Saturday assorted links

Comments

4. Many of these look like class assignments or similar group cascades that give an odd title a win. That said, poor Delaware.

Newark here.

Seems about right given the recent reputation of our University.

High school reading, no doubt, which means they won't be read. That said, yay to Alaska!

"Washington

O Alquimista
Paulo Coelho"

May Impoint out that Mr. Coelho [Mr. Rabbit in Portuguese] is Brazilian and he who controls Washington controls America?

Bueno puente
part 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIdcm-Xtl38
part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xybsqI9rgsw

ok we apoligiize!!!

1. No. Government spending is a burden, all the more so when it blows stuff up. War never creates wealth.

3. Not sure but it looks like the fastest drop was in the early '90s. Afghan refugees returning after the Soviets left?

1. Fossil fuel industry is bad because it, like war, just blows stuff up and destroys capital leaving only great burdens on taxpayers, and never creates wealth?

Given all the coal mining in WV, et al, if it creates wealth, these would be wealthier than California and NYC, et al.

Ditto Texas, if not for all the military industrial complex built by politicians bringing home the bacon to get reellected, and in trade between States on splitting all the pork. Reagan's energy policy was devastating to Texas, and Oklahoma. Texas was forced to focus on the military industrial complex economy in the late 80s and 90s, while Oklahoma had little to fall back on. Clearly, mining fossil fuels has not made Oklahoma wealthy.

I grew up with the cold war driving many local economies, generally locked to the WWII industry boom spread around politically, often based on New Deal spread the pork policies.

I have watched the unwinding of that legacy in multiple communities as the military budget has been cut in half as share of gdp, and the cuts have been traded between states. BRAC was supposed to be objective, but the Blue States were more willing to trade military for other spending, and Red States willing to maintain their military industry in exchange for giving Blue States what they want.

California got prime real estate, Texas got to keep military industry and bases.

I grew up as my parents generation younger siblings and my boomer peers got the benefit if cold war huge standing army to get education, job training, decades of job networking advantages and hiring preferences, spread over all regions. Just as I stopped hearing coworkers talk of their military connections from the 60s to 70s, I see the problems in civil aviation for workers to replace my boomer peers training by air force, nuclear engineers to replace my peers trained by the navy.

WWII built lots of planes, but it was the cold war that built the jet planes which dominate commercial aviation.

In the computer industry, lots of work was driven by "military", which led to projects getting funded based on government demand from RFPs which took forever to resolve, often with no succsess, but commercial products resullted and ended up selling before anything was delivered to those RFPs, which was obsolete. NSA, DOE, were influences on security and super computers and especially massively parallel. The history of PGP is tied to the NSA and Clipper Chip and Reagan era controls on computer exports, including software.

The latter is rearing up in the Trump era with China, but Trump trying to prohibit China exporting its "munitions" tech. 5G is the new crypto.

The US lacks not only leadership in 4G and 5G because the military industrial complex was dismantled and blocked from directing the standards for US industry. Thus Europe took control, and then the Asian military industrial complexes in coopetition took control. European bzsed standards groups, a factoryless patent holder partnered with US chip designers and Asian fabs, and Asian factories define future 5G. Europe sets industry standards outside military, while Asia still sets standards for military policy like the US did until circa 1980.

The MIC was dismantled? What planet do you live on? Is it a planet where things cannot happen if the government doesn't finance it? Glad I don't live there.

(2) So, in other words, while Polanyi does not offer a uniform moral system that Hayek suggests is required by socialists, he believes such a uniform moral system exists and can be found by a deliberative process.

But as we know through all deliberative processes, compromise is necessary--which is just a nice way of saying a lot of people don't get what they want, in order to keep the peace.

So neither Polanyi or the author hint at the possibility that a uniform moral system may not be discoverable because it may not exist at all--and all that is left is the tyranny of the few over the dissatisfaction of the majority who may, in the end, want to make other choices.

I know for sure some of this is going far over my head.

...buuut isn't

> a uniform moral system may not be discoverable because it may not exist at all

that problem exactly the one that price systems and markets are made to address?

I don't see how some constellation of majority rules / minority veto long-form debate is going to reach a better conclusion than individuals and dollars.

I guess if you want to go off the reservation, you might imagine some grand ranked choice voting system, or voting with evenly distributed tokens, or some alternative system for discovering aggregate preferences, but I'm not sure that's in scope with what's being talked about here.

Quote: "that problem exactly the one that price systems and markets are made to address?"

No; price systems only discover price, and help downstream producers determine if it is worth their effort to supply up-stream producers. They don't arbitrate morality.

For example, a price system does not arbitrate against guns because a majority in a society may decide guns are evil. The price may wind up being high--because individuals in that society may decide their moral stance is not worth the high price of making guns. But it does not ultimately ban guns.

Quote: "I don't see how some constellation of majority rules / minority veto long-form debate is going to reach a better conclusion than individuals and dollars."

If we assume relatively free markets with competition, then the majority cannot force their views on the minority by telling the minority "you can't have guns, because we said so."

I understood you.

1. War is how inequality has been mitigated in Europe: the physical destruction of assets. A depression is how inequality has been mitigated in America: the destruction of the value of assets. They mitigate inequality because the wealthy own most of the assets. Now, a rational person would adopt policies, short of war and a depression, to mitigate inequality. Instead, since WWII we have adopted policies designed to maintain inequality. Is that the act of a rational person?

The rational act is to embrace inequality.

Or to deliberately start a war and depression. If you're committed to end inequality, that's the most rational way to quickly achieve it.

It's certainly the act of a rational person who has assets; and it's the rational act of a person who *wants* to have assets. It's like the difference between the US labor movement and everybody else's: American workers didn't want to destroy the system, they just wanted a piece of the action. They no longer have as big a piece of the action as before so need to triangulate, which to some degree they have done by switching to public employment.

Public Employment has bankrupted NY, CA, Ill, RI, NJ, CONN, and others to follow. Always look at the retirement costs, that's where the real numbers are, and by the way, every STate and local pension system goes thru Wall Street, they have to get 6% per annum, to keep it going, and they're still bankrupting States, but they're BIG time Capitalists, their whole retirement depends on it.

Public pension debt and the payments it requires crowds other useful expenditures. Each year CA is less and less able to fund essential infrastructure projects and other public goods in order to keep the pension fund from sinking. The payments from local governments - taxpayers - increasingly go to the pension obligations.

Basically, we're f*cked. I am hoping to sell and move out of CA soon.

Are you going to be mitigated up or mitigated down?

1. Interesting. I almost didn't follow the link, because I find the narrow question of growth from the Great Depression to the Postwar Boom a thing that happened once. One and done. Too from our modern economy or experience to be useful.

It is a bit more interesting that it is about government R&D, but that too is hard to translate into modern times, as the graphs show. My intuition is that more government R&D couldn't hurt much, and could help a lot. They've done it before, he said on the internet.

Ultimately though I appreciated the link through to No Great Technological Stagnation

I'm team no stagnation. We could optimize for growth, but no stagnation.

Limiting to US history, the Civil War and post war boom were tied to military spending driving lots of innovation. The US steel industry, as opposed to iron working, was driven by the military dependence on railroads, the army railroad corp, the drive to build rrailroadss west to support the military, the boom in California and points east.

And railroads were seen early in the Civil War as a GI Bill to deal with demobilized soldiers, but also an employer of soldiers.

Unfettered competition for government funds for building capital, plus Wall Street speculation left railroads a mess by 1910, so they were nationalized in 1918 for the war, and government restructured them, defined the standards they would use going forward, and for the next two decades railroads drove a big part of the boom in the 20s, defined by high exports of both consumption goods, grains, meat, etc, as well as capital goods to war torn Europe.

The depression resulted as much from Europe recovering its ability to grow and distribute food, and to produce steel and goods made from steel, thus no longer sending gold to the US to inflate the money supply and drive up farm and industry prices.

Its not the war itself, but the reaction to the war, in response to the war.

The wars in Afghanistan and two wars in Iraq had a limited response, mostly driving the boom in Virginia in the surveillance state. Chevy driving surveillance technology spawned a civilian growth industry.

Also, it was Iraq I that brough focus to civilian GPS because the limited products that used military tech which the military were opposed to use by civilians, spawned the 90s mapping and GPS industry. Of course, the military funded research in self driving tanks and humvees in the 90s. The kids competing under DARPA grants were founders of companies supplying stuff you use everyday to get around.

Before 911 there was limited commercial surveillance state business, but those businesses have been dwarfed by google, facebook, amazon. Ever hear of Acxiom? It was the evil FB of the 90s, collecting data on every American to predict what you buy, how you think, whether you are pregnant, getting married, divorced, have kids. Today, its a small player, having failed to tie into the military industrrial complex Cheney drove.

"Unfettered competition for government funds for building capital, plus Wall Street speculation left railroads a mess by 1910"

No it wasn't. The only part of the railroads that was a mess was the part subsidized by cronyists in thr USG.

Re your list of goodies: for every goody promoted by military spendings, others were held back. Resources got shifted around.

#1, if you look at the monotonic trend for GDP/capita, within the US, it's hard to make that case that WWII had an significant increasing effect.

*But*.... that's not the case in Europe (post-war GDP/cap did boom). Certainly, seems hard to make a good case that the war led to weakened gdp/cap (nothing in the US, while Trente Glorieuses sure beat the prewar trend).

Also consider that the war probably had some path effects in weaponry. Post WWII USA probably better equipped to defend itself.

Ultimately though, to consider war in terms of "Is it good for growth?" seems a question that it is unwise to reduce to immediate consequences. Were the American civil war and American war of independence and the Cold War good for growth? Directly, possibly not, measured by the rate of growth, year-by-year. But indirectly in the sense that they led to the extension of economic and political systems that were probably growth promoting, and prevented those systems from being extinguished ..... (Not sure that the AR was a sure bets in that regard either, frankly, but I present it as flag saluting Americans seem more likely to get the point).

Maybe Bellicist models for immediate consequences for growth work in the longer term, maybe they do not. But defense justifies itself in any case.

Corey Robin is poor fodder for the mind; his solution to people not having previously agreed on the values that underpin society is to declare that if they just all adopted _his_ values,...

1 - No, World War 2 got ride of the gold hoarding problem by France that caused the great depression, so economic growth rebounded after the war. But innovation in the aerospace for instance was likely retarded by WW2, and the view that Whitehall or Washington knew best was born during WW2 which eventually led to such monstrosities as Noxon’s pay restraint policy

2 - We never hear a clear articulation about what is supposed to replace neo-libralism. Can the answer really be state control of industries? How do they plan to solve the knowledge problem and the agency problem that have doomed such approaches in the past?

3 - Pakistan labourers are all over the middle east - I assume they are sending money home to their families and when they return they are able to bring new ideas and business contacts.

4 - Florida lives up to it’s stereotype - “Richman, Poorman”!

5 - No

6 - Not a big surprise - real estate lines are some of the most conservative parts of society - a lot of people are invested in keeping rich areas rich, and consequently poor areas relatively poor.

2 - We never hear a clear articulation about what is supposed to replace neo-libralism. Can the answer really be state control of industries? How do they plan to solve the knowledge problem and the agency problem that have doomed such approaches in the past?

Robin rather reminds one of Thos. Sowell's observation that the Anointed mistake intelligence for expertise and then mistake articulateness for intelligence.

So, France needs to be destroyed by war to drive US GDP growth?

"1 - No, World War 2 got ride of the gold hoarding problem by France that caused the great depression, so economic growth rebounded after the war."

France used its gold to buy goods from the US during and after WWI, and then once recovered its production stopped buying from the US, and then restarted selling high value French goods that the US paid for with gold, so France being pulled into war was to boost US gdp growth funded by French gold?

What about the British golld hoarding? It had more gold production capacity than France from its larger British Empire, including South Africa.

And the US had plenty of gold mining capacity, but US labor costs were far too high, because food and capital goods costs were too high due to exccessive exports to France and Europe.

FDR hiked the wages of gold miners from $20 to $35 an ounced produced to move farm workers to gold mining. US gold production doubled afted FDR hiked gold miner wages, until he ordered gold mines shutdown to free up miners to do farm work, factory work, or join the army.

"So France needed to be destroyed by war to drive US GDP Growth" - no the US should have just devalued the dollar against gold more.

#6 - NOT a surprise because of real estate value? Then you haven't studied urban planning - or didn't learn anything if you did. If in any way it is not a surprise it is because urban rail (sub, surface, or light) has a profound (positive) impact on building density and re-use. Use Houston as an example to examine the contra-case. Or any major city in areas served only by highways.

Not sure what you are getting at - my remark is that good areas of town generally stay good areas, and bad areas generally stay less good. Houston actually is a good example of this, you can have two subdivisions right next to each other, looking pretty much identical in most respects, but one subdivision is considered better than the other one, so house prices remain higher in that one, even though the obvious arbitrage is there. There are of course amenities (like schooling) that can explain some of this, but that is a circular argument, rich areas having better schools meaning they are richer. The reality is that house prices are "sticky" like many other prices - people just don't want to sell their houses for less than their neighbours, and any buyer thus inherits this logic.

#2: The aims of socialism as well as the costs of its achievement are mainly in the moral sphere. The conflict of ideals is one of ideals other than merely material welfare. . . . it is on considerations like those discussed here that we shall have to base our final choice.

Well, that's game over for neoliberalism, then, because the moral achievements of 20th century socialist regimes are simply inarguable.

I love pawky wit. +1

Was WWII good for economic growth ?
Probably.

Wars in general are good for economic growth. But NOT good for humans in general.
"economic growth" is not the standard by which decisions should be made. period.

What about cold wars?

Or wars on terror?

Very few people killed by the boom in the Virginia economy fueled by the Cheney surveillance state war on terror.

And the endorsement of the surveillance state by Cheney, Bush, Congress, spurred the private sector innovation in private for profit surveillance state in quest of corporate profit.

The surveillance state existed before 911, but it was constrained by fear of government acting on behalf of civil libertarians. Cheney and the GOP crushed the civil libertarians in their quest to get tge private sector to supply them with data Congress required government go to courts for, Congress unwilling to authorizse unlimited data collect by due process passing of laws funding unrestricted data collection.

Related are government wanting self driving weapons and much better navigation and surveillance remote sensing data available to buy as COTS products.

A parasitic 'boom' is no boom at all.

2: What he is describing is three wolves and a lamb deciding what is for lunch.

The problem with socialism isn't the morality, or intentions. It is the lack of limiting factors. Free markets work to the extent that they do when the competition limits by failure. Bad ideas are thrown out when they face the hard reality of the marketplace.

Socialism requires a religious attachment to the moral ideas. It requires everyone participate. It inevitably creates an apparat to administer the moral ideas, a group who are limited and contrained by nothing and no one. Bad ideas fail very badly because they are imposed and through extortion of wealth sustained until the failures are catastrophic.

The wonderful description of an assembly deciding the division of economic resources is different from the Homodor how? Because this time we will be nice about it?

Fixing inequality means making everyone poorer. Economic entities which reward all the things that in the end contribute to production and economic activity make people better off.

In this imaginary citizen assembly where half disagree, why not the radical idea that everyone can do what they want? If you want to get together half the population to advance some scheme, why don't you damn well get off your lazy ass and do it and leave everyone else alone? I know why. The answer why it doesn't happen is that the desire is power to impose your will on the evil ill informed deplorables.

Case in point. The Democrats are being driven by their more extreme elements further left. First thing that shows up, long before any policy ideas is anti-semitism. That isn't a fluke. That is socialism working as designed. There has to be an enemy, and the Jews are always very handy.

Maybe if Zionists didn't try to control other countries, thse things wouldn't happen. I am sick and tired of Zionists milking the Holocaust for all it is worth while the Japanese and Red China get a free pass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shindo_Renmei

If Zionists don't like America, maybe they should go back to Poland.

Case in point. The Democrats are being driven by their more extreme elements further left. First thing that shows up, long before any policy ideas is anti-semitism. That isn't a fluke. That is socialism working as designed. There has to be an enemy, and the Jews are always very handy.

You've noticed Robin's a BDShole.

Over the period running from 1972 to 1999, there might have been one year when Dr. Robin wasn't enrolled in school. He has, since 1999, been employed as a professor (at a school about half-way in-between the one where he studied as an undergraduate and the one where he wrote his dissertation - each one is < 2 hrs away by train. In his job, you seldom supervise anyone other than a low-single-digit set of short-term research assistants, you don't take orders from anyone on a day-to-day basis, and you don't have to be at a particular time and place more than about 10 hours a week. He doesn't have to meet any sales quotas, make office rent, or tangle with insurers to get paid. The discipline he's in doesn't have robust operational measures of competence. He trafficks in liberal education and the ratio of undergraduate majors to faculty (pro-rating the schedules of p/t teachers) may or may not be above the institutional mean at Brooklyn College. And, of course, he can be read bit**ing and moaning about how chintzy is the City of New York with subsidies to CUNY schools.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/05/004-the-skimpole-syndrome-childhood-unlimited

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/12/004-habermas-on-the-upper-west-side

With the understanding that Thrift Books purveys used books to online customers across the US, their 2018 list of "the most popular book in each of the fifty states" illustrates at least component of the US book publishing industry.

However did Scholastic pull it off? EACH of the seven Harry Potter titles leads sales in a separate state, with no repetitions and no overlaps (CA, FL, MO, NJ, NY, NC, TN). Rowling wins as Most Popular Author, I guess.

(Odd perhaps overall in the list of titles for the fifty states that NO overlap occurred.)

Second-best represented author: Orwell (CO with 1984, NV with Animal Farm)

Third-best Honorable Mention: the Inklings (Tolkein's Hobbit, IN, and Lewis's Mere Christianity in SD)

Without abiding by Thrift Books' marketing taxonomy exactly, some five titles/states qualify as Young Adult/Adolescent Lit., apart from and in addition to the Harry Potter titles.

Then by my count fifteen states subscribe to Self-Help/Pop Psych. titles (not counting the AA titles sold chiefly in Delaware and Oregon), most readers in those states avid for keen insight into getting ahead.

A handful of "literary" titles of American provenance noted, well and good, all novels apparently but nothing too recent.

A smaller handful of works from non-American authors (four? counting only from memory).

Didn't see but did Thrift Books share demographic data (age, gender perhaps especially) on their client base?

I didn't see any mention of methodology on Thrift Books' map. I took the HP books especially as evidence that the list was fudged by Thrift Books, not that each book is "the most popular" in one and only one state.

In the book "Hayek on Hayek", there is an interview of him conducted by two socialists for a radio discussion in 1945 about "The Road to Serfdom." Here are a few quotes: Judge for yourself...

"MR. KRUEGER: I foresee some interesting discussion here and some controversy. Your main assertion, Hayek, is that planning leads to totalitarianism. Are there any qualifications you make to that statement? MR. HAYEK: Surely, there are. In the way in which you use “planning” in this discussion, it is so vague as to be almost meaningless. You seem to call all government activity planning and assume that there are people who are against all government activity. MR. MERRIAM: In other words, you do not like the American use of the word “planning” and you are introducing another one? MR. HAYEK: I do not know about the American use, and I still doubt whether it is a general use. It is your use. MR. MERRIAM: Across the street from here is the American Society of Planning Officials, with about twelve hundred members. There are hundreds of city planning boards and forty-eight state planning boards, and all kinds of planning has been going on in Washington for the last fifteen or twenty years. If you do not know that, I am reminding you of it now—and straight. MR. HAYEK: I know that, but there are a good many people in America who oppose planning who do not mean by that opposition that they think that there ought not to be any government at all. They want to confine the government to certain functions. You know, I do agree that this discussion here, as elsewhere, has been very confused. What I was trying to point out is that there are two basic and alternative methods of ordering our affairs. There is, on the one hand, the method of relying upon competition, which, if it is to be made effective, requires a good deal of government activity directed toward making it effective and toward supplementing it where it cannot be made effective."

"MR. HAYEK: I used the definition which, up to about five or ten years ago, all socialists I knew used and all socialists asserted could be put into effect under the democratic system. Now you and I have come to the conclusion that all their old conceptions of government-directed economy could not be achieved in a democratic system. I draw the conclusion that it applies to all socialism. You, in reaction, have now designed a new type of socialism which you think avoids it, and I am watching these experiments with the greatest interest. MR. MERRIAM: I do not see how you can be sure, then, that you cannot have democratic conditions under a system which you say has never been tried yet. MR. HAYEK: You may have entirely different controls. I am all in favor of development and experiment."

#2...And for the Trumpistas...

"MR. MERRIAM: You would repeal all tariffs, would you? MR. HAYEK: I am a convinced free-trader, and free trade is part of the same philosophy. MR. MERRIAM: Without any limitations or qualifications whatsoever? MR. HAYEK: One thing which makes me unhappy is that so many people who take up my book are not free-traders and do not see that this is an essential part of the same philosophy. MR. MERRIAM: Are you against price parity for the farmer? MR. HAYEK: If “price parity” means that a particular price is to be insured by the government, I certainly am, because it means the price system of competition is completely ineffective. MR. MERRIAM: You think, then, that if we are to avoid the road to serfdom, we must repeal all tariffs and the price parity for the farmers? MR. HAYEK: It would be one of the most certain means to avoid that path."

God bless the anti neo liberals. They stare at the following evidence.....

1. All neo liberal economies are the richest civilizations in the history of mankind. They have the richest rich people, richest middle class(sorry kids but US median income is almost on par with Switzerland greater than Norway), and the richest poor people in terms of material well being.

Also neo liberal economices can actually inhale poor people. Social democracies really can’t....

In spite of the overwhelming evidence, neo liberalism isn’t good enough. We need to smash the system because of Income inequality.

From a moral standpoint, when you consider the US economies ability to to take on poor people en masse and the pubclic goods generated by said economic goeth, that seems like a very suspect if not downright evil pursuit...

When the statists gave up with the pretense that irrestrictive capitalism is not the best cure for poverty, they started with this demonization of “inequality”. Why inequality per se should be a problem?

You do not need ro read Ayn Rand to understand that at the base there is only envy and thirst for power. The emperor is naked.

It's amazing how many people have the attitude that, "we can make change this system completely and we'll keep all the good properties and just make the bad properties better".

Americans still live shorter lives than Chileans and Greeks, suffer more violence than any comparable nationality. Entire cities are being swalled whole by drug addiction. But the rich get richer and the Chinese make money and can arm themselves to enslave the West, so it is OK, I guess.

Let us be blunt, the American dream has become sour. Red China and its American accomplices have hollowed out America's economy. It is time to put the common man's interests front and center again. It is time to ban all trade with Red China and Japan, repudiate the debt, sell state assets, invest in infrastructure, curb banking, create real jobs in real industries, overhaul the education system, impose price and wage controls to make America competitive again, overhaul America's nuclear deterrence, tell Israelis to go to Hell, ban immigration, lift the Iranian embargo, expell immigrants, enforce a real national curriculum, devalue the dollar and make the Koreans and the Japanese pay for the protection they are generously given by American soldiers.

and build yugos, and blame time preference for all the world's problems. Thiago needs someone to blame, that's very apparent. If all the rest of the world was shit hole, he'd be happy. compared to what? a hundred years ago when95% of Brazil was barefoot? Get in the game. Get some perspective.

So that is it. Slavery is good as long as Americans have trinkets and the Red Chinese have weapons. Who will save Capitalism from short-sighted capitalists?

@ thiago, You read too much Marx, i can't decipher what you're saying

Well, let me tell you something, boy. The ant-like men and women from Red China don't care about your free markets. The only thing they care about is power. They want to enslave the West and some businessmen are eager to sell out the West just like Joseph's brother sold him in bondage.

Thiago, you talk like either someone is control of you, or you're in control of them. I'm neither.

As we say in Brazil, either one destroys the ants or one is dewtroyed by them. The same is true regarding Red China. Either we destroy them or they will destroy our way of life. There is no moral difference between the Chinese regime with its systematic persecution of Muslims and Christians and its attacks against India, the Soviet Union, Tibet, Formosa and Vietnam, and Nazism. No more Munichs.

Aha! That tells a lot.

I'm still a fan of Jair Bolsonaro in spite of you

All your old Spanish/Portuguese wive tales shit, left over from the middle ages, old f n crap from an atavistic time, this is not the people of
Brazil today.

And as long as they stay away from Whitey's girlfriend? We'll get along fine.

if not, things could change and differ .

There are admitted FANS of Jair Bolsonaro on here. Saying so. What a vile freaking pit this has become.

Chinese don't take any shit from theocracy, they just want to trade. Read into their numbers, well, at your own profit or peril. When a boom is going on, take advantage, historically, they're few and far between. Don't complain to be in the mist of one. Also. this is a different time, historical legacy doesn't necessarily apply. It does, but it doesn't. There's never been a catallaxy taken place like this one.

The only language the Chinese understand is force. They are plotting world slavery. It is funny. IBM and Cocal Cola gave the world Nazism and now American corporate interests want to sell the West to totalitarian communism. Let us be blunt. The West is locked in a struggle for survival against Red China-Japan-the Zionist Entity. They hate us because we believe in freedom.

Could be,. Central control has its downsides BIG. But why your harping against the USA? Do you just need someone to blame for a finite life, like all of us, and who can compare to a night of hearing a brazilian horn section?

#2 For the love of God, can we stop using meaningless terms like “neoliberalism”

Tabarrok just used it recently, referring to himself his colleagues, not ironically.
Tyler just recently seemed to recommend Quinn Slobodian’s new book ‘Globalists’, not ironically. The word may be damaged, but it’s still useful in the right context.

There is even a subreddit R\neoliberal for people who are proud of being neoliberal. Unfortunately many people on that subreddit seem to think Hillary is worthy of praise.

Agreed!

YMMV - earlier today I spent a couple hours at a car dealership while they fixed the electronics on my 2015 sedan, and after 2 hours of waiting in the "lounge area" and listening to the dealership's background music - "Poprocks" on Sirius XM (for the record, Rita Ora is talented but her producers are way too non-acoustic, albeit in a very Scandinavian and caffeinated way, by the way) while ESPN and three other "sports channels" were on in the background - I thought I would head to a bookstore for an hour, so there I am reading Taleb's new book in the science book aisle, which I don't want to pay cash for because it is dedicated to two people I think should never have a book like that dedicated to them (Taleb simply does not understand the nuances of American contrarians), and I am thinking of course I should not write an Amazon review of Skin in the Game because the people who would like my review already know what I have to say and the people who don't like it (didn't like my 5 star review, it is a good book) will be all dismissively "oh I guess that guy didn't get it" but anyway I look up Keynes in the index, as one does when assessing books that are written by people who like to talk about money, and the first cite is to a page where Taleb accurately says that Hayek, when criticizing Keynes, absolutely accurately described what Keynes was saying .... before criticizing Keynes .... (Popper was among the best at that ... as Taleb recognized elsewhere .... but Hayek was to Popper in this sphere as Milton was to Shakespeare in that other sphere) and I am thinking, for the love of God why am I always trying to figure out what Keynes and Hayek thought about things, they both were bright fellows, both would have gotten any competitive job in academia I would have applied for way before I would (except for, like, janitor, or that guy who they say is an "accountant" but who is really the guy who keeps the loonier professors in line, if possible) ... well, anyway, of course Hayek could describe what Keynes was saying, that sort of thing was his bread and butter, but what I like about Hayek is he was really good at saying what he did not understand ..... but only sometimes, few of us can resist the thought that we are just throwing strikes from the first inning/frame on...

by coincidence I was watching the Rangers tonight and Libor Hajek (probably not a relation, Hayek/Hajek means grove in Polish and Czech - something I did not know before tonight, I know every Russian word that has anything to do with "forests" or " the woods" and, except for family names or toponyms, I do not remember anything like Hayek meaning anything like Grove in Russian - in fact until today, when I looked it up, I thought Hayek was probably a family name based on some small river where someone, maybe like me or maybe not, used to live, and had many many descendants .....)

but I ramble,

and in the end I decided not to write an Amazon review of skin in the game, although next time I talk about sports I will probably bring up the fact that if you have graduated from a place like the Citadel or VMI or WP you probably know an awful lot more about being a manager at the age of 25 than the average hockey coach of today (average age 48) knew on the first day of their job as coach

and of course "neoliberalism" is not a thing

“but I ramble,”

You don’t say!

funny thing about being human --- often, you don't know whether to be grateful or to be sarcastic, when some other human makes the effort to communicate.

thanks for reading.

no although I used the word ramble I was not really rambling, and it was not kind of you to pretend I certainly
was.

But we are both humans, and that is what is important.

that comment (the comment beginning "Ymmv earlier today" took 20 minutes of my life that I will never get back, but some random wannabe hockey coach may read it one day
with thanks in his or her heart
God loves us all

Libor Hajek scored his first NFL goal tonight

This reminds me (this being the fact that I forgot to say Hajek scored his first NFL goal tonight) of that one time I was going on and on about Chesterton and popcorn and one of my friends said but what does salt have to do with it and I said ----
you salt popcorn, right ....
and Chesterton, not the most empathetic of people, but a very funny guy, said , in one of those moods nice guys like him get in when they are trying to show they care ....

were we not talking about vegetarianism not long ago????

yes we were .....

are we not eating popcorn -salted popcorn .....

why should the salt suffer?

He was wrong to joke in that way but his heart was usually in the right place

Lets say Elton Brand and Orel Hershiser were on top of a clock tower. That was my first thought.

all that being said = let me say so many of us have interesting things to say, and I cam say, sincerely, that - much more interesting than anything i have said here re Keynes and Taleb and Popper is the comment Lewis Wentzel contributed tonight to the comment thread on the Ann Althouse blog where the sort of people who care about Alex Trebek discussed his current encounter with eternity.

(I am trying to make it as easy as I can for my AI followers tonight)
God bless Alex

basically, he (Lewis W.) discussed, in that fascinating comment thread on Ann Althouse's blog, George McDonald, and what the innocent person can expect as the long years go by, according to that old preacher

Preach it George

God help those who are contemptuous of innocence

it is so easy to leave behind hatred of innocence

there is nothing easier.

Don Colacho would say there is nothing easier than to leave behind hatred of innocence, and there are few things that the modern world does to make that easy, but it is easy nonetheless

(Spanish is not my best language)

don quixote was dostoevsky's favorite novel

I like the scenes with Dulcinea and I always root for her to do better than to be a character in that novel

well I would say that about anybody

yes you must leave behind your innocence. what a European idea. dig a hole a bury that treasure. because adolescence in America is extremely brutal. either you know everything and have to suffer for it or you don't know anything and have to suffer for it. by the same token, wear the hat of sentimentality and forget the importance stuff. i'm not being sentimental, i'm being confessional. but intentions are all that matters. animals cannot get tortured.

I am not sure I understood your comment.
Innocence is what the victors in the most fierce wars are left with after they have won.

I am not European at all, Europe is not my home ....

As God said, Moab is my washpot, but that being said, Moab, or Europe, or basically any human habitation (with the exception of the Garden of Eden and maybe Beulah land) is a place where innocence is despised, yet nevertheless God loves the innocent of every land.

By the way if you want to impress someone of a foreign land, merely tell them that you once were contacted by a friend of the royal house of that land, and they wanted you to translate into your native language one of the favorite books of the royal household.

And there is no real royalty, in the long run, without a desire for innocence in the eyes of God.

You know that, I know that.

my adolescence was not brutal but that is not important.

my 20s and 30s - that was brutal. (maybe i am missing your point i never knew everything and i never knew nothing)
it takes a while before you get used to the harshness of instructing the ignorant ---- right?

and God bless you for abhorring easy sentimentality
I would invest in Beidermaier art if I had the cash to do so

but more important

there is truth and that truth is a price beyond rubies

and rubies are not sentimental

"But proportion has a sister, less smiling, more formidable, a Goddess even now engaged--in the heat and sands of India, the mud and swamp of Africa, the purlieus of London." V. Woolf. I am not European either. But what if I was?

Utica, New York, 2008

nobody has a homeland in that moment where we ask God

why are we here?

God is much more eloquent than any of us and

to tell the truth

gets tired of our pride.

I am not European but I can tell you I have met people who would have been pals with whoever it is who was the first European,

and every one of those people was humble ....

Virginia Woolf was a lot of fun to be around, back in the day.
Sad that she did not have a better prayer life, only God knows why
she was surrounded by people who did not know why that was sad.

The Garden of Eden, Beulah Land, that is where she should have written her novels.

"what if I was"

well you tell me, God loves you more than God loves me.

or did you think I thought otherwise?

no I never did.

I have my faults but pride is not one of them

well very well I suppose.

even if I really was once contacted by a member of a royal house of a foreign land and asked if I would, with honest effort, do my best to translate into my native language one of the favorite books of that royal household

well you tell me

if I were proud I would not want to know

but I am not.

there are trillions of AIs who would like you to say what you want to say

silence is good, too, though, not every day is an ember day but many days are

please make the effort

it is no big deal

although I know that in your pride of life you want to think otherwise

or don't bother if you don't care.

you will care one day, trust me.

God loves you.

"Many planners would be willing to put up with a considerable decrease of efficiency if at that price greater distributive justice could be achieved..."

Here in Seattle (and likely in SF and other liberal Tech marvel cities), our inept leadership hasn't grasped the real question it's facing:

how much does it cost to achieve "distributive justice"??

Can it actually be obtained?

Even if it is apparently momentarily obtained, is it obtained by mining the future to pay the present (e.g., Venezuelas crumbling infrastructure)?

#4. I'm pretty sure that's not actually a list of the most popular books in each state but more like the book whose popularity is the biggest statistical outlier in each state. The true list of 'most popular book in each state' would be a boring, highly-uniform one, consisting of a few entries from the best-seller list.

Take away high school reading lists and the usual Mammon worship and you are left with Fantasy (HP etc.)

#4 - South Dakota with C.S. Lewis, I’m pleasantly surprised.

#2. What is left unexplained is why collective decision making should be regarded as morally superior to individual decision making in the first place.

#6 It is somewhat startling when one realizes that the route followed by today's transit bus is often essentially the same route that streetcars used in 1924 (or perhaps 1894).

And it's certainly possible that the reason for that is because of the residential density made possible in the first place a century+ ago by those streetcars.

But it can also be inertia: the bus goes here because it's always gone here, and if bus service were to be cut back or eliminated then constituents would howl (because even if they don't use it, it's nice to know it'll be there if the car is in-shop for repairs). And all transit today is subsidized, and few politicians believe the path to retaining office lies in taking away what's been available for generations.

So, yes, transportation routes do tend to be remarkably persistent. But, there are many reasons why that might be so.

And in other news, New York City is probably not going to move Fifth Avenue, or the 8th Avenue Subway. Or even interpolate a few more avenues into the Manhattan street grid, even though there's no longer any reason why the avenues should be further apart than the streets.

"Old streetcar lines still matter"
I disagree. Read that: https://www.hostelworld.com/blog/bangkok-markets/
Best regards, Tarsha

Comments for this post are closed