Saturday assorted links


#2 Looking forward to it. My favorite XTC songs: "Roads Girdle the Globe," "Beatown," Travels in Nihilon."

"We're only making plans for Nigel. We only want what's best for hiiiim."

XTC has many A+ songs, but there is a dramatic drop in quality when you get to the B songs - more so than most groups.

Andy Partridge's yelpy voice, with its limited range and narrow emotional effect, and the lack of harmonies, mean all the songs, good and bad, have the same texture, making it a chore to sift through their catalogue for the gems.

Still, there is much to love in XTC, and I intend to watch this documentary.

Watched it, loved it.
BTW, I think my favorite album might be Mr. Partridge 'Take Away'

#3. After reading about the decline of sex, it’s good to read about someone having sex—if only Denisovan sex. (I mean it’s okay. But it’s not Neanderthal sex.)

#1 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2018


so "organizations" are merely abstractions that cannot think or suffer punishment for misdeeds ... but their CEO's are good substitutes for targeted retribution...

Absolute drivel !

can the quality of Social Science research sink any lower this century (?)

1. Rick Scott was CEO of HCA Heaalthcare when it committed massive Medicare and Medicaid fraud and paid the largest fine ever assessed. For his sins, Scott received a golden parachute worth about $300 million, moved to Florida, was elected governor twice, and last year was elected to the US Senate. I feel his pain.

5. John Cochrane on money, reserves, and other stuff.

Central banking will cycle, always will. We have an indutry of economists going to DC and trying to prove central banking does not cycle. The mathematicians prove them wrong every time, John is no exception, just one more in the 250 year line of foolish economists trying to make central banking asynchronous.

5. When Obama was president and the economy mired in the deep slump that he inherited, Cochrane was subject to some abuse for suggesting that the Fed raise interest rates because doing so would be expansionary. It was the contrarian view but his rationale (or part of his rationale) made some sense: by raising interest rates, the Fed would be communicating that the Fed believed the economy would outperform expectations, business would respond to the Fed's optimism by undertaking greater investment, and the economy would grow in response to the investment. Cochrane had a few graphs to prove his point, but it was primarily a behaviorist approach to the economy. Cynics suspected that Cochrane was trying to choke off the recovery while Obama was president. Cochrane was a strong supporter of Trump's tax cut even though the economy was strong, unemployment low, and the tax cut would add several trillion dollars to debt. His rationale: "to create good incentives for profit-maximizing management teams". Cochrane is a team player.

Do you see any signs of the reverse over the last 2 years?

the economist is placed in a tough position because morality has reached a lime light epoch.

“When Obama was president and the economy mired in the deep slump that he inherited” ...

That Obama feller was pretty special. After he finished fixing the bad economy he inherited, he went on to bequeath Trump a superb economy, so much so that the blithering idjit Trump deserves no credit at all.

You're almost out of the partisan mire. You are starting to realize that the economy has very little to do with who is president. There are some important inflections however that do matter. Reagan was an important corrective to a left-wing regime that had gotten more and more sclerotic over the decades (Carter actually did some good deregulatory things here too, and appointed Volcker). Obama did his part in handling the cleanup from the 2008 crash (most credit should go to the Fed there, and the fixing of mark to market rules). In general, though, the president either has good luck or bad luck (Clinton was considered a great president, but he was mainly lucky to preside over the tech boom)

3. Doesn't seem like a strong case as presented.

3. “Our mysterious cousins—the Denisovans—may have mated with modern humans as recently as 15,000 years ago.”

The article says:
Researchers already knew that living people from a vast area spanning the Philippines and New Guinea to China and Tibet have inherited 3% to 5% of their DNA from Denisovans.
My search engine says:
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

So we have a reference. We are 95% monkey and we experiment with incest using the 5% variation. With that kind of attitude, it is no wonder socialism fails.

#5...Please read this Cochrane post as well...

I have, it is the same problem we have had for 250 years of misdirected thought on the subject. The same contradiction.

Central banking and currency banking have to be differentiated, central banks are built around government implied insurance demands. For the next thousand years, wherever there is central banking, there will be some kid like John Cochrane finding the contradiction. Currency banking and insurance are different functions, trade one against the other and you will cycle, the distributions of the two are deliberately incoherent. You insure what you cannot price, there will always be contradictions and a meeting of the elders.

#1..."Without the ability to suffer, corporations and organizations cannot slake people's thirst for retribution, even with large fines and other penalties."

Oh, of course. I'm a ravenous beast for wanting accountability for financial crimes. It might have to do with the fact that it was individuals who committed these crimes, and should therefore be individually punished for them. It's a matter of justice, and attempting to deter crime. Please read...The Chickenshit Club Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives By Jesse Eisinger

#3 Can I just applaud the comedic irony of the researcher’s name, “Cox”? Who better to study mating?

5. John Cochrane on money, reserves, and other stuff.
The heart of the problem is constitutional 'right to coin'. Hence, there is no legal account at the Fed that cannot be over ridden, push, or kicked by Congress. Currency risk can never really be market expensed, it accumulates.

We pay an extra currency insurance fee for that constitutional clause, and worse, government covers the insurance for many of us. It is going to leak insurance, currency risk builds in governments hidden insurance accounts, the inflation adjustments, the minimum wages, the contract set asides and cost plus contracts. And pensions contains loads of currency risk insurance.

Insurances risk is real, but small. Central banking gets a fixed mismatch between deposits and loans that cannot be reconciled as central banking does not expense currency risk. Currency risk cannot be expensed as currency gains or losses, because of the risk of Congressional reaction. This is actually the Soros effect, it is why central bankers deliver Soros truck loads of paper.

Currency only exists because we believe in it. Without belief you’re left with barter and wampum, which is still an effective exchange in the marketplace, traditional or otherwise. It’s really nice outside, Matt. Maybe it’s time to go out and play a bit.

Currency keeps the county sheriff from knocking at your door, a very nice service indeed. Keep your address a secret, else someone might tell them you don't believe currency is real.

im a mountain

#2 is not new; it ran for weeks on showtime last year. It's arguably more an andy partridge doc than a pure xtc doc

#3. So, the Denisovans are a non-human species that interbred with humans as recently as 15,000 years ago. The Khoisan diverged from other modern humans more than 100,000 years ago, but they're the same species as the rest of us because... we can all interbreed?

John Hawks opined that the Denisovan groups should be placed in Homo Sapiens Sapiens (presumably on the basis of interfertility and a lack of a clear morphological divergence point).

To some degree we say Khoisan and Rest-of-humanity are all Homo Sapiens because they are "anatomically modern humans" - that is, they have a relatively globular braincase and relatively small facial size (which are about the anatomical features which differ systematically and clearly between Homo Sapiens and "archaic Homo"). Behaviourally and psychologically we obviously have no way of knowing if H Neanderthal et al were particularly different from the cranially modern counterparts. It's about skull shape and inference made from skull shape.

Partly because "species" is rather a slippery concept. This is biology; the subtle simplicities of physics rarely arise in bio.

Does the reference to the nephlim in Genesis reference Neanderthals/Denisovans/whoever as in the days of when all this did actually happen?

No. Like everything else foundational in the OT, Genesis is fiction.

Surely not: from Ussher-Lightfoot:

"Man was created by the Trinity on October the 23rd, 4004BC, at 9 O'clock in the morning."

Can't argue with that degree of precision!

Saw xtc doco on a plane last April. Very enjoyable and made me start listening again. I like to hear people talking about the creative process.

Comments for this post are closed