to lend them money. I'm 75 and I have never used payday loans (I never used illlegal drugs either and I think there is a connection there).

The assumed problem with credits scores seems to be that the actual score reflects the actual responsibility of the individual and women and minorities are negatively affected most. Well... gee! Whose fault would that be???

The idea that credit scores are used just for loans, or even mostly for loans, is very quaint.

This is also an example of where regulations protect our privacy.

Your comment is a little quaint too. Why does it matter what credit scores are used for? Oh, because it is harder to scam people if they know the truth. It is easy to get a decent credit score. All it takes is honesty and a desire to pay your bills on time. Gee, why would an employer want to know this about you???

My credit score is good, but I understand that is in part luck. Perhaps going back to luck in birth. My dad had a Master's in Education. I was raised by a (non whacky) professional. (Though I did notice that the children of some other teachers had the misfortune to be raised under Theories.)

So recognizing the role of luck, I question whether it is moral or equitable that people be judged by past luck, creating a downward spiral.

Does our version of the information age give enough fresh starts?

Since your credit score is not in any way determined by your fathers education I have to assume that by "luck" you mean your parents were responsible and taught yoou responsibility. Well it may be luck or it may be culture. My parents too were responsible and taught me responsibility and my parents were poor. So it was a cultural thing, all about honesty, decency and responsibility. Is it "luck" that my parents and your parents were from a culture that valued these traits? Perhaps it was but it isn't something difficult to learn and incorparate into your life. Even people who were unlucky to have parents who are irresponsible can themselves become responsible. Your destiny, in the end, is up to you.

I am sure you know people who never quite pay off their debts and never quite see why it is their fault that they did not pay. They always have enough money for cigarettes and beer, perhaps some pot from time to time but never quite manage to pay their bills on time. Is it just bad luck that they are irresponsible? Or is it that they lack a moral standard that would have them prioritize paying their debts even if that meant no six pack of beer each night or no expensive recreational drugs.

But all of this begs the question. Why should a lender be forced to ignore these "tells". Why should they have to lend to someone whose priorities do not include paying debts on time? Why shouldn't they have access to your credit score which says so much about your morality and life skills? And for the same reasons why shouldn't a potential employer have that same access?

Social credit - no need to learn to love Big Brother, the real game is convincing Big Brother you love him enough to be allowed to travel on a train or plane.

#3 was good. Smart, tough people that overcome serious obstacles are the best.

NYT comments are odd.

#3 made no sense. Except that he survived a challenging childhood and benefited from stability.

Not sure what that has to do with conservativism or liberalism, except that the author apparently feels the need to differentiate himself, in a way that sounds precisely like someone who is not in fact "over" whatever they insist they are over.

I don't think you get over being abandoned by your patents three times nor does he claim to have. He is pretty clear about what beliefs of his qualify as conservative- e.g. putting responsibility on individuals, encouraging marriage

Oh yes, he makes clear that he deserves full membership in the "a conservative is what I say it is" club.

Seems like his points threaten your obvious "conservatives BAAAAAD!!!!" mindset. You're really being a dick here.

Is it sillier than all the conservatives taking the implicit position "yeah, we have always been all about the gay couples raising children!"

No one running for President really ever came out for gay marriage until... well, Cheney. How does that help your narrative?

That's funny. I don't remember President Cheney.

I guess you think that one incomplete anecdote derails an entire period of US political history. So let's touch bases with the actual position of that administration:

Bush opposed same-sex marriage. During his 2004 reelection campaign, he called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage in the United States but allow for the possibility of civil unions on the state level.[24] He also stated in the famous Wead tapes that he would not "kick gays" and worried his refusal to do so might upset his evangelical supporters, and that "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."[25]

There it is, in the facets. Bush opposed gay marriage, but didn't to his credit want to "kick gays" and he recognized that "evangelical supporters" were still pretty hopped up on it.

Evangelicals still are hopped up on it, (bathrooms etc) which is why Tyler linked this, for the comedy. That many of you wouldn't read very deeply, would see it as a victory for political conservatism, rather than something Burkean or whatever, and would get tangled in your responses.

For something a little more up-to-date, here is the 2016 Republican Presidential Platform:

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values..

Reason Number 12 to vote Trump 2020 and for the GOP gaining Congressional seats this November.

I don't think this young d**che has the slightest idea what it means, or what he is.

And if I wanted to be generous, I would figure that he is struggling hard to keep some conflicting feelings shoved down in a box.

The only mystery is how this elevated to a NYT piece, except being equal opportunity caddy day on the op-ed page for the token "I'm-a-conservatives"

If you can't understand his obviously conservative Burkean point, you should just go splash around in the NYT comments section, where such incomprehension is the norm.

Here's another ungrateful douche saying stuff you don't grok and flek spittle over, Thomas Sowell:

"Social Engineering – The art of replacing what works with what sounds good."

I understand that he tossed out a couple conservative memes in an incoherent essay - precisely the sort of essay that conservatives pass around to each other with plenty of exclamation points. And also that often these sort of stories turn out to be Breitbart scams or pure fabrications.


The point of the essay, I believe, is that one should be hesitant to throw out the wisdom of our ancestors. He even says this explicitly with the important caveat that our forefathers also had morally abominable blind spots (slavery, xenophobia, etc). This is inherently conservative compared to the average Ivy League campus climate. Part of his conservative leaning is probably in opposition to what he believes is this excess.

The NYT comments demonstrate the insanity of narcissism of small differences. The vast majority of Democrats are conservative to some extent in the Burkean sense. Tyler is playing on this in his usual Straussian way: one can be a conservative in believing in the importance of family and a two parent household while at the same time not caring whatsoever if the two parents are the same gender. This is still conservative in wanting to conserve the two parent household and prioritizing family over X. The great part of the essay is that he again makes this explicit: homophobia is wrong, an important part of his life was the love and generosity of two lesbian women in bringing him into their family and giving him a loving home, etc. The Straussian point is that this is conservative!! Which is missed in the tribal bullshit reactions.

This is still conservative in wanting to conserve the two parent household and prioritizing family over X.

Well no, it isn't. It is a massive social experiment that is likely to go very wrong and hence not conservative at all. You do not make insanity conservative by slapping a specious - and entirely dishonest - reference to motherhood and apple pie on top.

The great part of the essay is that he again makes this explicit: homophobia is wrong, an important part of his life was the love and generosity of two lesbian women in bringing him into their family and giving him a loving home, etc.

I do not think homophobia even exists and if it does, it is not wrong. As anyone with any experience of Gay people will learn soon enough. The fact that he was raised in a competent way by two lesbians proves nothing just as the fact that my grandfather smoked two packets of cigarettes a day and yet died at 92 of a heart attack doesn't prove tobacco is safe.

Tribal bullshit.

Indeed. Your post refines the point in a way I was groping around for.

I am far less interested in the content, which is depressingly routine, than in the content in the context.

I am increasingly inclined to believe that he knew full well what he was doing writing that essay that way in the NYT, throwing gasoline into the fire. Subtle Burkean code or not. If it was a sophisticated joke or a sly attempt to hold up a mirror, he didn't pull it off.

I think he let himself get swept up in the tribalism in a way that he consciously took sides. And as a result I think he did a disservice to people and social and institutional structures that helped him along in the process.

If this was some jiu jitsu effort to make a statement that you can be conservative and appreciate unmarried lesbian adoption at the same time, he failed. It was lost in the tropes about blaming his parents for their addiction and being triggered by a smug liberal classmates. And it was lost in the things he didn't say but only hung out there - i.e thank you to the military (even though you would have jailed my adoptive parents).

My apologies, maybe you do not understand American politics and governance. Judging by the following sentence you live in Saudi Arabia, Gaza Strip, North Korea, the CAR or Sudan?

"i.e thank you to the military (even though you would have jailed my adoptive parents)."

Please find an example of the military throwing lesbian adoptive couples into prison. As a veteran of the US military I am certain that this has literally never happened.

Marginal Revolution deserves a better class of troll.

Technically, sodomy was the crime.

Being merely gay, presumably without the sodomy, was merely grounds for discharge.

Rightly so. Your point?

Hmm wrote a not bad comment at 6:50 but Hmm ignores that So Much For Subtlety blew it out of the water at 7:02.

There is a fundamental inconsistency in the political right taking pride in this essay, while at the same time attacking its foundation.

Perhaps I should say there is something wrong with the center right and libertarian wing liking this essay but then focusing their attacks solely on the left. Clearly the further right wing is not helping.

Well said.

Maybe the opinion piece tried to communicate how and why the man overcame his hurdles.

The "white left" fixates on its tropes: immigration, minorities, LGBT, guns!!!, higher taxes, and the environment” and has no concept of the actual problems which real people face in the real World. They advocate for their pet causes to demonstrate and satisfy their self-acclaimed senses of moral superiority.

No, we heard it perfectly well. The man benefited from an adoptive family - a family that would be illegal and jailed if conservatives had their way. Then he benefited from the stability and security of military service. Both of which helped him escape an early bad start under his birth parents who had substance abuse problems.

We also heard that he was radicalized by an offhand comment one of his college classmates made. And so he felt compelled to write an op-ed to denounce his birth parents, and his class,ate, and to proclaim his conservativism.

And of course the whole thing is teeming with conservative trigger points and code that half the country just wet their pants with how inspiring this story is. Even though its quite possibly a fluffed up lie.

Yeah, we heard it just fine.

So, welfare supporting gay people caring for children who then go into the military just like so many liberals did under the liberal policies of FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ which made the military a model for both individual development and for driving economic growth, and then under the liberal GI Bill get advanced education, in this case at liberal Harvard, makes the case for being a conservative???

FDR's favorite New Deal program was the CCC which harken back to TR's rugged individualism of living in the wild. But the CCC program was organized like the military, with most of the camp leaders being former military NCOs, running each unit like a military unit, self sustaining and performing tasks as a unit. Conservatives had been quick to disband the military in the 20s, so fast it caused a recession. Fortunately, Europe was a wreck, but Europe still had a lot of gold that could secure lots of debt buying goods from American workers. What changed at the end of the 20s was Europe becoming self sufficient and repaying debt to get back their gold held in the US to secure the debt.

Thus the double whammy of reduced gold driving reduced dollar money supply, plus reduced demand for American exports, killing jobs.

While FDR could not build a standing Army, he could create a civilian army in the CCC plus other home industry programs, plus fund capital investment in infrastructure with rural development. For political reasons, FDR placed a great priority on jobs in every district in the New Deal. Then with lend-lease made sure the military contracts were well distributed across the nation, especially rural areas, to ensure the votes in Congress no matter the anti-globalism views in rural areas afraid of non American people.

After the end of WWII, liberals kept the military in place to drive the economy, place bases and supply contracts where votes were needed, not where productivity was highest. LBJ grew up in this system and quickly became the bookkeeper of military jobs created and votes owed.

Just like the CCC where wages were low to keep people flowing through the system, the liberal military limited the service time of most in the military with low pay and lots of benefits on leaving, like the GI Bill and giving hiring incentives to businesses, like expensive job training before release to the private sector. The air line industry would not exist without the liberal standing army policies of the 50s and 60s.

Catering to conservatives to get votes did have negative effects. And liberal Pat Moynihan pointed them out in his infamous report. That conservatives latched onto.

He pointed out that the policy of limiting welfare to mothers with dead or absent fathers caused fathers to be absent. Conservatives take that to argue for eliminating welfare to ensure mothers and fathers stay together by the lack of welfare preventing men from dying, or preventing men from needing to leave to find work, and then not finding work that allows supporting his wife and kids.

Conservatives believe that a married man automatically gets a good paying job to support his family because that is a law in free lunch economics.

After all, that's cheaper than liberal tax and spend to provide create jobs where jobs are needed, using "defense" as the justification to give cover to conservatives bringing home the bacon of government jobs centrally planned from DC.

I am a liberal, not a progressive. I follow FDR in his condemnation of the dole, relief, welfare, and oppose the Bernie Bros. I want zero war, but if a huge military is the way to drive the economy, than I support a huge military budget and huge standing army that is probably incapable of fighting a war efficiently. But by paying low wages, the inefficiency is due to low worker productivity from inexperienced workers, keeping the costs down.

The conservatives have run the military to benefit crony capitalists, who likewise run things even more inefficiently rendering the military almost totally ineffective, thus the endless wars of the past 35 years.

But the liberal military path to individuals making something from nothing remains mostly intact.

Today's tl;dnr Mulp:

1. Give more money to rural White,

2. Put the unemployed into labor camps.

That could be the platform the Democrats are looking for

Or you could be like Giuliani

1. Give more opioids to poor rural Whites
2. Have them die
3. Become Trump's lawyer after pocketing fees


I think I prefer Guiliani's plan. At least its got cheap drugs.

But one New York Italian's alleged stupidity does not make Mulp's actual stupidity any better.

Is this why cons are so scared of everything because they were abandoned as children?

2. When you think about it, we said "this is the information age" way too early. Wikipedia says Nicholas Negroponte "captured the essence of these changes [the information age] in his 1995 book, Being Digital." I read that, back in that day. Heady stuff, but of course computers then were crude tools compared to what we have today, what will will have in another 20 or 40 years.

China seems committed to implementing a very special version of an information age based on their traditions. It sounds like imperial examinations, but for everyone, all the time. It would be nice to live long enough to see how it all works out.

I doubt we'll do exactly that here, but as I think Nate is saying above, we have our evolving version of an information age.

You cannot opt out of location tracking through your mobile carrier, and that data is being sold to third parties who aren't careful with it.

Will is right, this is the nightmare situation that is trotted out when we talk about why "Facebook is evil" and it needs more attention.

Oooh. Maybe the Chinese are as in the book taking Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age seriously.

Note that Being Digital and Diamond Age are both 1995 books.

I would nuke them if I could.

I'm not so sure. I wouldn't want to take this experiment on ourselves, but I think it is at least possible that "the median citizen" will benefit from social ranking.

A properly run system will not "waste capacity" by under-rating positive marginal product workers.

Maybe, but it is a symbol of American-backed Chinese totalitarism.

#2 Yet Red China is praised and Brazil is mocked and reviled by America. There was a time when a future American president, speaking for his party, could say about a totalitarian power: "We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, 'Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters.'" How things have changed!!

#3. wtf. That was perhaps the most incoherent NYT essay ever.

Out-of-wedlock children and adult-substance-addiction home environments are exclusively liberal? Unmarried homosexual couples adopting kids are conservative? He was happy to have the structure of the military after his earlier years?

Sheesh, that essay was as chaotic as his life story.

"Out-of-wedlock children and adult-substance-addiction home environments are exclusively liberal" - of course not. But you have to admit conservatives would condemn these while the liberal approach is maybe not to celebrate, but certainly not as critical.

But the whole essay reminds of the phrase that a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged.

I cannot imagine a single serious person of any political persuasion arguing in favor of addicted parents, or dads that come and go, or parents that abandon kids.

There are disagreements of course about the causes, cures, and effectiveness of blame & shame as a strategy.

I DO know that conservatives often stridently oppose unmarried homosexual adoption, yet that exact formula seems to have been the anchor that turned his life around. Of conservatives had their way, our author would not have had stable parenting at a key moment,. Hence, the incoherence of the essay.

I cannot imagine a single serious person of any political persuasion arguing in favor of addicted parents, or dads that come and go, or parents that abandon kids.

No, they argue for scrapping the drug laws and mores which give plenary indulgences for bastardy and unilateral divorce on demand.

Imagine your face wedged in my greasy ass-crack, as I blow copious amounts of ass-gas into your mother-fucking face.

McMike - May 23, 2018 at 1:29 pm 35

I cannot imagine a single serious person of any political persuasion arguing in favor of addicted parents, or dads that come and go, or parents that abandon kids.

Then you are not paying attention. Because having fathers who come and go is precisely the policy of the Communists and hence the rest of the West's "liberals" and has been for some time. That is why they want free childcare and creches. Ideally parents would not be raising their children at all. The state would. As can be seen in the early Israeli kibbutz. Although with less state involvement. The Left's entire position on marriage is based on the idea that no one has any family obligations at all except payment of money.

Of conservatives had their way, our author would not have had stable parenting at a key moment,.

Or alternatively some heterosexual couple, you know an actually married couple, would have adopted him and he might have grown up to be less troubled.

3. I liked it, moreso after the plot twist, which I think is the reason Tyler linked it.

A serious reader will learn that social conservatism is good, but it may not be what you think it is.

Just for trolling: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is 600K words, The Fountainhead is 300K words.......near 1 million words and nerds don't complain.

Just for comparison, I'm familiar with IAEA guidelines. 2 million words is way below the material published by the IAEA. But it doesn't matter, for guidelines and regulations there are indexes. Using the index or the Crtl+F you get to the interesting part of the text in a few seconds and get the job done.

1. The modern paper route or lawn mowing job that seems to be taken over by adults desperate for income because goid paying jobs are too scarce.

Concise Mulp is the best Mulp.

He can still inhale my anal vapors.

#3: Note they were lesbian adoptive parents. Interesting that can get coded as "social conservatism" now.

UNMARRIED lesbian adoptive parents.

I'm also still trying to square that with a stint in the Air Force, based in Colorado Springs, perhaps the most unwelcoming institution in the most unwelcoming town anywhere in the US to unmarried adoptive lesbian couples.

Just another recently-graduated Young Republican, feeling his oats by rejecting his hippie parents, giving the finger to the smug liberals at his college, and trying out his Big Boy Pants by penning an incoherent, self-contradicting, juvenile screed that basically argues against itself, test-drives a few code words he doesn't actually understand yet, tries to convince himself he's superior, and betrays his own family.

Go get 'em Alex Keaton!

It's super sad that you can honestly think this. I feel bad for you

I feel super amused how easily some half-coherent Horatio Alger story that confirms your biases and grievances makes you all weepy.

The article really triggered you, didn't it? Maybe you should reflect on why you feel so outraged.

On the other hand, maybe you're just a dick. You've certainly provided sufficient evidence of this in the comments you've posted here today.

Yes indeed I am having a blast with this nonsense.

I probably share 2/3rds of your political views but even I’m embarrassed by the ease with which you get triggered and stay triggered long enough to repeat yourself in a half dozen posts.

Define triggered.

If it means, this one was a little too easy, I agree.

In hindsight, sure, ended up with a bunch of posts. Mostly because I try and reply to most people who reply to me. Good days or bad.

The repetition works both ways.

You know what, in hindsight, I agree. That essay "triggered" me, albeit not in the pejorative way that term has been contrived to mean by the right.

The entire thing was a nearly perfect microcosm of how the right wing discourse and neuroses has infected us and feeds on itself. The essay, with its tropes and dog whistles, was written seemingly without self-awareness of the ironies (and frankly not very well structured) , merely to recount how the author was triggered by a liberal classmate's dumb comment, and this led to his coming out as a conservative, because he believes in individual responsibility and two-parent families. (apparently liberals do not we are to conclude)

That this is deserving of a slot on the NYTs op-eds, a honor that resulted itself from the paper's "equal opportunity" program for which the right hounded them into through incessant whining, is rich with irony.

So well yes, I guess I was triggered, and pounced on it with glee. because it was so perfect that i am still suspicious that it's a fake.

In fact, I wonder if he was not at all un-self-aware, but was in fact fully intentional to use that space exactly as other right wing honorees have, with their amateur pieces clearly written to be provacative for effect, without being in fact meaningful.

1a seemed to me a silly story of burn rate. You don't pay a kid $600 per night to charge scooters and then make it up on the next day's fares. Not at $1 plus 15 cents per minute. You need 60 one hour rides for break-even on the kid's labor alone.

But here's an interesting take:

I'm kinda loving the collision of dysfunctional San Francisco government and infinite VC money, with electric scooters being the current battleground. Tech solutions flowing like water into the holes of the state.

It's like a SimCity test of whether markets can beat politics.

"1a seemed to me a silly story of burn rate. You don't pay a kid $600 per night to charge scooters and then make it up on the next day's fares."

+1, that's exactly what I thought. If that figure is remotely normal, then the company is just burning through piles of cash.

Silicon Valley is so creative that they find solutions to things that aren't even problems.

Buterin is talking about radical decentralization because despite all the hype you still can’t do anything worthwhile on ethereum.

Look at and see what the “top” distributed apps are.

"Radical decentralization" seems pretty Quixotic when paired with China's 11 million refused flights, and our "you can't opt out" cellphones.

We will have centralization. The only question in the US is if we allow ourselves to manage it. Or if we trust the big invisible hand with it's finger up our ..

"Or if we trust the big invisible hand with it's finger up our .."

As opposed to the Chinese Big Governmental softer gentler approach?

They don't bother making their finger invisible.

The 2008 financial catastrophe proved 40 years and a million words are insufficient. You guys were correct when you told us the lack of regulation caused the financial fiasco.

Basel bank supervision regulations do not apply to US banks. US/Federal bank supervisors adopted, and wrote US bank regulations from, certain parts of the Basel regulations related to capital maintenance standards, which are also overly complicated.

Started reading the attachment. The US still has a dual banking system - national and state bank chartering, regulation, statutes, and supervision. In the US, the FDIC fund not taxpayers absorb bank failure losses, not taxpayers.

#4 - of interest to me was this paragraph: "The word should appears prominently within the Basel documents. It’s the third most frequent word after «banks» and «risks», excluding function words such as «and», «the», or «in». Of course, regulations describe what banks and other actors «should» do. But explicitly binding verbs are much rarer: the word «must» only appears 5102 times, less than half as often as the word should (13’926 times).
The graphic shows that this pattern is consistent over the past 40 years. Notwithstanding, in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-08, regulators leaned more towards committing verbs like «need to», «be required to», «shall», or binding verbs like «have to» and «must»."

I flunked out of law school but what they teach you is the words "should" in a statute is simply a 'best practices' voluntary request, for the most part irrelevant unless gross negligence, while "shall" or "must" is an order. This means that Basil regulations are essentially 'best practices' type voluntary requests rather than strict orders, consistent with what I read about "loose regulation" prior to 2008. And the USA is rolling back regulation in the latest banking laws. Luckily, money is largely neutral, banking is not systematic, panics via herd behavior is human nature and not subject to legislation, and the US dollar is the reserve currency of the world so it doesn't matter (for now) how badly the US economy performs. For now.

#3 was an interesting read, but would have been much, much better if he had mentioned the role of genetics in personality characteristics. Especially as a psychology major.

#4) So? Banking in the 21st century is more complex than even 2 million words can address. Likely should be 10 million words, supported by expert systems and text analytic tools.

There are no new products in retail banking. So why is 'more complex than 2M words can address'?

It isn't.

'Expert systems'?

You don't have a clue re: what you're talking about.

New products are one thing. New money siphoning and laundering schemes are quite another, to say nothing concerning the business dynamics of capital markets. So 2 million pages is just a small start.

"There are no new products in retail banking."

Crazy claim.

"Crazy claim"

Your complete inability to invoke even one example underlines my assertion.

6. Is Chinese shadow banking dwindling?

Yes but how is that shadow social credit score coming? More interestingly, how do the two intersect?

The new credit system us both honest and anonymous. Each person keeps a private model of their deposits and loans. Our personal smart card tracks it as you spend. Your personal card, in your hand, is counterfeit proof and will, correctly, identify your credit score, when you wish it be known. But your score is tied to your thumbprint, no one need know your name or address, unless you volunteer it.

#3. I liked his line about not being a victim. Don't be a victim, be a survivor.

But did anyone else notice that he majored in psychology?

I did. And I thought it was interesting he didn't mention genetics as it relates to behavior.

But did anyone else notice that he majored in psychology?

So either he wanted an easy pass with plenty of pretty girls to chat up. Or he did not escape from that childhood entirely unscathed.

I think the latter is more likely.

They f*ck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

So either he wanted an easy pass with plenty of pretty girls to chat up.

You've confused the psychology department with what's left of sociology as a discipline.

1.On the other hand, Strictly for the birds?

The trouble with China's credit system is not the black list itself... I mean, there are black lists everywhere for people that have bad credit

The trouble is how pervasive bad credit seems to be in China.... which makes the state go for really radical measures.

In most countries, bad credit doesn't effect your ability to spend the money you do have on other things. This is a tighter level of social control than we see in the West.

"...which makes the state go for really radical measures."

It's an authoritative Communist government. That's what they do. Anybody that doesn't realize powerful Communists are, in general, bad people, is pretty much a useful idiot.

"Anybody that doesn't realize powerful capitalists are, in general, bad people, is pretty much a useful idiot". FIXED!

It's a pity that under 18's have to work in secret, under their parent's name these days.

4. The more rules there are the more people revolt. Good intentions but never good results.

Comments for this post are closed