Saturday assorted links

1. “Employing a comprehensive dataset on the incidence of hate crime across Germany, we first demonstrate that hate crime rises where men face disadvantages in local mating markets. Next, we deploy an original four-wave panel survey to confirm that support for hate crime increases when men fear that the inflow of refugees makes it more difficult to find female partners. Mate competition concerns remain a robust predictor even when controlling for anti-refugee views, perceived job competition, general frustration, and aggressiveness. We conclude that a more complete understanding of hate crime must incorporate mating markets and mate competition.”  Link here.

2. Bryan Caplan on *Big Business* and crony capitalism.

3. Iceland fact of the day: “Sixty-four percent of students are women, the highest percentage of any European nation.”

4. How to get to ngdp targeting.

5. I’ve read so many bad or even absymal critiques of Facebook, but Bret Stephens (NYT) wrote a good one.


I can't find any of the text of item 1 in the link provided. The link appears to be about unfinished computer games, not the rise of hate crime.

If you want to read -

Without reading it sounds a bit silly really - you probably would get more aggressive native males just from having more seemingly aggressive refugee males about, and >% male refugees obviously correlates with their "mating competition" variable. Not much need for a "fear of mating competition pathway" when a "fear of violence and fear for loved ones" pathway does the job.

Male skewed sex ratios in general tend to link to "better behaved" men in general (scarequotes because its culturally loaded and what is "good" is circumstantial) after all. Mating competition doesn't generally link to more violence between men (e.g. opposite effects seen in male biased settlement of Australia, China during sex linked abortion, etc), when the source of that increase in men is not itself also a source of an increase in men with violent behaviour.

"seemingly aggressive refugee males"

Note that violence sometimes results precisely because domestic males get this calculation entirely wrong.

"... domestic males get this wrong."

Got data?

Unfortunately, nothing is error free. But that the people on the ground are more often wrong than the media or the internet commentariat, not bloody likely.

(The rightness of the people on the ground being a point that the media and the internet commentariat tend to like when it seems to suggest less right wing voting in ethnically cosmopolitan areas (even though this tends to be a mirage) and people generally "getting along" but which they reject as false consciousness when it seems to point, as here, to more fear and wariness.)

The rightness of the man holding the assault rifle?

The rightness of the man stricken by 'sexual emergency' holding a child down at a German swimming pool?

As I say below, we seem to be doing better in the US. Part of that might be that 1st generation immigrants are accepted quite easily into all levels of business, and therefore success.

It makes the worriers, including the violent ones, seem that much more out of touch.

As below, it's mainly down to a different selective migration strategy.

See - Same selection strategy, same problems.

Gangs are sadly part of the process. There were Italian gangs. Irish gangs. Jewish gangs. Cuban gangs. Vietnamese gangs.

But "gang stage" usually only lasts a generation, and then people figure out that crime doesn't pay as much as college.

You are so dumb.

It only lasts a generation because the waves of I'm only last a generation.

When you have a continuous pumping of illegal immigrants from one region, like from Spanish speaking Latin America, it changes the game. It is more like a colonization.

Press one for English!

I meant, "waves of immigration last only one generation.

Autocorrect, grrrr!!!

If immigration is only a one generation problem, why would anyone ever worry?

We're all Americans in the second generation.

Clearly it doesn't always last one generation. There are contingencies.

Most of Latin America has been and likely remain corrupt nations for the foreseeable future. The pathologies are deep and cultural. Therefore, unless we act we will be subject to a continuous and multi-generational invasion.

You are either dense or suicidal. I think you are dense. I am not suicidal and I intend to protect the nation for my kids. I don't want the US to become Mexico or Honduras.

Btw, Mexico doesn't want to become Honduras, nor El Salvador, nor Guatemala, but they will let them walk through on the way to the USA.

So who cares?

I live in a great and prosperous country, and for that reason am unafraid.

+1, Climate change: I live in a great and prosperous country, and for that reason am unafraid.

I seem to remember the Italian gangs (and were they ever the same % of the community as the Somali, it seems not?), being a few more generations given that they're a going concern into the mid-20th century off the back of migration that was mostly happening in the 1890s.

In any case the pitch of "Perhaps after 50 odd years of violence, maybe it'll all be back to normal in a few generations, maybe not" has got to be up there with "Brexit: Perhaps we'll be better off materially in 50-100 years" as positively resonating with the public (a much ridiculed pitch).

No one is accepting crime, we are fighting it and terrorism, and foreign interference in our elections, with the full force of law.

But where we started was that we shouldn't damn innocents along with the guilty.

And again the US is overwhelming in support of immigration.

Because for us it works.

Why dobg you get more fine grained than “it works”? This is still coarse grained but, how about this: 1 million per annum immigration generally works well but there are exceptions. What exceptions? Well, turning parts of Minn. into Little Mogadishu is probably a place to start, rather than saying “oh everybody’s first gen had gang members.”

If you don't like black people then move to states where there are less of them. Then stop your whining.

Or the current London mayor's memorable "terror attacks are 'part and parcel of living in a major city' "...

One blind mouse
One blind mouse
See how he runs ...

You are totally wrong, again.

You are blinded by your own biases, but that is normal. You are human, a mouse, but a human mouse.

You have mouse derangement syndrome or something? Get your head checked.

I checked my head - it's still there.

Are you one of the mouse's sock puppets?

You are absolutely correct.

Putnam discovered that social engagement was lower across the board in multicultural communities. When he published "Bowling Alone" he knew social engagement had decreased, but he didn't know why. Later, much to his dismay, since he is on the left, he discovered it was due to cultural diversity. In diverse communities, everyone hunkers down and pulls their horns in.

The reason, of course, is our innate tendency toward tribalism. No human is free of this bias, despite their protestations. They just can't see that their tribe is indeed a tribe, like the tribe of libertarian economists.

Not among my friends.

Maybe it just comes down to us making different choices.

You are a blind mouse, blind to your bias.

Please read Kahneman.

Interesting. You are trying to cure me of happiness and openness?

Well, it's not just silly, but basically the best example of how to do gender studies wrong. When men have mating problems they will become more frustrated by everything and behave differently in general. I'm pretty sure where men provide the dominant percentage of the local population, people fart more, talk about tech more and also order more take-away food. It's no suprise either that hate speeches will also be more accepted.

5. People talk about Facebook as if an account was absolutely necessary to lead a normal life. It is not and billions of people live happy successful lives without it.

I am instinctively sympathetic to the anti-Facebook voices, but at the end of the day think it is a private company that can do what it wants and, as you note, we don't have to use its products.

However, for that to be true, the government can not use it as a primary means of communications, allow access to government sites via a Facebook login in, or in anyway preferentially treat Facebook users.

If by not using Facebook, I have less access to public information or resources, there is a problem. However, that problem is with the government, not Facebook.

I am not sure if that is really an issue. But it is a potential one.

Wrong! Facebook is a defacto commons.

Only to the degree your backyard is a common.

Facebook is privately owned. If Facebook were to go bankrupt or equivalent as others like it have, eg, MySpace, no one would have a say.

MySpace simply lost half or more of uploaded content without telling anyone, basically because it ran out of money to pay workers to prreserve the MySpace common.

Nope. Not the same. Facebook is a monopoly by network effects. The venture capitalists will tell you that a business is attractive to them if it has the potential to be one a monopoly. Of course, later they might argue their investment is not a monopoly, but we know that is just motivated reasoning.

Facebook is a monopoly and a commons. It should be broken up.

They should stay out of the curation game - it can only end badly, as any chess player would recognize.

It is not a monopoly as there are very many competitor social networks. I am not on Facebook and never have been, but I am several other social networks.

I have hope that the protections granted by section 230 of the CDA are found to be contingent on a light/no-moderation policy.

I would further be giddy if Twitter/Facebook were destroyed by a ruling like this. Unlikely, since management would turn on a dime, but there is hope the inmates who run the asylums are quite intransigeant.

Popcorn . Yum.

If you hate capitalism and free enterprise, move to Russia.


Your government intervention is what caused this mess.

You hate capitalism? Sad. Capitalism is the greatest system ever invented. It has created untold amounts of wealth. Hope you enjoy your new life in Siberia. Moron.

I see why Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones are candidates for being banned, but why Milo Yiannopoulos?

Maybe for the same reason that Australia banned him from visiting?

'Immigration minister David Coleman said on Saturday that comments about Islam made by Yiannopoulos in the wake of the Christchurch massacre were “appalling and foment hatred and division” and he would not be allowed in the country.

It comes a week after Coleman approved Yiannopoulos’ visa against the advice of the home affairs department, which said the commentator may fail the character test to enter Australia.

Coleman said the attack in Christchurch was “an act of pure evil” carried out “on Muslims peacefully practicing their religion.

“Australia stands with New Zealand and with Muslim communities the world over in condemning this inhuman act,” he said.'

So appalling that I have to take some rapist-descendent koala fucker’s word for it I guess.

Who just happens to be the Australian immigration minister.

Let us repeat the key text - '...Coleman approved Yiannopoulos’ visa against the advice of the home affairs department, which said the commentator may fail the character test to enter Australia.

Coleman said the attack in Christchurch was “an act of pure evil” carried out “on Muslims peacefully practicing their religion.'

That's right, the rapist-descendent koala fucker actually approved Milo's trip, until Milo decided to comment about a mass murder in New Zealand.

Lol still no quotes. Get your dick out of that koala.

What Coleman actually means is that he will do all he can to drive (selected) heresy out of the public square. I doubt he would have any concern with anti-Christian sentiment. Rather like the NYT.

'What Coleman actually means is that he will do all he can to drive (selected) heresy out of the public square. '

Almost as if the Australians are squeamish about mass murder. Plus, Coleman is a member of this party, as noted by wikipedia - 'The Liberal Party of Australia is a major centre-right political party in Australia, one of the two major parties in Australian politics, along with the centre-left Australian Labor Party (ALP).'

Here is the link for item 1:

1. Certainly seems to explain the hate crimes committed *by* refugees, like the mass sexual assault at the Cologne Christmas market, the truck attack on the Berlin Christmas market, the assault on a child at a Vienna pool where the refugee's defense was a claimed "sexual emergency," and so forth.

Great point. Problem is on both sides if the equation

If the best examples of "bad refugees" all come from Europe, maybe they've been doing something wrong, and the US something right, for some time now.

Based on the Fewer/None numbers here, we are more welcoming than the countries you name. The causation on that may be circular. Welcome makes less problems and makes us more welcoming.

What you've done right is called being far away and not practicing much humanitarian migration (much less Merkelist de facto open borders for refugees). Canada and the rest of the Anglosphere does it too. You want to keep on doing it. Or maybe the Parisians get hit by truck attacks because they're just not welcoming enough...

We accepted a lot of "boat people" from Vietnam and from Cuba. We digested them nicely.

Lame response. Humanitarian migration is not as prominent a part of American migration policy. The United States has the lowest per capita refugee hosted population in the Western world - . Within the US Minnesota has the worst, and has the closest thing to the reported patterns we see in the USA.

Even on your point, the Mariel Boatlift and boat people aren't exactly random traumatized refugees from Cuban and Viet ethnic and religious civil wars (as the Syrians, Somalis et al who turn up in Northern Europe are), but ones who were specifically backing the American side and relatively integrated into accepting your politics...

There is a bit of a luck of the draw in which refugees can reach your doorstep. For us then, it was Vietnamese and Cubans. At the time there were political movements opposing their admission. For us now, it's Hondurans, and unaccompanied minors, and a different set of problems.

Still, our pattern has overwhelmingly been successful integration. The kids of Vietnamese buffalo and plow rice farmers are all pharmacists.

I wager that if we took hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans fleeing their failed Marxist state BECAUSE it’s a failed Marxist state persecuting them — let’s call them kulaks or bourgeois — this group would integrate fairly harmoniously. For the same reasons most communist-fleeing Cubans and Vietnamese did.

"Boat people" included families, women, children.

Vietnamese and Cubans are willing to intermarry more or less.

When all your women are in hijabs that's a strong barrier for local men.

I've actually wondered if some not-so-religious Muslim fathers would encourage no hijab, if only to open up the marriage market for their daughters. I bet that would happen if they were dispersed to many smaller cities. Once they form diaspora community, social pressure at the mosque might prevent that.

A very small fraction of Muslims in the US wear head coverings. And I've know a number of mixed marriages among the less religious.

It's not surprising that people who come from majority Muslim countries to the US might be among the less religious in those countries.

All I'm hearing is excuses. Niall Ferguson found a way into a marriage with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you are a real man with stones, then prove it by making some moves. The human race would be extinct in one generation if all men thought like you.

I’ve probably fucked between 30 and 40 times as many women as you. That means your opinion on this doesn’t matter by your own logic.

OK, non-snark answer:

Better to accept FAMILIES not young men by themselves.

So, the US situation is probably better because we tend to accept families, women, children, in a semi-organized manner from the Middle East vs. Europe's willy nilly single men come and then try to later bring family...or not. Smuggling fees being high would make that tempting.

Also, suggests new policy on asylum in the USA might have a silver lining if its truly families arriving.

I'm not sure that is accurate. There are plenty of young men that have come across the southern border and sent a chunk of their money south until their family came up later.

I don't think it's a difference in the demographic make up. I think it's a difference in the culture.

So large refugee populations that strictly control their women with special dress codes and religious rules while also allowing their own males to play the field or even gave multiple wives and a Rotherham style attitude would seem to create the worst environment for hate crimes.

America's pilgrims are exactly "a large refugee population that strictly control their women with special dress codes and religious rules" so this gets a big yawn out of me.

And how did that work out for the locals?

1. Hell hath no fury like a man scorned.

2. Caplan seems to believe Cowen is a coward for employing a Straussian approach to the influence of big business on policy (i.e., by pretending that big business does not have an outsized influence on public policy, an influence that, according to Caplan, makes policy better).

#4 It's Contrarian Troll Caplan; rather than construction business which following the maxim that they 'seldom meet together ... but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices', they want to make property so cheap it's practically free and are only stopped doing so by the public and its "mad" concerns with "the environment".

Revealing about Caplan's audience more than anything. You'd think he'd be concerned that his audience's deep felt Libertarian or fiscal conservative convictions would be upset by his merely pro-business message (throwing aside their supposed concerns about business-state collusion), and manage his image in a "Straussian" way, as does Tyler.

But then so many apparently "Libertarian" or "fiscal conservative" individuals do tend to be merely "pro-business" when it comes down to it. I can think of a couple who post on here...

4. How to get to ngdp targeting.

Another name is the corridor system, and do not let them tell you different. Corridor implies that the central bank knows little about prices, a fact.
In the corridor system, the NGDP target can be built in or adapted, as the central bank chooses the trend by ex ante contract.

In fact, a properly constructed central bank corridor algorithm is exactly equivalent to the checkout managers job at WalMart, basically keeping the queues of clerks and customer stable.

I go further. I claim the the entirety of economics can be summed up in one instrument,: The probability that the third person in line will give up and go home.

Tell me that and I can tell you the sustainability measure of a Walmart or a quark. It is in the quark matrix, the probability that a force action will be an over or under sampled queue. That determines probability of the different quark flavors.

I find it odd that the advocates of ngdp targetting universally consider paying workers to be too costly and something to be eliminated.

How does a banker pay any workers?

Why would any banker act to destroy wealth?

Keynes argued for paying workers to build capital until prices of capital fall to labor costs of producing capital because capital is so plentiful it ceases to be scarce.

If you consider money to be capital, contrary to the definition of capital by Adam Smith through Keynes up to Milton Friedman, then Venezuela is pursuing NGDP targetting as a Keynesian, making Bolivars cease to be scarce, and cost the labor to print new Bolivars.

GDP is ideally measured in pure labor cost, ie, it would include zero economic profit. Profit, defined in my youth in the 60s, as the amount of price from scarcity, which only naturally occurs in disaster like flood, drought, war, but that Milton Friedman advocated for by government policy acting to create unemployed workers, but increased demand by government handing out money to pay to buy consumer goods and services, eg, the negative income tax.

No one calls for cost cutting and calls for eliminating the costs of scarity profits.

Ie, Trump calls for cost cutting, but never means eliminating government protection of patents, copyrights, brand name trademarks, or property rights.

Trump has defended his personal right to charge himself below market rates for the Federal property known as the DC post office building to increase his profit at taxpayer cost.

#4...It seems good to me, and I also prefer it be done in the stages mentioned. One way to tell a plan with bad juju is when you're told you won't see the full value of the plan until it's completely implemented, meaning you're supposed to accept things getting worse for a spell. Sorry, I don't do worse if I can help it. I always keep in mind Richard Pipes apt description of communism...

"Stephane Courtois, the editor of 'The Black Book of Communism,' estimates the global number of Communism's victims at between 85 and 100 million, which is 50 percent greater than the deaths caused by the two world wars. Various justifications have been offered for these losses, such as that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Apart from the fact that human beings are not eggs, the trouble is that no omelette has emerged from the slaughter."

The states in the Americas exist because of communists?

Ie, the Spanish, British, decided the property rights of the people who populated the land discovered ten thousand years after Asians found and populated the land did not belong to them, so they would be killedd so the European governments woud own all the American lands, and thuen give contracts to corporations chartered by these European governmdnts to exploit the land and people.

The problem is the natives from Asia were rugged individualists who refused to be enslaved, so, the corporations had to kill them, and import slaves from Africa.

The USA, the product of communism.

In other words, low testosterone decreases opposition to immigration

White women prefer black cocks over white ones. More cock to love.

1. So if in our point system we give +1 for single (ideally Asian) women of childbearing age, problem solved?

"The deeper problem is the overwhelming concentration of technical, financial and moral power in the hands of people who lack the training, experience, wisdom, trustworthiness, humility and incentives to exercise that power responsibly."

I'd be interested in a list of current sages up to the job.


Men don't got to go to no stinking school - they can make money trading mortgage backed securities.

It's Iceland. The correct answer is enforcing a double standard to defraud British pensioners out of their retirement savings.

4. How to get to ngdp targeting.

"Note that recessions that push interest rates to zero are almost always caused by negative demand shocks."


It took us thirty years to reach zero. We did it quite systematically if one looks at the ten years treasury yield since 1980. The point at which our zero point in 2010 was reached was determined by the impulse response from the Nixon shock. Look at the ten year since 1872, looks like an impulse response to me.

Why do we go to zero once every monetary cycle? Because we suddenly change banking regimes every generation as the accumulated cost of currency insurance by Congress reaches unsustainability. We have done this each generation without fail, and we plan on doing it again.
Will the new monetary regime smooth things out? Yes, our impulse respoinse in the new cycle will be a 15 year renewable contract between a non profit Fed and Congress. We will expense currency risk at three times the rate, and likely cut the volatility of the monetary regime in half, compared to Nixon. The new Fed contract will be extemely valuable to Congress, they will not exercise their 'right to coin' at any given moment, they will wait for contract renewal. This is all coming, and millennials will have to expense currency risk four time in their lifetimes is they want the impulse response cut by half.

This is the repeated pattern, technology upgrade at each generation, result in master transaction rates for servicing the load to deposit queues. It is a lot like adding a tree ring in our abstract algebra tree, the thinner the tree rings, the more round the trunk and the better hologram effect in the branches and roots.

NGDP targetting means printing money until the value of money equals the labor cost of printing?

Eg, the monetary policy of Venezuela....

I have had absolutely no difficulty finding conservative literature or communicating with my conservative friends on the Internet, including Facebook. This is yet another manufactured crisis. Since I find Milo mildly amusing, you don't need Facebook to see what he is saying and doing, you can go to and I promise you will not get a "404 error" message.

Well, that was fun. Here is a great Milo quote from that link - 'Jordan Peterson has repeatedly betrayed everything he says he believes in for his own expediency, convenience and profit, at precisely the time it mattered most, and then lied about it all.' What a great read -

Regardless of my opinion of JP, I don't think much of Milo's auto-fellation about how smart and edgy and smart he is. And did I mention he's edgy? And smart?

Well, that was fun indeed. His criticisms and witty and do hit a nerve. However, I'd rather have Jordan Peterson as a friend (or relative or teacher) than Milo - by a large multiple.

It is not that simple. Economical royalists are trying to silence the voices of all those who oppose their globalist plans such as Mr. Farrakhan and President Captai Bolsonaro. "They can cut the flowers, but they can't stop the spring."

1. Here’s a solution: how about admit more female immigrants? You could do this by advantaging professions that skew female or certain forms of family immigration. Skewed sex ratios among immigrant communities can cause some serious problems. Among Chinese-Americans in the 1880s, a skewed sex ratio plus immigration restrictions led to a 50% decline in population, something typically associated with plagues or genocide.

We don't need more immigrants. We need fewer immigrants!! Send them back, Jack!

or accept married immigrants more than singles.

The places in Germany which are skewed and like that because the Syrians sent their sons. Should the Germans go shopping for Chinese (or whatever) females then try and ask them somehow to go and stay in places saturated by Syrian refugee males?

#2...In my case, big business isn't going to support some form of narrow banking, for example, so nothing I favor has any chance of appealing to them.

1. Certainly explains the criminal treatment of Asians by disproportionately white Ivy League admissions as well as the recent savage attacks upon Korean tourists in downtown DC. Also explains hateful oppositionby disproportionately white academics and federal bureaucrats to President Trump's efforts to increase high skilled immigration to the US. If you think of establishment academics as a white supremacy hate group you won't go far wrong.

Are you arguing for zero white men being admitted to the Ivy league schools, just women, and Asian men?

I am arguing that color-blind admissions ratios would produce admissions ratios similar to those at Cal Tech.

President Captain Bolsonaro has admitted small-fingered asian and non asian to ivy league, and has declared springtime in Brasil so that flowers and melons may finally grow there like Cal Tech.

More civilized native men always have a mating demerit (not necessarily translating into overall disadvantage, that depends on other factors) compared to less civilized/more barbarian immigrants/"refugees" because being more civilized means obeying rules and following orders, and obeying rules and following orders is fundamentally beta. Under the current dispensation, less civilized/more barbarian elements, whether supported by state largesse, private charity or their own local community networks, aren't really obliged to do that. This one consideration by itself constitutes a prima facie case for excluding less civilized/more barbarian elements from a more civilized polity in any non-trivial numbers. It can be mitigated if the receiving polity is able and willing to enforce law and order on newcomers in a manner that modern sensibilities would consider extremely draconian.

No, your girlfriend didn't leave you because "obeying rules and following orders is fundamentally beta". Think harder.

stop commenting here, "think harder" boy, you are too short for the ride

No, I am not, stupid.

When I was railing your girlfriend what she liked most was the extra 6 inches going in and out but she she certainly wasn’t complaining about trading up from 5’8” to 6’2” either.

"No I am not stupid"

I did not say you were stupid.

But you went for an ad hominem when you didn't really want to, and you know that.

Up your game, then come back.

and if you want to impress me tell me the rhetorical trick you tried to use, and failed at ....
and the rhetorical trick I replied with ....
and the rhetorical trick you tried to counter me with, and failed at.

If you get them all right people might think I am stupid and you are not!
Not saying that is a goal worth trying for, but there it is.

or don't bother.
this is just a comment section which even the guy who runs the blog rarely reads.
If you feel strongly that you can contribute to the cause of justice, learn rhetoric and deploy it well, and, like the people who built our civilization, spend a lot of time praying for wisdom.

You are welcome.

You may now resume reviling me, I don't care. Feel free to have the 'last word' on the 'comment section.', and God bless you when you seek good, and may God keep you from doing bad.

you are mentally ill. i don't revile you. i pity you. also, there is no god. and you are a cuck.

although I did not want to go on with this conversation, out of the kindness of my heart, I will respond.
I am not mentally ill, but I probably have an IQ several standard deviations above yours.
You do not revile me, I give you that.
You cannot pity me because you are incapable of understanding me. Save your pity for the times when you need it.
There is a God.
And no woman has ever cheated on me, ever.

Please repent of your evil ways.
God loves you more than God loves me.
But God is my friend, and I can say that.
You poor creature, you will some day be either a wonderful human being or you won't be.
This is my effort to make sure that the first alternative happens.

See you in a hundred or two hundred years!!!

Now tell me again that I am mentally ill and that you pity me.

You might try to , and you might do it, but your heart won't be in it.

Don't worry, I am tough enough for both of us. and we will succeed in saving your soul. I can't guarantee it --- sad! ----- but I have helped much worse cases than you!

tell me again you pity me!

I am on your side as soon as you decide you can become a real man, or a real woman, or a real whatever you are.

and don't use the word "cuck" that word will get your comments deleted in a few days or a few years from all these platforms, as if they never existed.

not that anyone will be reading these comments anyway, but seriously, do you really think that there will be people years from now poring over old Marginal Revolution Posts, wondering whether the word "cuck" was successfully used as a weapon///
the answer is no,

Be a man, or be a woman, but don't be a pathetic loser.

By the way, you forgot to identify your rhetorical tropes, as I asked you to.

wikipedia has good articles listing rhetorical tropes, you can start there

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application.

you are getting close!

2. "Business influence works best in the shadows."

Was that unintentionally hilarious? He sure seemed to completely miss the absurdity of that statement, in the context of a critique of the corporate state, and the decay it imposes on democracy. You know, like, governing OUT of the shadows.

And the excerpt he pulled talks about government spending and entitlements - the thing government DOES. Ignoring that the real gravy is in what the government doesn't do: like set or enforce regulations, pursue criminal conduct, or impose taxes.

Double ironic, in that today's big news is that the Trump architect of the truly evil child detention policy just rode the revolving door to the company that is going to earn $350 million from the taxpayers to imprison 2,300 children. Yes, that's over $150,000 per prisoner.

Correction: There will be 3,200 underage detainees.

$112,000 per immigrant child. How WILL this poor company make ends meet?

This only is looking at *native* men who are upset at *immigrant* men. It's not looking at, for example, immigrant hate crimes against German Chabadniks who presumably aren't hooking up with very many Muslim women.

Actually, though, #1 helps explain the difference in hostility to immigration between upper and lower classes. Upper class men have more access to women, so an immigrant isn't as much of a direct threat.

Surprised that TC endorses a Bret Stephens article about Facebook (with absolutely no original content or thinking) as "good".

EFF, TechDirt, and actual First Amendment lawyers have been talking and writing about this for months (years?) in more depth and with more vigor and nuance than Bret Stephens can crib in this short article. If the NYT opinion page is your primary source for thinking about FB and free speech than mood affiliation is playing a bigger role in selecting your sources than it should!


Facebook can buy Instagram, Whatsapp, and Messenger without triggering any action to restrain it's monopoly. Now it's going to curate content by passing it through it's left wing filters.

Great, just great.

Thanks for mentioning EFF. I just read this article:

2) "Business does have some real political pull, but the basic view that big business is “pulling the strings” in Washington is one of the big myths of our time"

There are 12, 553 registered lobbyists in Washington DC. Who does Cowen think is paying the salaries of these people, who would constitute an entire Division within the US Army? A Division!

I am always impressed when people like Caplan & Cowen, who have never made a payroll, nor even held one real job, pontificate to us on Big
Business. Its like taking lessons on sexual technique from a eunuch.

The whole thing is a silly exercise in pop kneepadism.

The idea of a libertarian advocacy for global concentrations of monopolistic power, their relentless homogonizing power, and the foundation of supra-human legal status on which they exist, had at least some promise for originality.

but the thing sounds like it ended up as patronizing fluff that could have come out of any corporate PR intern

1. This explains the incel - alt-right - Trump supporter pipeline.

Comments for this post are closed