Wednesday assorted links

1. “…crypto celebrity John McAfee has long been a promoter-for-hire, saying in March that he charged $105,000 per [ICO-promoting] tweet.

2. Lindsey Lohan chooses Dubai (NYT).

3. Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie R. Jones, and Sonya R. Porter summarize their results on race and economic opportunity.

4. The Red Hen and the Resistance (NYT, Douthat).

5. Jean Tirole on antitrust and tech.  Whether or not you agree with everything he says, it is striking how much more intelligent his discussion is than what you will find in traditional MSM, even the higher-quality outlets. And it is not excessively technical.

Comments

1. this sounds like orange doritos in donald drapers diapers

#4. Even Douthat admits Slanders is a bald-faced liar.

You girls aren't going to be happy when millions of real Americans commence to play by your rules.

"My" rules? Republicans hold all the levers of power. These are "your" rules.

Can't you read?

I meant the rules applied by the owner of the Red Hen to act out on a woman and her family/friends.

Karma, yesterday afternoon there was a demo outside the Red House. “Mary Harvey-Halseth, 64, carried a sign that read ‘Red Hen Needs Diversity Training’ that she’d made after buying craft materials at CVS.” You lefties tend to be provided preprinted signs.

So you want everyone to attend diversity training now??? Good to know.

Apparently, I need to spell out such dings.

The DT reference was a snide joke that you missed. "Diversity" only swings your way. You also missed the CVS reference that most lefty pseudo-demonstrations are "astro-turf."

Partisan gotta partisan. You're a good team player "Dick."

So Republicans ARE demanding to be the new protected class. Diversity training to help Hispanics understand people that just think they are too stupid to be allowed to become Americans. Can't we all get along?

A lot of recent comment threads have reminded me of this article, which shows how little the 2 tribes actually even understand about the other:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

I've leaned Republican most of my life, and spend most of my online time in right-leaning forums. So I think I understand Republicans pretty well. Heck, I used to make many of the same arguments as present day alt-right types on public accomodations laws and affirmative action. My positions have evolved away from that. But I think that having actually been there and held those positions, I understand the mindset of the people I am now arguing against pretty well. And having lived in Republican circles half my life, and observed their responses to various issues, I have become convinced that yeah, a lot of them really are just the closeted bigots that a lot of Democrats believe them to be.

Yep. Racist. The last argument when you've got nothing left.

I actually do agree with most of your positions when you are not arguing race issues, but you turn a lot of non race things into race arguments.

And, no, Republicans are asking for protection. They are just pointing out the left's hypocrisy.

If you haven't noticed the number of people around here claiming black people are genetically stupider, then you aren't paying much attention. And if you don't think that is racist, then you have a strange definition of racist.

You mean the studies indicating that blacks have a lower average iQ than whites, Asians, and Ashkenazi Jews are racisgbh

There are differences in groups and stereotypes have been proved correct in many studies. It's not racist to consider that when talking about groups of people. What is racist is to apply those to an individual. Everyone should have the benefit of the doubt and be judged on their own merits. That's my feelings on racism. You can actually be fair to a person while not being intentionally obtuse when discussing policy.

There are a lot of people who go further than that. They say that using "cheap heuristics" such as average intelligence is morally permissible and should be socially acceptable because the cost of assessing people individually is too high. In other worse, that it should be ok to make assumptions about individuals based on group stereotypes.

Interesting. Is "TMC" Tyler Cowen, or someone else using his initials?

I read RD’s article to see if he provided any evidence of that claim and none was offered. I guess it is self evident to the Times readers and he didn’t want to waste words. The comments were just what you would expect from the Fake News addicts.

2. The Times has gone one better than RD.

His basic argument is that the White House press office defends the indefensible. That's easy to document:

Donald Trump made 103 false claims last week, shattering his dishonesty record

The Press Secretary has taken it on herself to deflect that, and not to help the President do better.

Your cite for 103 false claims doesn’t support that claim. There is a link to a record 60 (sic) made in one week in March. Among those is the following:

"I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow. They are doing a great job and have shown conclusively that there was no Collusion with Russia..just excuse for losing. The only Collusion was that done by the DNC, the Democrats and Crooked Hillary."
Source: Twitter

in fact: Nobody has conclusively proven that there was no collusion; special counsel Robert Mueller's wide-ranging investigation continues. That aside, it is simply nonsensical to claim that Hillary Clinton -- or the Democratic Party colluded with Russia. This accusation is based on the fact that the British ex-spy who produced a research dossier on the Trump campaign's alleged links to Russia, which was funded in part by Clinton's campaign, used Russian sources. This does not come close to meeting the definition of collusion, commonly defined as a "secret agreement or co-operation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose."

And

"I'll tell you we did a great job on the Olympics. President Moon of South Korea said, 'Without Donald Trump the Olympics would have been a total failure.' That's true. True, you know. Might as well say it. Nobody else is going to say it, right? Might as well say it."
Source: Pennsylvania rally for Republican candidate Rick Saccone

in fact: Moon did not go that far. He did say Trump had been a "very important factor" in the success of the Olympics. He did not say it would have been a total failure without Trump.

Thin gruel, I’d say, but you’re sort of credulous.

Your cherry picking does not impress me.

But we do have a serious problem.

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

ap·pa·rat·chik - a member of label analytics

#4: I would nitpick Sanders being a particularly good target of public opprobrium. I was pretty mad at the Bush Administration in 2004 about Iraq, but I didn't blame Scott McClellan for it! He was just a PR flack.

Scott wasn't asked to cover for dumb, obvious, lies. This was back in Sean Spicer's day, but consider the different between inauguration crowd size and the looming risk of weapons of mass destruction.

One was both petty and obviously false. The other was important and less obviously a lie.

#3: Our results show that the black–white gap in upward mobility is driven primarily by environmental factors that can be changed.

Finding #4: In 99% of neighbourhoods in the United States, black boys earn less in adulthood than white boys who grow up in families with comparable income.

Sounds like they've got their work cut out for them.

"Finding #3: Differences in family characteristics – parental marriage rates, education, wealth – and differences in ability explain very little of the black–white gap."

"when we compare the outcomes of black and white men who grow up in two-parent families with similar levels of income, wealth, and education, we continue to find that the black men still have substantially lower incomes in adulthood." Well I guess when you ignore differences in the population characteristics, your finding will be that those characteristics don't contribute to differences in population outcomes.

I understand he's trying to tease out a racial gap, and by comparing whites and blacks with both parents, you can try to measure that gap. That being said, I would like to see the gap between blacks with single parents and blacks with both parents. My guess is that you'll find a gap.

Agreed.

The Chetty et-al. findings re black men and women are mostly easy to explain. The black upward mobility problem is mainly genetic reversion toward the mean. The black-male income problem is mainly impulse-control/criminal and non-work propensities, which are sex linked in those of sub-Saharan African ancestry. The black-female apparent advantage is partly genetic propensity to work and partly favorable discrimination (affirmative action) which helps black women more than black men because of their willingness to work and lower propensity for crime.

I suppose this is an example of the anti-intellectual dark web?

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when the Federal gov and LBJ (not Long Binh Jail) spent close to $2 trillion in real, 2018 $$$ for the Great Boondoggle, er, Society and at the end of it the poverty rates were unchanged.

Apparently, eight years of Clintons and eight years of Obama and 40 to 70 years of total Democrat domination of inner cities and CA, CT, IL, MI, NJ, NY, etc. didn't help, either.

Some fights can't be won.

Your 6 states there account for 1/3 of US GDP.

Which really doesn't speak much to their governance. The US makes up a sizable chunk of world GDP. Does that make Trump right?

Most of those states have large pension liabilities and are losing people to other states.

Its always that way though. In any event, Dick was talking about LBJ. And Im saying LBJ didnt exactly strangle those 6 states.

After-transfer poverty rate declined substantially, I believe

Pretty sure the biggest drop in poverty was in the decade or so before the Great Society kicked in, and the figures have kind of bounced around since then.

1., 5., and time travel: I thought McAfee was already in jail (for fraud, murder, arson, and other crimes), but many believe he is just bonkers. He was departed from Guatemala back to the United States, where he has fit right in with the assorted hucksters in California. The cure for monopoly in tech is the realization that the hype is miles from the reality of tech. Tech hubris was so great they thought they could actually build a car, a reliable car no less, a reliable car that doesn't need a driver. Except for Elon Musk, who, like Mr. McAfee is bonkers, tech has conceded they can't build a car. Instead, they intend to install their software in cars built by reputable car companies, the software supposedly rendering drivers of the cars unnecessary. The experiment will likely hurt the credibility of both the hucksters in tech and the poor saps who agreed to let the hucksters experiment on their cars. With the nimble nine allowing Trump to decide cases for them, I don't expect antitrust laws to be a threat to tech, but I do expect that some day Americans will come to their senses and realize they have been bamboozled by the hucksters in tech. When the day arrives, sell; the market will solve the antitrust problem in tech. In the meantime, I would stay clear of those self-driving cars.

So I am a tech guy. Long-time software engineer. But I have always believed the Silicon Valley stuff is mostly BS. I mean, what's up with the Flying car/driverless car/jet pack/3D printer/Uber (taxi app)? Why keep acting like something really cool is just around the corner? Expecially when Mr. Physics says no? Are the business plans really just to take as much money as possible from stupid rich people?

4. I put the dividing line at public officials vs. private citizens. As representatives of the government, public officials are particularly morally culpable for the actions of the government they work for. They are collaborators. Private individuals who happen to be trump fans don't bear the same responsibility, a single vote being relatively worthless and all.
So go ahead and shun people who actively work in or for the Trump administration itself, just don't shun your next door neighbor who only voted for him.
There might be a blurry line when we're talking about ICE officers - just following orders isn't quite a good enough excuse.

Is anyone shunning the Obama admin for drone bombing civilians? If not, seems like its less about morals/convictions and more about political tribalism. So yes, lets keep up the shunning. It will end well.

I look forward to our new public policy of hounding public officials. I'm sure the Left won't be at all surprised when it gets applied to their public officials.

As a libertarian, I believe everyone working for the government should be shunned. They're all complicit in the violence inherent in the state.

Seriously, what if we had a society where people saw working for the government as shameful and demeaning? That might do a lot of good in terms of constraining the size of government and rolling in the regulatory state.

Because we have a society that wants government to commit violence on their behalf. But only for their causes.

Wait'll folks start shunning/harassing pro gun, small government politicians.

Who needs politicians to enact small government laws when you can just not have laws, or politicians?

Ask those who consider a small reduction in the rate of increase in government spending akin to starving Grandma.

" akin to starving Grandma."

You've got your meme wrong. It's akin to pushing Grandma off a cliff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U

"The Obama administration estimated in June 2016 that US drone strikes under Obama had killed 64 individuals conclusively determined to be non-combatants, in addition to 52 individuals whose status remained in doubt."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes

Yeah, but that Muslim ban....

You are aware that Trump has massively increased the intensity of the drone war and relaxed constraints on targeting right? Does this concern you or are you just engaged in whataboutism?

If they aren't then maybe they should. IIRC Rand Paul protested it rather vigorously on the Senate floor. And act of which I strongly approve.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1011597737870135296
"A restaurant owner declined to serve SHS.

In response Trump lied about the restaurant’s cleanliness and his supporters threatened violence against unrelated restaurants with the same name.

Today, the national press has us in a debate over whether liberals are uncivil."

Is this a new public policy of 'hounding' public officials? Perhaps but the more important new public policy is public officials leading packs of goons against free citizens who are exercising their rights to protest things they don't like.

I once heard of a thing called "Godwin's Rule."

If you think Border Patrol and ICE agents are akin to death camp guards or war criminals you have no concept of the natures of evil or violence.

If the camps involved don't actually involve ovens and gas chambers, and the guards aren't literally wearing jack-boots, there's no resemblance to Nazis, and anyone who thinks there's a similarity is cray-cray.

Yes, Hazel, anyone who is claiming that the ICE detention centers are remotely similar to Nazi death camps is, as you put it, cray-cray.

That's a trivial observation. And people making those claims are obviously delusional.

But hey, the "Godwin Rule" has been changed. It's now not a violation of the Rule because the Trump administration may well be an "embryonic form" of the Third Reich.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-godwin-godwins-law-20180624-story.html

ICE detention centers are camps with guards, where parents are separated from their children.
Nazi concentration camps were camps with guards, where parents were separated from their children.

What happens after that point does not negate the fact that two bear a certain resemblance, up until that point.

Well yes you got me there. They were also both located on Earth. So, clearly they are nearly identical.

+1

"well yes you got me there" - that was sarcasm.

"They were also both located on Earth" that was dry humor

"So, clearly, they are nearly identical" that was condescending.

Why does nobody say this: the Honduran government has never done much for Americans, the Americans have given, in the kindness of their hearts, to Hondurans, billions of dollars worth of kindness.

When was the last time you read a thankful note from a Mexican for the kindness America has shown by giving a home, an education, a safe neighborhood, to tens of millions of Mexicans?

Tens of millions. Not a few hundred, not a few thousand, not a few million, tens of millions.

The best end result is that Mexico learns, from the generous example of the USA, how to be kind to others, millions and millions of times. My Honduran friends agree!

I think that Mexico should offer citizenship to 10 million Bangladeshis, or Hondurans. Not tomorrow, today. Baja California should be, 5 years from now, majority Bangladeshi or Honduran, just as many parts of California are majority Mexican. If the Mexicans do this, then I will be very impressed with their generosity, and I will listen, with a fair-minded point of view, to the complaints of Mexicans who want to change our immigration laws in favor of Mexicans.

By the way, did you see those heart-tugging pictures of Hondurans at the southern Mexican border? Of course you didn't.

They aren't Mexicans anymore. They are Americans.

They aren't Mexicans anymore they are Americans.

Just like the ten million Bangladeshis and Hondurans who will be the majority in Baja California, the day Mexicans are as kind as Americans.

Did you see those heart-tugging pictures? do you even care?

Of course you don't care.

That is ok, almost nobody does.

Americans care about people in other countries, all I am saying - at least to bigots like you - is that Mexicans should care too.

They won't, and you will always be a bigot. Or they will, and you won't be.

Feel free to defend your view that Mexicans are not, and should not be, called on to be as kind as Americans, you may have the last word

Nobody said they are identical.
People are saying that there are certain similarities.
If you want to assuage people's fear that there is more than just a passing similarity between the actions of the Trump administration, and those of fascists, then it would behoove you to acknowledge that there are similarities and explain why those similarities are just superficial, instead of just calling anyone who sees them crazy.

Hazel, you were the one that used the term "cray-cray". Isn't it a little silly to object to it at this point?

Pro
ICE detention centers have a 180 day release policy, inmates have access to health & dental care and food. The detention centers comply with Federal BOP rules and regulations.

Contrast that with Nazi Concentration camps, where often children were not separated from their parents.

Hitler was a veteran, dog lover and a vegetarian.

Cons
Concentration camps were prone to starvation, working to death, gas chambers and cremation. Children, particularly twins, were subject to horrible experimentation, generally resulting in death. Inmates were subject to rape, beatings, mutilation and random shootings. Guards tended to be sadistic and brutal. The death rate was extremely high.

"1942

July; Average number of inmates: 98000; Death Cases: 8329; Percent: 8.5%.
August; Average number of inmates: 115000; Death Cases: 12217; Percentage: 10.62%.
September; Average number of inmates: 110000; Death Cases: 11206; Percentage 10.19%.
October; Average number of inmates: 85800; Death Cases: 8856; Percentage: 10.32%.
November; Average number of inmates: 83500; Death Cases: 8095; Percentage: 9/69%.
December; Average number of inmates: 88000; Death Cases: 8800; Percentage 10%."

Trump is neither a veteran, a dog lover nor a vegetarian and thus is literaly worse than Hitler.

Hazel, was that helpful?

OMG, JWatts, you got me. Trump is NOT WORSE THAN HITLER.
Congratulations!

That's right, even Godwin is waffling on Godwin's Law so he can get in on the virtue-signaling

Maybe Godwin doesn't want Godwin's law to become a shield that Nazis use to stop people from calling them Nazis.

Or maybe Godwin was incisive, then and now.

I suggest simply linking ICE to the BATF. The limits the GOP has put on the BATF to enforce gun control laws should be equalized to ICE.

Is that saying ICE = Nazis? The right wing here seems a bit shrill, unhinged and way too thin skinned.

Maintaining the integrity of the State's territorial borders is generally regarded as the government's prime directive. If the State is not going to maintain geographic borders, it effectively cedes its raison d'etre. So I'd say link ICE to the US military's defense of European, Asian and Middle Eastern borders.

Better yet, bring the troops home, and they can resume the military's traditional role as defenders of the nation's territorial redoubt.

We have an Army, Navy, Air force and now a Space Force to defend our territorial borders. ICE's job also involves such activities as raiding factories to look for aliens and demand work papers be shown. it involves arresting and deporting individuals who have lived in the US for years peacefully, and taking them away, including people who are married to Americans and have US citizen children, and people who have lived in the US for their entire conscious lives.

Not Nazi enough for you? it now involves taking children away from parents who arrive at the border claiming asylum. And we're not talking about people crossing the border illegally. We're talking about people walking up to Ports of Entry and saying "Hi. I would like to seek asylum, please."

you bigot, you are talking about people who consciously decided not to go to any of the 8 American consulates in Mexico, people who decided Mexico was not a place to seek asylum, because they know that Americans are nicer and more generous people than Mexicans, and the closer they get to America the closer they get to good people

your comment implies that you think Mexicans are worse than Nazis

you are a bigot

Maybe you are the person who is the opposite of "not Nazi enough for you"

I bet you voted for Obama

you did, didn't you?

Obama who rejoiced at the legality of partial birth abortion ....

come on, you are better than that!

and if you are not better than that, if you do support partial birth abortion, like poor cool Obama, please know this: I will listen to your reasons, and I will pray that some day you will look at the face of a fellow creature and understand that we are called to love each other, not in a generic way but specifically: the least of men is my brother, the least of women is my sister

Let us pray that some day Mexicans will be as kind to non-Mexicans as Americans have been, for so long, to non-Americans

can we agree on that, my friend?

Don't be bitter

you are not really a bigot at heart, I hope

Maintaining the integrity of the State's territorial borders is generally regarded as the government's prime directive.

Border integrity means control over the ports and the ability to repel invading armies. The idea that a nation is supposed to have essentially a Berlin Wall extending for thousands of miles is utterly foreign to US history and world history for that matter.

A Berlin Wall... Like Hitler did! Now I get it!

Boonton, if you want to argue from history, perhaps we can reinstate the way Europeans of the 18th century would've responded to a volkerwanderung. Hint: The words to describe it rhyme with ogram and enocide. I mean, if we're so keen on doing what people in the past did.

Let's be clear, these people did not have walls not because they were laissez-faire, but because they had the capacity to respond to mass migrations in ways which were distinctly unfriendly.

For those of us who do not want this, who think that it is right that this sort of mass violence is gone and should stay gone, a strong, perhaps figurative "wall" is perhaps a good way to resolve what our cultural ancestors would have wanted without enormous mass violence and oppression.

The income differential between Manhattan and West Virginia is pretty large. Yet I don't recall the Seinfield episode where the gang had to do their volunteer work spearing incoming hordes of migrants from WV trying to sneak over the GW Bridge.

I have a relative who works for the Department of Labor who, when some people in the Obama administration wanted to create a publicly accessible resource on the various departmental website showing who worked for those agencies with their contact info, was bitterly opposed to it because of the potential for this sort of thing; otherwise, she was generally pro-FOIA, sunshine laws, and all the other transparency measures we have had since Watergate. For what it's worth, all of our current government transparency laws are based on statute, regulation, and departmental norms, not the Constitution. Adopting this tactic would be a great way to have those removed and repealed. Sarah Huckabee Sanders could easily be replaced by digitally-created avatar, bearing a superficial resemblance to tens of thousands of people in face and voice, that announces government policy. Likewise, it would be a great way to encourage visible public officials, like police officers, public transit operators, and others to wear masks and bear no identifying information other than encrypted numerical IDs. Imagine going to your local post office, since USPS workers are complicit in mailing oppressive federal communications and receiving funds tainted by government evil, and all the employees are the Imperial Stormtroopers in Star Wars.

One could argue that that would be the point. By making government officials hide behind masks, they become impersonal and therefore more alienating to the population.

But when I say "public officials", I don't actually mean literally anyone that works for the government in any capacity. In this case, I'm talking about peole who work directly in the trump administration. Not your state DMV office, which is not directly controlled by the federal government anyway. More generally I would say that for a particular government that you want to protest, it would be officials specific to that government. I.e. If you are protesting the mayor, shun people who are mayoral appointees. If you are protesting the president shun those who are presidential appointees.

Again there could be some blurry lines in law enforcement. But I'm not saying shun every cop in the country, even those hired by the local mall.

Keep in mind the real story here is not some 'abuse' suffered by Trump's over pampered, over fed, sell outs. The real story here is the a President who leads a virtual lynch mob to abuse regular people expressing their free speech rights.

#4. In typical fashion NYT commenters are unable to distinguish on the axis of liberty (they are leftists due to this mental deficiency, see: Haidt). providing a normal accommodation to the public and participating in a special event. Sanders was looking for dinner, not a caterer for an event.

Distinguish between 'normal accommodation to the public' and 'participating in a special event'? So serving dinner to some people in a restaurant is 'normal' but a baker baking a cake is 'participating in a special event'? Are all there no 'special dinners' and no 'non special wedding cakes'? Who is a rogue commentator on a marginal blog to tell a restaurant owner that a visit by a very well known appointee of the President is not special therefore shall be only an 'accommodation'?

The difference is treatment available to everyone vs. special treatment. Consider a Christian baker who specifically does not offer gay-themed wedding cakes. If you demand that he make you one, you are asking for special treatment. Sarah Sanders just wanted what anyone else wants from Red Hen, a meal advertised on the menu. Still, I support the right of any business to refuse service to anyone for any reason - anything else is conscription. (I do understand the reason for public accommodation laws.)

Suppose instead of Sanders who wanted 'what anyone else wants' it's OJ Simpson? A noted child molester who is out on appeal? The head of the local KKK?

No one is saying Sanders wanted special treatment, but refusal of service is something retailers have always had as a right. Anti-discrimination law is a *limited* infringement of that right that only applies when the refusal is based on very particular troublesome categories (race, religion, gender, etc.). Beyond that we never agreed as a society to treat public accommodation as a mandate for cases where owners may make idiosyncratic or eccentric calls to deny service.

#3. Is this just confusing, misleading, or what?

"Moreover, black-white gaps in test scores – which have been the basis for most prior arguments for ability differences – are substantial for both men and women. The fact that black women have outcomes comparable to white women conditional on parental income despite having much lower test scores suggests that standardised tests do not provide accurate measures of differences in ability (insofar as it is relevant for earnings) by race, perhaps because of stereotype anxiety or racial biases in tests."

That "conditional on parental income" is doing a lot of work. Seems like a real rhetorical sleight of hand. So black women and white women from parents who earned e.g. $100K end up with similar incomes, correct? Presumably these women all had similar test scores and innate ability. But if the median black woman has a lower parental income, lower test scores and lower innate ability than the median white woman ...

I was confused. I interpreted it as saying that black women with the same parental income had substantially lower test scores.

The idea that "standardised tests do not provide accurate measures of differences in ability (insofar as it is relevant for earnings) by race, perhaps because of stereotype anxiety or racial biases in tests" is, I believe, provably false.

Hard to tell what's going on there without more information. They also say there is no difference in hours worked or hourly wages between black and white women. That's certainly a surprising result that I would like to hear more about.

It basically presents two possibilities:

1) Standardized test gaps and tertiary education gaps between White women and Black women have *no* content. Which seems kind of unlikely. Black women with a lower test score are just as capable as White women with a higher one, so Harvard should keep on doing what it's doing (Caltech is not, contrary to evidence, gaining a performance advantage).

2) Black women have more incentives to get and remain in high paying work, so negate much of the disadvantage they face in education. Black men somehow don't. You probably have to consider the family and life structures they *choose* as adults (relative to White equivalents) to test this (rather than only the ones they lived in as children).

They don't really test for 2) at all. It's probably politically too inconvenient to do so I'd guess. You've got to have some realism about what this two male, two female economist team is going to test for.

2. Is this satire? Google"yachting."

More than half of what you read on CDAN is inaccurate

So, almost half of it is. Also, it wasn't "sexism and scorn" that ended her career. It was a drug addiction that made her uninsurable.

4. If nothing else, good practical advice on the importance of "optics" for any modern protest movement.

Yeah, I'm reminded of California voters passing Prop 187 in 1994, which cracked down (unconstitutionally, the courts eventually ruled) on illegal immigrants' rights.

Latinos and immigrants' rights activists erupted in protests, and might have received a good amount of sympathy much as the separated children have in recent weeks.

Except the marchers made the incomparably stupid choice of marching while waving Mexican flags and wearing the tri-colors of Mexico.

Public sentiment soon enough turned in their favor despite that (and plunged the California Republican party into an eclipse from which they have still not recovered), but waving Mexican flags while marching down the streets of Los Angeles is not exactly a good way to sway the sentiments of anti-immigrant voters.

I'm not as enamored of Douthat as Tyler and some commenters are, but the point about optics is a good one. As Douthat says, be the people who are not permitted to sit at a lunch counter, or who are getting attacked by police dogs. Don't be the people waving Mexican flags or denying an ordinary dinner to a customer.

And also, don't be the people ripping babies out of mothers' arms.

#3. So in the 47 years since the Supreme Court imposed Griggs v. Duke Power on the nation, our ruling class has accomplished exactly nothing in attempting to impose racial income equality upon us despite trillions in self-serving, ruling-class aggrandizing, incompetent, corrupt spending on social welfare programs. And the best the superior ruling class can come up with is move blacks to South Dakota. We really need a better ruling class.

If the ruling class is actually ruling, then the number of blacks in South Dakota should be considerably higher than it is...no?

3. No mention of IQ (except tangentially in mentioning test scores). Since IQ and conscientiousness are likely the biggest factors driving economic outcomes in the US this seems like a huge oversight (or, more likely, an implicit understanding on the part of the authors that bringing up differences in IQ among races is likely to have large negative consequences).

IQ and conscientiousness are likely the biggest factors driving economic outcomes in the US

Sure, that's what makes America great, the people are smarter than others. The lower the GDP per capita, the lower the IQ of the population. What could be more obvious?

Which makes sense, right? I mean, look at the 10 lowest gdp per capita states.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita

That's a pretty racist comment. Mississippi may have the highest percentage of blacks and the lowest GDP per capita, but that's due to a host of reason. The biggest reason being no major metropolitan areas.

Also why % English early settlers is associated with lower GDP per capita on a county level. Less metropolitan. More concentrated in non-metropolitan south.

In the general case, Black people are never gonna drive a culture with much of what is driven by high IQ, high levels of technological innovation, or a political culture of high trust, and hence majority Black nations that are majority run are doomed to a kind of poor standard of living far from the world frontier of technological and political progress. (Majority run as opposed to functionally run by Debeers or smart minorities that capture the state, like the Guptas in South Africa or the Lebanese in Trinidad and Tobago.)

But for most jobs, they don't take particularly high IQ, and so there are still plenty of complementary jobs that Blacks can take within Western nations that pay well, and so they will mostly converge on average income.

(Similarly, while White nations are much more likely to converge on the world technological frontier, but if something odd happens like all your Whites go off and decide to be Amish, they are not going to magically going to be magically high GDP/capita "because IQ").

#4 - Do you believe that the primary qualification for prominent politicians should be personal physical courage and, preferably, a habit of mind that looks forward to physical confrontations? Because that's what you could end up selecting for.

Rush suggests that Trump nominees and their families -- e.g. Kennedy's potential replacement -- could face intimidation or the threat of intimidation

#5) Tirol gets some undeserved criticism on his latest non-specialists work, "Economics for the Common Good," the criticism focusing in on the volumes lack of central theoretical grounding. This criticism is unjustified. For once, it's great to have a volume including some great analysis of a variety of issue without having to over-theorize and concocting some overarching theory that is included just because of habit or tradition.

I don't mind Tirole's meandering thoughts, cause they are good thoughts. Theory can wait until we get it.

4. As some conservatives drift into quiet acquiescence it is important that people like Douthat state the truth in a straightforward way.

RD's piece is the usual op-ed thumb-sucking, but NYT photogs do have a gift for painting conservative subjects as odd, detached, off-putting ...

3. " Moreover, black-white gaps in test scores – which have been the basis for most prior arguments for ability differences – are substantial for both men and women. The fact that black women have outcomes comparable to white women conditional on parental income despite having much lower test scores suggests that standardised tests do not provide accurate measures of differences in ability (insofar as it is relevant for earnings) by race, perhaps because of stereotype anxiety or racial biases in tests"

This is very very politically correct. There is a big gap in test scores between blacks and whites. You may either attribute it to innate differences or due to cultural capital (I lean towards the latter), but why not acknowledge that. Instead these guys use outcomes to cast aspersions on the test scores, instead of facing the intellectual gap head on, and seeking a change in black sub-culture.

Outcomes don't reveal everything. Outcomes may be even good in part due to affirmative action measures, which whites don't enjoy.

Here's another good clip:
Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches – earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated.

IAT are complete vaporware:

https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/841997063965556736
https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/937279803115409408
https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/871780874282520578

Pseudoscience. IAT supporting a hypothesis says something negative about that hypothesis.

Google searches, well, maybe they show something, but the causality is an issue here. "Why Turk so evil?" probably would have trended bigly among Armenian web users, should we imagine the web have existed in the closing acts of World War I. Clearly we would then reason from this that this would have been a time when the bad Armenians began to hate Turks for no apparent reason!

#5, Economists have lots of interesting ideas but antitrust exists in the real world and its history is not very encouraging. Here in the US the history of government antitrust cases, in more recent times IBM & Microsoft, is pretty bad and in Europe the antitrust laws seems to be used to restrict competition by US companies and hopefully get a bunch of stuff for free. Would be more interesting if academicians payed more attention to how the world really worked than a lot of theoretical stuff.

#3 looking at the maps it seems to me that blacks do best in the old south. Which is interesting, I would assume that is because they are a larger part of the population. I've read that blacks are moving to Atlanta GA and the city is becoming the city of a strong black middle class.

Right-to-work laws and lower taxes favor minority employment.

What are you talking about. The south is full of red.
West Texas and Maine, maybe.

Without Florence King here to skewer the Red Hen that Resisted all by itself, the episode just seems kind of dreary. Ditto the Trump family's gaucherie. This should be such a fun time.

I could write a Flo imitation if you want. I'm a huge fan.

#5:

First, we need to reconsider our burden of proof in antitrust decisions. This is a delicate matter.

Consider the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram by Facebook. They were social networks, just like Facebook. They could have become Facebook competitors. But is there any evidence for that? Not really, as this is just a guess on what the future would have looked at in the absence of acquisition. The suppression of competition in the absence of data is hard to prove. My guess is that we should err on the side of competition, while recognizing that we will make mistakes in the process.

I really don't like the government being able to make people prove their innocence, at least not without a strong prima facie finding first. Especially not because the accusation may be hard to prove.

Comments for this post are closed