Saturday assorted links


3. Surprised they let you bring in water bottles.

Wristbands? ;)

Оч хороший сайт, спасибо Вам за полезный материал

Well it is 6,300 years. Longer than pretty much all of recorded human history. So they will need to stay rehydrated. Denying them water bottles would just be cruel.

1. I dont think they make it 6300 years in a can. They kill each other 100 years out.

2. Separate North from South maybe.

3. Odd list but makes sense. I think we see a lot of farewell tours going forward.

#4: Weinstein is criminally underrated.

Eric Weinstein, who didn't have a podcast, anointed himself as part of the Intellectual Dark Web simply because Sam Harris and Dave Rubin each interviewed him one time based on his brother Bret's notoriety. Bret W. doesn't have a podcast either. Pretty funny.

Not sure "have podcast" is a precondition for membership, but okay.

It's a little more substantive than Weinstein calling up Sam Harris and saying he is Bret's brother and a mathematician so "Can you interview me?" then calling himself part of the Intellectual Dark Web after that achievement. How does being a guest on two shows qualify someone. Same goes for Bret.

Here is a post from Tyler about Eric Weinstein:

"I would say this: if you wish to sit down and chat with someone, and receive new and interesting and original ideas, Eric is one of the most “generative” people I know, easily in the top five or higher yet. And I know a number of very smart others who would concur in this claim. Quite simply, that is the source of Eric’s influence and semi-fame."

Yeah, and Eric Weinstein works for Peter Thiel who Tyler said "is one of the greatest and most important public intellectuals of our entire time."

Anyway, the source of Eric Weinstein's semi-fame is that his brother received semi-fame after settling a lawsuit with Evergreen College and then was interviewed on the popular Dave Rubin show in July 2017 and on the really popular Joe Rogan show in October 2017 (which didn't go very well...). Eric then says he is part of the Intellectual Dark Web, a phrase he came up with, and told the NY Times that he is part of that group so got the lead photo in the May 2018 article.

Awesome self-promotion despite just being a guest a couple of times.

I'm tired of "smart" guys who are known for sounding "smart" but lack actual life achievements that warrant such labels. Phrasemakers, thoughtleaders, and other talking heads belong very much to this group.

Seems as if half the posts on this blog are about such "smart" people.

I listened to more Eric Weinstein:

To Dave Rubin: "Neither one of us nor I wanted to become public figures."

Dave Rubin, 10 minutes later: I remember it was 2 or 3 years ago that you messaged me and asked if we could jump on Skype. I had no idea who you were, but I googled you and you seemed like a smart guy, so I said sure."

Sam Harris: " I remember you emailed me (right as Harris's show started) and you asked to come on my show."

Eric sure knows how to eschew publicity...

I found the twitter thread rambling and a bit of a word salad. Can you say in a few brief sentences why Eric is an important person to follow? I'm not doubting I just don't know the guy. His Wikipedia entry was a bit sparse.

"if you wish to sit down and chat with someone, and receive new and interesting and original ideas, Eric is one of the most “generative” people I know, easily in the top five or higher yet" - Tyler

7. Solve for the equilibrium? would probably be more accurate to say, then along came Obama. The real relative drift for Italy began around 2008, when it began to fall from well above the EU average to below that dismal mark. Other than for Germany and Poland, it is not clear that the EU has been anything but a lead weight on member nations.

While I am by no means an expert on Italy, to me it looks like Italy had some fundamental problems, which an EU boom masked for awhile, until it didn't. Maybe the EU contributed to short term problems by fueling some bubble-like activity, but I don't think the EU is THE problem for Italy. I doubt it even caused net harm.

I am no expert either but I am still curious. When I see Austraila growing at increasing rate relative to the EU and I see the steady performance of non-EU member states, I can't help but think the EU has not been a boom and has likely been a net loss for members other than Germany.

"it would probably be more accurate to say, then along came Obama."

No, Obama didn't cause the Great Recession that lowered Italy's GDP per capita by 8% in 2008/2009 since he was in office from 2009.

From 1990 to 2000, Italy's GDP per capita growth averaged 1.5% a year.
From 2001 to 2007, growth slowed to just 0.4% a year.
From 2007 to 2009, GDP per capita fell 8%
From 2009 to 2017, GDP per capita growth was 0%.

The Obama time machine. You need to account for that.

A time machine requires belief in science.

No, for conservatives, Obama is a deity, an evil deity able to change history. For example, once elected, Obama's hatred of coal miners caused half the coal jobs in 1980 be wiped out by the time Reagan left office.

And even today, Obama controls Trump like a puppet, controlling his tweets just to make him look stupid, but only to the world and liberals, because conservatives can see past the facts into Trump's soul to see he's pure but controlled by the devil. He is so controlled, he can't say as Flip did, "The devil made me do it!"

In fact, some of we-the-Trumpers are mildly suffering winning fatigue.

Trump 2020!

If you say so. Lulz.

Regaring Italy they actually achieved positive real per capita growth of about 1% in 2017, The article is correct that some of Trump's policies, both regarding Iran and trade threaten that recent and fragile move.

As it is, I happen to know two economists in Italy, where I am right now, who were advising the Five Star Movement, now in the new government. However, they have both withdrawn fro doing so due to actions by the Interior Minister from the League Party, partners to Five Star in the government. The situation here is far from stable, and Trump's actions certainly are not helping, even if that article misstated past facts about Italy's poor growth record.

Still, it's a terrible, and obviously politically-motivated, headline.

It may be terrible, it may be politcally motivated but it also happens to be true.


Trump is responsible for the lack of economic growth in Italy for the last 18 years!!!

We’ve reached “thanks Obama” levels of stupidity.

Obama wasn’t responsible for the shit economy he inherited or the subsequent gradual recovery.

Trump sure as shit isn’t responsible for the bull economy now, but it takes a retard level of liberal to blame Italy’s economic problems on the orange buffoon smashing down Big Macs in the White House.

Try again Barkley et al.

It's reasonable to say that Italy has had a zombie economy for the better part of a decade but to push it over the brink something like say a trade war or trade sanctions, both of which are under the control of Trump, would need to happen. Trump is providing that push. Not saying he's totally responsible but he does bear some of the blame.


You seem to have missed that I agreed with Tyler that the article misstated recent Italian economic performance. Learn to read before you come on making silly statement.

I made the same point that Tyler did in my comment to the NYT article. Their editors refused to publish it.

You know two economists - real live economists? - associated with the Five Star movement? That is unexpected. This is how Wikipedia describes them:

The "five stars" are a reference to five key issues for the party: public water, sustainable transport, sustainable development, right to Internet access and environmentalism. The party also advocates e-democracy, direct democracy,[22][29] the principle of "zero-cost politics",[30] degrowth[31] and nonviolence.

So a whole bag of crazy - and you found two actual real economists who support that?

I note their policy of "degrowth". They should be delighted Trump is supposedly trashing their economy. It is in their platform!

So Much For Intelligence.

"Degrowth" not one of the five main planks. "Sustainable development" is, which opposes certain forms of growth, not unreasonable to oppose. The original planks were not unreasonable, if arguably too utopian. Anyway, one of the guys I know was Beppe Grillo's original top economic adviser and gave a set of seminars to new Five Star parliamentarians a few years ago when they first got into the parliament. However, he fell out with Grillo and the party awhile ago. The other one was advising them up until very recently, pulling out because of the behavior of the League interior Minister on immigration, not because of the behavior of the Five Star people, although their top dogs in the government are a very unimpressive bunch and look to get rolled by the League tough guys.

"The chances of success, according to Heritage, do not reach 100 percent until the initial crew has 98 settlers, or 49 breeding pairs." This is absurd. The chance of the spaceship itself making it there is far closer to zero. 98 rats breeding in an isolated cage for 6300 years are going to tear each other apart. Better to achieve near-light-speed travel.


Centrally planned multi-generational space exploration: 1260 Five-Year Plans

I think these calculations are silly. They can take huge numbers of frozen sperm and very large numbers of frozen embryos and defrost when they have need.

Yeah, good point. Anyway, by the time we get around to leaving for another solar system, we should be able to travel a bit faster than now. There's still a few places in this solar system that are worth trying. Certainly compared to a 6300 year journey.

1) Aren't we expected to cure ageing within a few decades? Maybe, it makes sense to wait a few decades before embarking on a 6300-yr trip. That also gives us a chance to improve our remote sensing capabilities so that travelers will know better what to expect.

In Europe 6300 years ago, no one was planning a multi-generational trip to America, nor even knew that America existed. Yet, somehow they arrived here anyways.

Thought experiment: Suppose we launched a new spaceship towards Proxima Centauri every 100 years. Which one would arrive first? The last 6300 years suggests that transportation innovation is faster than transportation itself. A century of innovation is worth more than a century headstart, maybe not every century but on average over many centuries.

"Aren't we expected to cure ageing within a few decades?"

And we always will be.

Another thought experiment: what about human conceptions of "freedom"?

Third- and fourth-generation descendants of those happy idealists who suited up for launch decades earlier will not necessarily enjoy the same appetite for experiential constriction and sheer boredom that a lifetime of creeping slow travel could do nothing to alleviate, no matter how many lifetimes of virtual realities they are able to live in along the way.

Occupants would certainly have to concoct their own polity along the way, and suicide could soon rival the popularity of a considered policy of ditching the original course altogether for other parts unknown or to attempt a vain return trip.

We should launch 98 eager volunteers ASAP just to test hypotheses. (Another: for whatever reason fertility counts alone could plummet by the end of the first millennium out. Other kinds of physical, mental, and psychic atrophy surely would lurk along the way.) Launched this year or next, or in the next two decades, I doubt they and their descendants would ever make it.

Earthlings are on a big space ship traveling through the universe right now. Nobody really knows where we, if there will indeed be a "we", will end up in 6,300 years.

A century of innovation is worth more than a century headstart, maybe not every century but on average over many centuries.

So you're saying the Great Stagnation is not over? I would disagree. We could send probes that are faster. But we won't. We won't even send robots much further than Pluto, if that.

We have reached peak human and we are not going to get any better.

7. Very good NYT piece on migration and border children. Applies economic reasoning, unlike so many other offerings in this area.

I'd say that the flood of illegal migrants is partial payback to the US for sponsoring the Drug War in the first place. Basically, we have created an economic incentive to sell drugs illegally here and these poor families are caught in the crossfire of the cartels, corruption and lawlessness that ensues. If we used a drug legalization model similar to Portugal, the migrant problem would slowly decline as incentives and addicts are removed from the black market.

I agree the drug war has been a big part of the problem mostly starting with the 1986 drug act pushed by Reagan. Even though it would cause some of its own problems, I think complete legalization of drugs is the only way forward in that it is the only to completely eliminate the economic incentives for drug trafficking. We had the same problem with Prohibition in the 1920s, which also proved a complete and utter failure. Drug criminalization is essentially Prohibition II, which is no more effective than Prohibition in the 1920's. Its time to end the charade.

No, it started with his war on commies, which included sponsoring right-wing terrorists, political power by death squads. Given Congress refusing to fund military coups, the CIA innovated and funded attempted and successful coups by selling drugs in the US and Europe.

The irony is invading a nation to depose the dictator who the CIA helped gain power by the drug trade into the US in order to prosecute him for selling drugs into the US.

Trump already is the best US president since Reagan. But, that's like comparing LeBron James to a girl basketball player. Ronaldus Magnus' only mistake was signing the 1986 Illegal Immigration Amnesty bill, which your 2018 traitors want to resurrect, with the same motives - ten-times more illegals. Look it up.

I'm old enough to remember that it was Harry S Truman and every US president, with the possible exceptions of the Carter and the Watergate Congress, since that pursued the official foreign policy of containment of communism and The Cold War. In fact, your Saint John F. Kennedy and Saint Robert F. Kennedy authorized the Bay of Pigs action, but lost nerve at the last minute. Karma got them both.

I could go on, but it would be wasted.

Don’t give Carter a break. He was the clown that engineered the finishing touches of the Iran debacle that haunts us to this day. That was the policy implemented by our deleriously insane overthrow of a budding Iran democracy with the Shah, the puppet of the US until Carter crashed it in the Iranian desert and left our Embassy hostages hung out to dry. I’m sure you’d agree that mess was Carter’s, not Reagan’s. In fact, it was the Dulles brothers (Secy State and CIA Director) that gifted the US that debacle, along with Guatemala, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs and others too numerous to mention. One of the best books I’ve read on that era is, “The Brothers” about John Foster and Allen Dulles by Stephen Kinzer. It’s no wonder the rest of the world doesn’t trust us.

Although Reagan had some great qualities, the Iran Contra affair comes to mind as a bit of a mess. Just another extra-legal destabilizing adventure of the US chasing ghosts and goblins. That one didn’t end well for anyone concerned either.

Kinzer is another parlor pink with an axe to grind. Iran was not a "budding" democracy - Mossadegh in fact had lost the support of virtually all segments of Iranian society including the Mullahs and was had fixed the election so he could not be voted out - and the Shah was not an American puppet. He was, however, very good for Iran.

Iran is in the mess it is because of the Iranians. Not the US.

Blaming the Dulles brothers for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam is a way of deflecting blame from Kennedy. But the buck stopped with him. He gutted the Bay of Pigs and denied them proper air support. He then sold out Cuba in the most pathetic US Defeat of the Cold War with the Missile Crisis. But he did do the right thing but helping Vietnam.

I agree "budding democracy" may be a bit of a reach. The point is that the US engineered the takeover by the Shah, a dictator, in a country that had at least nominally accepted democracy. Mossadegh was advocating nationalization of its oil industry, which the US and Britain decidedly did not want to happen. The Shah, of course, perpetuated the private ownership of its oil wealth as we expected.

Whether Moslems in Iran would or should accept our form of democracy is none of our business. The fact that we have been dealing with the fallout since Carter left our staff at the US Embassy is sufficient evidence that our policy of intervention there has been a spectacular failure. Like Vietnam, with 50,000 dead Americans and nothing gained, its proof that intervention to force countries to share our values for our "benefit" is simply bad policy.

If there is one trait of the Trump Administration that is hopeful, it's that it does not appear inclined to repeat our past mistakes in this regard. Hopefully, I'm right about that one. Like the rest of this thread, I'm convinced that the migrant issue is a result of our cumulative bad decisions regarding intervention and drug policy. I believe we could gradually solve the so-called "migrant crisis" by simply treating addicts as human beings with a disease and shifting our illegal interventions to openly supporting countries we believe could be peaceful partners.

The Portugal model will just give us more homeless drug addicts on the streets. Who is going to hire these drug users? How will they make a legal living? Portugal had to give a minimum income to their drug addicts. Do you then sterilize the drug addicts or do you let children grow up in these drug communities? The communities in America that have played with the idea have not had good outcomes.

The flood of immigrants to the United States is because Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela are all shitholes.

According to the 2010 census over 19% of United States adults are foreign-born, a rate not seen since before WW I. Almost 25% of children under age 18 are born to foreign-born parents. We are a very open country. But today the social safety net that we provide cannot support the number of poor immigrants that are entering.

People are gaming the system and the NY Times talking to a few people does not give a truly complete picture of what is going on. If they wanted asylum why not stop in Mexico? Because they are mostly economic refugees. Why not ask Canada or Europe how many they want to take in? Russia has a declining population.

We do not just allow entry to people fleeing a bad situation, we also import many of the problems these countries are facing.

There’s a flood of Venezuelans and Brazilians moving to the USA? I thought it was mostly Mexicans, Central Americans, South Asian, and Chinese people who were moving to the USA.

Sorry for being unclear. They are flocking to America because Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela suck.

But how many Brazilians and Venezuelans are coming to the US, or are already here?

I'm not too concerned about immigrants coming to our country if they're here to work legally. Let's face it, our country needs and is currently using their services, legally or illegally. If every illegal immigrant left the country, we'd probably see a significant downturn in our economy. We need to figure out how to better integrate them legally in a way that ensures they are productively employed and paying taxes, something we are failing to do. Trump putting this on center stage in the media is a good thing in my view. The laws need to change.

Due to our drug laws and other bad policy, migrants stopping in Mexico is the rough equivalent of a death sentence and/ or slavery. Cartels own that space in Mexico. I say we should stop feeding the cartels by changing drug policy. Treat addicts as the humans with a disease and treat them instead of taxpayers paying $30-40K per year to house them in prisons. The opioid epidemic is a product of bad drug policy and out own homegrown cartel known as Big Pharma. We need to stop the flow of opioids from this cartel and change our drug laws to stop the incentives to keep people addicted. The best way is provide drug treatment of addicts and legalize regulation of marijuana. The cost would be far smaller than our current approach of leaving addicts on the street and in prisons.

Yes every drug addict I met is a rational actor seeking to maximize potential.
Mankiw is kind of crazy. Talks about all the males missing from the workforce because our economy no longer employees or uneducated low skilled workers, but more immigrants will help the economy

We are reaching a tipping point with the entry of more immigrants. Assimilation will be impossible and who we are as a country will change

That's exactly why our drug policy needs to change. We are encouraging illegal migrants to come here, out of desperation, because the Drug War is creating unbearable living conditions in their home country. We are subsidizing terrorist cartels to sell us drugs. We could stop the drug sales and cartels with a stroke of the pen.

Addicts are a separate but related problem. There is no one more irrational than an addict. Their entire focus is on feeding their addiction. Of course, this irrational behavior also goes for the suburban housewife and other normal citizens needing pain relief who get addicted by our homegrown cartel; Big Pharma. That's why about 50K a year succumb to overdoses, with heroin and fentanyl supplying the finishing shot. Treatment without fear of a $30-40K/ year prison sentence would bring more of these people back into society. None of them wants to be addicted and treating their problem as a disease, which it is, seems to be a more humane and far less costly approach. Big Pharma, the courts, police, politicians and everyone else that profits from their suffering won't be advocates of this approach. But if we could get all of the drug cartels out of the business of addicting these people, including Big Pharma, we would be well on our way to a less deadly and costly system.

Here's an interesting article from a non-profit organization on the issue of opioids and marijuana:

Prison, homelessness, loss of family, etc does not stop drug addicts but setting in a circle solves the problem

One of the best books I've read on the subject is, "In the Realm of the Hungry Ghosts", by Gabor Mate. You're right, none of those conditions or approaches are effective with addiction. That also goes for tobacco, alcohol and food addiction caused by sugar, animal products and processed foods, compliments of the food industry. We have 2/3 of the population obese and overweight due to food addictions of various sorts. These overweight conditions cause a host of chronic illnesses, pain and death, far more so than all the illegal drugs combined. Instead of singling out illegal drug addicts for "special treatment" at a horrendous cost to taxpayers and death to hundreds of thousands in drug supplying countries, I think we should begin to look at all addictions the same way (a disease) and get the cartels, including Big Pharma and the food industry, out of the business of killing people. It would save money for all taxpayers and be more humane to the addicted, including my big fat cousin and uncle. Pretty simple win/ win proposal. And we could do it with a few strokes of a pen.

Don't get me wrong, getting those strokes of a pen will mean going up against the grand daddies of all cartels, Big Pharma, and the American food industry. They'll be drying up every ink well in the US to keep it off the paper. Maybe those are the bogeymen we are really afraid of. Our own drug suppliers.

When the obese start breaking into bakeries and shoot each other over donuts I will accept your analogy

Agreed. Just raise the price enough and deny them access to the target of their addiction . You’ll have them climbing through your windows in no time.

"I'd say that the flood of illegal migrants is partial payback to the US for sponsoring the Drug War in the first place. Basically, we have created an economic incentive to sell drugs illegally here and these poor families are caught in the crossfire of the cartels, corruption and lawlessness that ensues."

Canada's crime rate has fallen steadily since the US war on drugs. And Brazil, which is off the drug route to the US, has become even more violent than Mexico and Central America. Same with Argentina and Venezuela. They didn't collapse because a Wall St broker likes to get high.

The elect stupid people with stupid policies, just like Mexico is about to do with the socialist loon now leading the polls.

Perhaps it's something to do with Catholicism leading to statism, whereas Protestantism produces more personal responsibility and individual liberty. Who knows. But it's certainly more complex than blaming US drug policies.

Canada never participated significantly in the War on Drugs (to their credit). It was never a major drug channel to the US and always had insignificant drug violence compared to Mexico, Colombia and the US. I’m not sure why Canada’s violence has dropped (probably demographics), but it has nothing to do with the Drug War.

I agree there are cultural differences in Latin America, but blaming Catholicism for the violence makes no sense. Churches are one of the few stabilizing influences in those countries and it’s simply being overwhelmed.

The collateral destabilizing effects of the Drug War crosses all the borders you mention. None of those countries ever had a stable government and the Drug War is a significant, though not the only, destabilizing influence. I would add a very long list of historical US interference in Latin America, beginning with the Mexican- American and Spanish -American Wars, as another significant destabilizing influence. Installing dictators and imposing military might there has proven to be a continuous disaster... just like Vietnam, Iran and Iraq.

Your contention is that the Mexican and Spanish American wars are a (the?) reason Latin America is a shit show.

This is parody? Or just ignorance of the history of Latin America prior to either of these wars?

Mexico was an ungovernable mess long before slavery loving southerners turned their eye southwards.

One of the reasons the war was so easy for the US was that México was and always has been a failed state.

FYI they blame the La CIA (pronounced silla) for the weather. You would fit right in.

So, these wars were not destabilizing (losing half your country (Mexico) and successive imposed dictatorships until Castro (Cuba)? If they were stabilizing, the results of our success there isn’t very encouraging. I find it difficult to sympathize with an unprovoked imperialist slave-trader invasion against an otherwise peaceful country in any era. Let’s just say we wanted the Southwest more than they did after we stuck a gun to their head. Even U.S. Grant described it as a complete travesty in his memoirs and he was there with Robert E Lee. The Bay of Pigs and years since in Cuba was payback for the Spanish- American debacle and it’s still going. I can’t think of a single stabilizing effect of either war, but correct me if I’m wrong. I’d love to be wrong on this one. The words “gunboat diplomacy” come to mind for the rest of Latin America since then.

Read Ron Charnow's excellent bio of Grant.

Pull out a HS US History book written before 1980, and look up "Roosevelt Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine." I think it's more complicated. And, the S-A War was, like all wars, a result of hysteria: "Remember The Maine!" and the US Army/Navy assisted the Cuban independence movement gain independence. That they couldn't run with it wasn't Roosevelt's and Wilson's faults.

Right. They could have stopped after whipping the Mexican Army along the Rio Grande. Re: Mexico destabilized by losing Texas and California: Until US Americans moved in, both were relatively empty of non-Native American populations.

This latest (many more to follow when wanted to trash Trump) fake illegal immigrants human catastrophe (whew) does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you?

If they are fake illegal immigrants, then they must be real immigrants. Logic.

I have Charnow's book on my list. I've heard it's a good one.

I don't view illegal immigrants coming to our borders as a crisis. You're right, the drama imposed by the media is all choreographed and is nothing more than business as usual for the past 30 or 40 years. Their hatred of Trump is actually helping to expose our stupid policies. I also don't have a problem with Trump attempting to enforce our insane immigration laws. He's doing an excellent job of exposing these laws for what they are, just plain stupid. I do think that the money he targets to "build a wall" would be better spent on reforming our drug policy and unwinding our interventions of the past. I'd rather stop the migrant flow from those countries in-country instead of at our borders. It's much more efficient for US taxpayers and humane to the migrants to boot.

On the subject of Wilson, he was the racist mastermind that engineered our intervention in WWI and then walked away from a disastrous Versailles Treaty and participation in the League of Nations. Without a doubt, those decisions helped lead to Hitler and WWII. You can also attribute the Middle East partitioning and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire for the benefit of Britain's access to its oil interests to that episode. We now have a multitude of unstable fiefdoms and violence in the Middle East thanks to Wilson's vision. Of course, virtually all US Presidents and government policy since that time have worsened or done little to stop the madness. Maybe they tried, but they've failed miserably. Some bad decisions take centuries to unwind and those, I'm afraid, fall into that category.

At one time illegal marijuana grow and sales to the US was the largest industry in British columbia, larger than forestry.

There was very little enforcement of the law here, in fact if you were caught you would pay a fine that was far less than the GST or income tax.

It typically is not violent, likely due to sampling of the product.

And likely the access to the US market was less fraught and dangerous.

Exactly. Canada was never had a major pipeline of hard drugs or an unstable government. The weed pipeline was a minor nuisance and the US was to busy with the “big fish”. We had plenty of our own MJ grow here too and now, thankfully, the states are finally stopping that madness with legalization. Margins are not adequate, when the supply is legal, to sponsor a cartel. Hopefully, in a few years, that chapter of the nightmare will be over. Big Pharma, our own homegrown cartel won’t go easy, though, with the opioid epidemic.

Okay, now you’ve changed your argument. Initially, you said migration was due to the US drug war, which created a drug pipeline that led to corruption and lawlessness. Ensues, was the word you used.

I said bad governance, or culture, is the cause, as it is with non-drug exporters like Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela; who would also be sending millions of people across a shared border with the US if they could.

Canada - a drug exporter - has good governance so no descent into mass emigration.

But now you’re citing bad governance as a cause. And here you are right.

More succinctly. The common denominator for Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela is culture and bad governance, not drugs or the US drug war. Mexico and Canada both export drugs but don’t share a problem with instability and emigration.

I already agreed above that all of those countries never had stable governments. I indicated that the drug trade and our historic interventions of those countries have been destabilizing. The cartels in those countries due to the economic incentives created by US black market demand continues to corrupt those governments and kills hundreds of thousands of people in their efforts to corner the market. Pretty simple. The question is how to fix it.

Btw. I was curious about the actual supply of weed to US from Canada. As expected, it’s pretty small, about 2% of MJ seizures. Interesting CA government report if your interested:

James thinks you’re making his point when you’re making mine. BC was generating billions from weed and inflated US prices but people in Vancouver aren’t paying coyotes to get them to Seattle.

Drugs may be a symptom of a crappy country but it’s not the cause.

Mexico is about to elect a president who resembles Hugo Chavez, and they would likely do that with or without a drug problem.

Interesting article on the disappearance of the 41 Mexican students killed by the cartel. I think this summarizes my thoughts on how the drug trade destabilizes weak governments like Mexico.

James McNeill - June 23, 2018 at 3:10 pm 41

Canada never participated significantly in the War on Drugs (to their credit).

They did one thing - they busted Keith Richards for heroin use in 1977. They were tough - so tough that in fact Richards fled to the US. However the US told him that if he continued to use they would deny him a visa.

Richards says he never used heroin again.

Zero tolerance does work.

"Zero tolerance does work."
Sure that's what they said about Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

Mr. Richards has acknowledged his continued use of hashish. Apparently, the zero tolerance policy isn’t working for him after all. And thanks to Big Pharma and our drug policies, it’s not working for the 50K killed in the opioid epidemic either. To say nothing of the tens of thousands of Latin Americans killed each year due to the drug trade. And let’s forget about the billions spent in law enforcement that doesn’t work and hasn’t since the Drug War started.

#1 is silly. Robert Forward once said in a presentation over 30 years ago that you do not attempt to go to the stars until you develop the propulsion technology to get there in 40 years or less. This makes it so that you do not miss out on too much in case the boys back home develop warp drive during your crossing.

“13/ We even call these things learning disabilities, when, in fact, if you look at the learning disabled population, they VERY OFTEN are the most intellectually accomplished members of society.”

Very often?

Lol, no. Comment #13 is when the signaling train goes into high gear and the thread goes off the rails. Entirely.

4. Still not sold that Eric Weinstein has anything to say. If he published something I would read it though. Interviews and videos are not the best way to convey information

4. Still not sold that Eric Weinstein has anything to say. If he published something I would read it though. A blog maybe.

What if he published it twice? Would you read it both times?

#1. Things are not as they tell us. For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky

3. Art Garfunkel.

Do not attemp to enter the event with an Art Garfunkel

Aren't we supposed to hate on Paul Simon for culturally appropriating African music?

Damn, I thought I got this one first, then noticed this comment further up.


4. Does Weinstein have any original ideas or is he another Jordan Peterson or worse, another shill for elites? I've not found one interesting idea from him that I haven't heard from somewhere else.

Aren't we supposed to hate on Paul Simon for culturally appropriating African music?

We should hate on Paul Simon for burying the legacy of his early, and unusually prolonged period genius in a mountain of mediocre or worse (possibly stolen) songs. Also for the busy percussion that overwhelms the vocals and makes his later work -- even if it were possibly good -- unlistenable. Also for being pissed at the failure of "Capeman", and not understanding that social commentary is actually his weak point ("7 O'Clock News/Silent Night", "A Church is Burning")

Of course, we should also hate Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Bob Dylan, and so many other great songwriters for not quitting when they were ahead, and flooding the market with mountains of perfectly awful music through the 70, 80s, 90s and 00s, and beyond.

I mean, imagine coming to Paul Simon's music starting with his most recent album and working backward -- you'd think his admirers were mad. This goes double for Bob Dylan.

Paul Simon should have quit after "Graceland". And for that matter, Irving Berlin should have stopped with "Annie Get Your Gun".

3] ….Art Garfunkel

The NYT piece on migration and border children is remarkable because it is a case of the NYT blowing the whistle on itself.

There are 2 stories. The first is that Trump was making sense when he supposedly referred to "s*hole" countries. Listen to a worker at a migrant shelter: “Why would you undertake such a dangerous journey?... When you’ve got a gun to your head, people threatening to rape your daughter, extort your business, force your son to work for the cartels. What would you do?”

But that sounds too formulaic to ring true. It is what immigrants have been coached to say -- a 21st century version of "open sesame."

The more likely story is that -- with the connivance of the posh dailies -- Americans have been victims of a colossal con. Most migrants are economic refugees who want to get to cut in line. Take this case from the same article: "“This is the reason I brought a minor with me,” said Guillermo T., 57, a construction worker who recently arrived in Arizona. Facing unemployment at home in Guatemala, he decided to head north; he had been told that bringing his 16-year-old daughter would assure passage. He asked that only his first named be used to avoid consequences with his immigration case. 'She was my passport,' he said of his daughter."

That -- tricked out with misleading photographs -- suggests that we have been played like a violin. Who exactly is it that has been using kids for their political ends?

Please read this article on the missing students killed by the cartel in Mexico. Over 1/2 million protesters, corrupt investigation by the current administration and 41 dead and missing students would suggest the stories are very real and true. It's hard to fathom, but true.

When you say “we have been played” I assume by “we” you mean the TDS hysterics in the media et al? Because most people weren’t buying it, as the recent Rasmussen poll showed. Even better example of fraud is the little girl on the Time mag cover who was not separated from her mother, and in fact said mother kidnapped her from her father and 3 siblings who were perfectly happy in Honduras, paid $6K to the cartel for a dangerous journey, and has previously been deported in 2013. Talk about the TDS crowd choosing the right bullet to shoot themselves! You can’t make this stuff up!

3. Paul Simon concert - There is not one item on that list I would bring to a concert. People are so stupid they must be told these things.

#2 would have been a good headline about Italy's Trump, namely Berlusconi.

#1 The far harder part than maintaining a not hopelessly inbred population is maintaining a sufficiently diverse set of skills and aptitudes to conduct an advanced technologically advanced civilization when you arrive. Estimates of the population needed to do that is mostly the province of economics and tends to be a carefully selected 100,000 or so, not 100. And, if your arriving at an exoplanet 4.2 light years away, you can't get by with the primitive hunter-gather or subsistence farmer populations that endured similar population bottlenecks in Earth's history.

Comments for this post are closed