Sunday assorted links

Comments

Well, this has something to do with Pym particles, doesn't it?

My computer shows Sunday's assorted links posting before Saturday's. Has Tyler invented a time machine?

More likely the machinations of your computer.

#1 - The post is apropos for the age of AOC, Ilhan Omar, et al.

Remove and replace five or six words and the post could be about Ben Bernanke and his qualifications in real world "economic engineering and economic management."

I give some credit to him and Janets Yelling. They did better than did the ECB and BoJ. That's not a high bar, girls.

Never Let Someone That Has Done Nothing Tell You How To Do Anything.

It's a very strange (and clearly biased) headline given that the country was run by a Community Organizer for eight years.

Fishing metaphor: He's always casting "lures." But, sometimes I think Tyler lets Thiago write the headlines.

Good Economic News Is 'Problematic' For 2020 Democrats.

Great Moments In Leftist Autophagy: 2020 Democrats Are Turning Obama Legacy Against Joe Biden.

No longer the messiah, huh girls?

So the con artist an rapist running things now is an expert in what, exactly?

That's Con-Artist-in-Chief, Moo.

I love you, man.

One, making the economy great again.

Two, nominating rational federal judges (You know, men that actually read the Constitution).

Three, revealing the real "face" of the Democrat party: four anti-American, anti-Semitic, socialist, terrorist sympathizer banshees.

Four, making millions of the emotionally distressed/mental defectives piss their knickers.

Resistance Is Futile.

Good thread today on why the (remaining) base can't be converted, only defeated.

https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/1152930670093787141?s=19

DtB is base.

To allow everyone to skip the link:

It’s a twitter thread that says Donald Trump is a Nazi and member of the KKK, then defines the 2020 election as analogous to David Duke’s run for office in Louisiana.

Basically, “Trump is the KKK, that’s why we can run extremists”

Idiotic. To anyone who wants an alternative to Trump in 2020, this is exactly how we don’t get there.

Remember Jim Webb? Democrats are choosing to be the party of Anti-Jim Webb. And they’re about to Mondale the shit out of 2020.

It may not be the nicest thing to happen to America, but it does give us moral clarity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-are-all-the-squad-now/2019/07/16/e319ffe8-a7eb-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html

Economics 101 and Markets In Everything: inflation.

Who'd a thunk you guys could inflate words like "racist," "rapist," "fascist," etc. to be so devalued as to mean less than nothing.

I don't think the word "moral" means what you think.

It's OK.

You young people are "behind the eight ball" in so many ways.

I would feel sorry for you. Except, I'm laughing hysterically.

There are certainly people who'd like "racist" to be devalued as a criticism, and elevated as badge.

https://twitter.com/adamgurri/status/1152686531112505345?s=19

"Is that racist? Who cares."

Things are being thrown into stark relief.

This is the reelection campaign.

Omfg is anonymous a Russian troll made to re-elect Trump?

Ssshhh!

Leave the mouse alone.

I am having a very difficult time depressing explosive laughter every time the demoncats talk.

I can't believe out good luck! They are running left of Maduro and behaving like Stalin!!!!

Oooooooooo I can't wait till 2020!!!!
😂😊🤣😂😅

I'll give you a parallel that maybe you can grasp. I wanted GWB's Afghanistan invasion to be a brief punitive raid, to get Bin Laden. No more. I opposed GWB's Iraq invasion. But you may remember the response of right partisans. "Support the Troops! Dissent is un-American." It was a party-wide support for the War on Terror.

And yet now:

https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1153153445421080576?s=19

I'm telling you that you are in a similar moment with Trump. The base, the core partisans, will cast for any defense they can for a really horrible presidency.

But in 10 years it will be just like the War on Terror. A national recognition that it was all an awful mistake.

You could get on the right side of that now, but as that first Twitter thread says, if you haven't, you probably won't. Not yet anyway. Your partisan heads will require that Trump be out of office before you drop your admiration. As you did with GWB.

The memory hole applies.

This post wins the thread.

No it doesn't win this thread or any other thread, it is the posturing of a foolish little person.

Obama was and remains complicit in the great evil of partial birth abortion which causes unneeded pain to the most innocent among us.

REMEMBER THAT

It took so much less than ten years to know that Obama's presidency was a mistake.

Trump's main crime is not (like McCain and Romney) running crying into a corner and pissing his pants whenever some professional liar libels him with a false charge of "racist."

Aside from that, there is no cure for stupid. Ergo you will not learn after the glorious 2020 Trump Re-Election.

As I say, the apologists who will see a "T" cannot be converted. Only defeated.

https://twitter.com/TheoMoudakis/status/1151461421944885248?s=19

The links this Russian troll gives are all attached to tracking agencies.

To all of us who oppose Trump, this man is giving your personal information to hackers.

Ignore the back and forth bull nonsense. This man is selling your personal information, and some of the links will pull your credit card information.

He’s literally stealing your credit card number.

It will be more like "McGovern the shit out of 2020." He won one state against Dick Nixon re-election.

You won't see on the media report that Ilhan Omar was "married" to her brother.

You won't see anybody demand AOC distance herself from the WA (comedic, amateurish) terrorist that was righteous shot dead trying to blow up ICE property.

You won't see that Ilhan Omar filed joint tax returns with someone not her spouse.

You won't see that (former KKK Grand Dragon) David Dukes praised Omar's anti-Semitism.

lol, tell you what base, I promise not to write in "Omar 2020."

Omar 2020!

She couldn't be more stupider than the 22 (did another drop today?) dolts you have now.

We will see how it goes in November 2020.

"Say, 'Good Night.", Gracie."

Good economic news is problematic for Democrats.

Is DtB me? or "Ditch the bitch?" or "Don't trust bitches?"

In any case, good advice re domestic violence scenarios: get out of the house.

The Dems have 12 months to crash the economy. Given their prior willingness to conspire with foreign agents to win elections (Hello, Mr. Steele!) I would not immediately discount their ability to do so.

I knew it was the Democrats preventing rain for my crops and killing my cattle. First, I thought it was Jews and witches, but now it is clear it is Democrats.

2. Orange County’s New Age Crystal Cathedral

____

glitz impresses the masses

religion & show business are variations of the same game

It is not that simple.

I went, when a girlfriend's family was television Evangelical, and the Christmas Pageant was a thing. It had teen girls riding high up on wires as 👼 and a live 🐪. It was a bit of a reach form my more mainline Lutheran self. Maybe it is still a bit of a Lutheran perspective that dramatic landmark church would be a good fit for the Catholics.

I've much enjoyed the NYC Radio City Music Hall Christmas Show. It didn't count for Christmas Day or Sunday Mass.

I think the elder Schuller gave a sermon. But yeah, a pageant is probably not mainly a service.

My first time in catholic ceremony I thought I had gone back to the middle ages. Pageantry and magic

The self-styled cognoscenti are even more devoted to art, architecture, shibboleths, and narratives than the hoi polloi.

@Goldhammer:

... relax -- your Heisenberg Compensators merely decoupled from your momentary event horizon

Nobody changed the future, did they?

Double-check

@RobertAllan:

... why does a Supreme Being need cathedrals & worship (or humans)?
musta got boring after a while- being supreme and all that....

God is not a Supreme Being, God created the world.

Big difference.

Stop reading Asimov and start reading Shakespeare and the Bible.

Shakespeare and Asimov wrote better fiction than the authors of the bible.

No they did not.

Trust me.

7. Maybe the timing isn't right? Or: the continually ignored constant that we can't have everything, at least not all at once?

"In Mexico, the most recent official nationwide survey indicates that 44.9% of women have suffered some form of violence in their homes, with 25.8% of women reporting physical violence; 11.7% sexual violence; 56.4% economic violence; and 89.2% emotional violence."

https://theconversation.com/sexual-and-domestic-violence-the-hidden-reasons-why-mexican-women-flee-their-homes-65352

"Rates vary significantly across countries: Guatemalans express the highest acceptance of spousal violence (53.9%); Paraguayans express the lowest support among the countries studied (8.3%)"

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/IO927en.pdf

Santiago Y Adelante!

Santiago Y Cierra!

How did you get the inverted "!"?

¡Copy-paste! The dumb gringo's workaround!

Sweet.

sweeter!!
en las noticias de hoy
the donald calls on the squad to "apologize to America"
vaya con juevos

Well they should apologize, they have said many hateful things

they have said many hateful things, the last time I said a hateful thing was in NYC on January 1 some dude puked on the subway platform I said something rude

also Trump is right all four of them are what we used to call stupid before PC I am not sure what you now call people who, before PC, you used to all stupid

"...Mexico ... domestic violence ..."

I assume some of them are good people.

For number 7, I would assume there are no personal or professional benefits for pointing out domestic abuse while the first metooers got lots of positive feedback. That didn't pan out in professional terms but in the beginning it seemed like it might.

The reason is that the income/class/race demographic that composes the #MeToo movement is different than the income/class/race demographic that composes the majority of the domestic violence victims.

That MAY be the reason.

More likely, it's the differential in each pair of victims' and perpetrators' Intersectional Pokemon Point Function (henceforth IPPF).

The c++ like representation below will be true (for now):

{
IPPF(HotBlondActress) - IPPF(HarveyWeinsteinIshFatWhiteGuy) >

IPPFF(WelfareMomWith3KidsFrom3DifferentFathers) - IPPF(DaddyNumberOneOnParole)
}

This analysis is a clue that it isn't actually Intersectional Pokemon Point that are counting here, rather but rather good-ole-fashioned glamour.

3. Even as the new National Conservatism movement rejects libertarianism, libertarians either don't get the rejection or the new conservative movement is a charade and the libertarians know it.

#4) Interesting how the most recurring word for many countries is oppositional or contrasting:

North Korea: South, South Korea: North, Canada: Quebec, numerous countries no longer part of the Soviet bloc): Soviet, US: War, Taiwan: China, United Kingdom: Ireland

I guess the exception is more interesting than the rule.

I will answer #7: because DV laws are oppressive and are gamed every day: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=915929

#7: Don't want to stir that pot too much, since the #meetoo movement is about extrajudicial shaming, and a few prosecutions, the family courts are stacked against men, and the threshold for throwing the book at a woman is higher (women are essentially treated like retards without agency by the courts). Those with #MeeToo stories about domestic violence ignored by the legal system might very well be men.

Slightly different topic:

https://www.divorcesource.com/blog/moms-can-be-deadbeats-too/

This is a pot that not only needs to be stirred; it also needs to be emptied out in the trash!

See: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=915929

The paper you are quoting is pussyfooting around the issue, here is a concrete example: My friend robbed the cradle, he has two sons, and a wife (soon to be ex). When she was 20, it was great to be with a 40 year old guy with real money. At 35, it's not that great deal for her to be with an aging dude, why not keep the money, but not the dude. So my friend spent a night in jail based on a made up domestic violence event. Later, he obtained legal court admissible recording, where his wife confessed making up the fictitious attack, as well as their son of 11 years old being a witness that the broken sheet rock was caused by the mother. And this has absolutely no bearing on the divorce suit, and the biased prosecutors insisted on an anger management class for my friend, after they were presented with evidence (the recording), that would have stopped dead any prosecution of my friend. That, is the ultimate smug behavior of a feminist prosecutor.

If there was any justice, the wife would lose all parental rights, get nothing in the divorce, and spend the same time in prison as my friend would have, if the perjury succeeded. Incentives affect behavior.

#MeToo (pound me too sounds a bit sexual, doesn't it?)

This stuff reminds me of the crap people say when caught cheating, like "it was just the heat of the moment." No. There were a lot of steps that lead to you being in that motel room, cheating on your wife with that coworker.

Same with this domestic abuse stuff. It didn't just happen. You chose the a-hole with the bad temper. You chose to stay with him/her after that first time you got called a horrible name. You chose to stay after that first time you got shoved. You chose to have a child with the loser (birth control and abortion still being legal and all). Then we start the clock and say "oh, no. You poor victim," and ignore everything that led up to it.

It's great to help people in those situations and draw attention to their horrible situation. You even get a lot of brownie points for doing that. If you suggest we learn from those mistakes and educate kids on how to avoid violent mates when they start dating, then it's bordering on victim-blaming and no one wants to go there. So, we keep having this problem.

And, the best we can do is ask why there isn't a hashtag for this or why already useless laws can't be strengthened.

Abortion is an ultimate act of violence, don't act like it is permissible

#6 I would eat a lot more apples if it wasn’t for the problem of the core, it seems there is no good way to eat around it without getting some pips or pith. It is also quite messy to hold. We have pipless oranges and grapes, why not apples?

They say if you eat an apple top down you don't really notice the core. Try to avoid the seeds.

On seedless things, an avocado would be nice.

LOL. Sounds like a rich man's problem. The most significant part of the apple story was this passage: "though Washington State University owns the WA 38 patent, the breeding program has received funding from the apple industry, so it was agreed, over some objections by people who worried that quality would be diluted, that the variety should be universally and exclusively available to Washington growers. (Growers of Cosmic Crisp pay royalties both on every tree they buy and on every box they sell, money that will fund future breeding projects as well as the shared marketing campaign.)" - keyword: PATENT

I eat apples more often than I eat other fruit because they are so convenient to eat. I solve the problem of the core (sounds like a topic from an economics theory class) by taking small bites when I get close to it and not trying to eat all the way to the core.

As for mess, I find them less messy than eating oranges, which tend to spray droplets of orange juice when peeled and ooze juice if a section's membrane is broken. And then you have to gather and discard the peels, whereas an apple core is something I'm already holding and simply throw in the nearest trash can.

Bananas are easy to eat and in an ideal situation have no mess to deal with except for discarding the peel -- but they're soft and vulnerable to getting squashed with resultant banana mess. Grapes are also easy to eat but also somewhat vulnerable to being crushed plus you need a container to put them in.

2. A great many Catholic clerics seem proudly philistine, and dedicated to making specifically Catholic worship a thing of the past. And there are the usual chancery wire-pullers. What's worse is that the current Bp. of Orange is one of Benedict's appointments.

Article #7 is a train wreck. Yes, lawyers are more likely to litigate against deep pocketed counter-parties, but that's about the only piece of her argument that hangs together. The MeToo movement did not follow "shortly" after courts defined the parameters of workplace discrimination law. The majority of "MeToo" stories haven't even played out in court. And the article that she cites to claim that winning a restraining order is "one of the most reliable indicators the victim will soon be killed" shows no such thing -- she confuses P(A|B) and P(B|A). Finally, she doesn't even consider the most obvious distinction between claims of MeToo and DV victimhood -- that the former is status-raising and the latter is status-lowering.

Yeah, the only thing the "MeToo movement" followed "shortly" after was Bill Clinton becoming irrelevant because his wife lost.

Penelope Trunk’s post on #MeToo and domestic violence is important, but it falls into a logical trap that is common in this area. Namely, it describes the abuse as a structural phenomenon, but suggests that the abusers are acting freely. For example, the linked to Psychology Today piece emphasizes that people who are stuck in these horrible relationships are not choosing to be injured; but by favoring more stringent criminal punishments for abusers, the author implies that they are responsible for their actions - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/romance-redux/201303/why-do-people-stay-in-abusive-relationships

My Twitter feed attests to my deep enthusiasm for the #MeToo movement, but I have no patience for the idea that victims aren’t responsible for being victims, but perpetrators are responsible for being perpetrators. I don’t think Cosby or Epstein chose to be violent, exploitative, and profoundly disgusting men; I think that’s just how they ended up. And while the post-Weinstein surge of #MeToo journalism is most welcome; there has long been a steady stream of horror show articles about the criminal justice system writ large.

Of course, we need a public safety system of some sort; despite decades of progress, a huge amount of violence happen in this country every day, and contrary to those who fear the Deep State, a large chunk of it goes unreported and unprosecuted. I certainly don’t have the answers to this problem, but I do think it would be useful to stop thinking dichotomously about victims/perpetrators, and guilt/innocence.

+1. Whoever wrote that is clueless. Courts recognized hostile environment theory such that it has been around since the mid 80s, indeed it is what Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of, but the author assumes this happened just a couple years after 2010 because some cases related to "retaliation" were decided then. Not only that, but she cites the Civil Rights Act of 1991 when claiming that "courts" ruled harassment complainants could win punitive damages: even a layperson like me, but who works closely with lawyers, knows the difference between a court and a statute. Pointing to the contingency fee trend is probably accurate, but everything else reads like a person getting their legal knowledge fourth hand.

One of Tyler's biggest weaknesses is his attempt to delve into legal matters; I get that he may not always want to cite lawyers, in fact it's probably best he doesn't given how arcane the field is, but he often draws attention to people who are simply wrong and couldn't differentiate civil law from criminal law.

Meant this to be in response to David Wright above

I would like to hear what you think of Jared Bernstein's latest article in Vox:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/19/20699366/interest-rates-unemployment-globalization-minimum-wage-deficit

You are an economist. I am sure Bernstein's ideas are easy to dismiss.

So do it!

If you do not have a good response to him, than I guess he is correct.

Vox. Sigh.

Tyler, please post. As a tribute to economics.

1) Natural rate of unemployment (actual) is a function of male LFPR. Obviously. Anyone with 2 brain cells and a lack of journalism degree could tell you this. It’s down from over 97%...to less than 88%. So...no. Try again. We have millions on the sidelines. The function isn’t wrong, it just never assumed 10% of men would just give up the labor market.

2) Globalization is a win win. No one said literally every producer would benefit. This is an argument that would get laughed out of an undergrad Econ course on international trade. Consumers benefit, we have a triangle for deadweight loss. Come on, this is an Econ blog.

3) Crowding out. Still true, shows an astounding lack of understanding math. Ceteris paribus isn’t tough. This country used to believe in mathematics. Liberals used to be believers in math?

4) No economist ever said minimum wages would hurt all workers. It will hurt the workers whose marginal product is below the minimum wage. Complications added by illegal workers, as this adds to illegal worker wages and detracts from illegal wages.

Tyler, please post. Thanks.

Sigh...

1. If your argument is correct I guess President Trump should stop praising how low our current unemployment rate is. Please tell him to stop. (LFPR also counts retired folks as unemployed of which there are more now than ever.)
2. All those trade agreements were fought for based on the argument that it would be good for everyone in the long run if not the short run. Go read history.
3. LOL If crowding out were true, then our current $800 billion deficit would be hurting the economy. But as Rush Limbaugh has said no one is a deficit hawk anymore.
4. LOL "...as this adds to illegal worker wages and detracts from illegal wages."

The bottom line for Bernstein's argument is that all 4 policies (true or not true) help rich people and hurt poor people.

I hope Tyler can provide the answer.

I assume since Tyler has not responded, he has no defense against Bernstien's arguments.

3. How might Libra evolve in response to regulatory demands.

David Marcus, the head of Facebook's new Calibra payments division, appeared before two hostile congressional committees this week with a simple message: Facebook knows policymakers are concerned about Libra, and Facebook won't move forward with the project until their concerns are addressed.

While he didn't say so explicitly, Marcus' comments at hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday represented a dramatic shift in Facebook's conception of Libra. In Facebook's original vision, Libra would be an open and largely decentralized network, akin to Bitcoin. The core network would be beyond the reach of regulators. Regulatory compliance would be the responsibility of exchanges, wallets, and other services that are the "on ramps and off ramps" to the Libra ecosystem.

Facebook now seems to recognize its original vision was a non-starter with regulators. So this week Marcus sketched out a new vision for Libra—one in which the Libra Association will shoulder significant responsibility for ensuring compliance with laws relating to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes.
---

The original approach, the correct approach, is called sandbox. The trader activates his trading bot within the sandbox, and at that point registers with the regulation ledger. Then on exit, re-register with regulator. This is the approach we want, the regulators have to change. This approach results in a 1% GDP endogenous gain, it cuts to thirds of our ATM payments or equivalent. The central cannot toss that kind of banking gain away and still compete, not against shadow banking.

This subject is not over, the regulators break even here, they have access to all the trading books and can use forensic accounting to trap scofflaws in the net. Then the tech is neutral, neither side gets any relative gain over the other. Sandbox I call it, it wins the day, regulators will capitulate.

Why no me too for domestic violence?

Because disparate impact.

1. I like this McGinn guy ! One thousand more of people like him and America could become a great living place again.

4. The most recurring word on Mexico's Wikipedia page is a spelling mistake? That's unfortunate.

About 2, does Tyler consider what happened to the church a "small step to better world"?

I'm assuming we're meant to treat (7) as a plea to take domestic violence more seriously, rather than an honest attempt to analyze the causes of #MeToo?

Comments for this post are closed