Monday assorted links


#1 The greatest challenge for any 'elite' - nay even entire societies and civilizations - is not allowing victory to defeat them. The Chinese have a proverb which paraphrased is wealth lasts 3 generations, which is similar. It's one thing to be tested and be found either lacking or able. It's another thing entirely to be so far removed from the original Sisyphean efforts that provided the position you now enjoy that you forget someone/s will gladly trade places with you if you're willing or kill you and your entirely family if you're not.

Politically and culturally in the USA and around the world a movement is taking shape centered entirely around the premise that Marcus and people like him don't deserve a damn bit of what they have. Moreover, that Marcus and people like him aren't the 'experts' they claim to be, with a growing preponderance of evidence. Apparently Marcus doesn't think so either. A fool and his money are soon parted, but Marcus and his money are simply a function of a favorable outcome in what Warren Buffett called the "ovarian lottery". Your problem can be solved Marcus. And fast too.

#4 Among the most 'non-fun' experiences I ever had. Thank god I wasn't the one paying.

Pai rico, filho nobre, neto pobre (rich father, noble son, poor grandson) - Brazilian saying

Academics and newly minted students share the view the elite re-generation occurs at the university level. In reality, it occurs outside of those walls and takes place over the next 20-30 years in unbelievably rigorous working conditions at professional services firms, financial institutions and fortune 500 companies, all of which have their share of non-Ivy league leaders. University culture doesn't bother me too much since the protest skills learned there don't translate very well when operating in institutions that can actually fire people (see Google).

Google is/was sued for discrimination by liberals (Chevalier), conservatives (Damore), women (Ellis, Pease, Wisuri), and minorities (Wilberg). Protest culture is becoming a real business liability in the working world. When people see you as both a giant faceless corporation and as a giant bag of money, watch the lawsuits fly.

Those law suits are a side distraction that irrelevant people focus on while Google runs the world.


Among true intellectual elites there is a deep sorrow for those who have to teach for a living. Remember the look that coyote gave your dog when you were walking the dog out in the burbs and the coyote was sitting at the other end of the vacant lot, contemplating the universe and the green field between you and your dog? I remember ....

There are a couple exceptions - architectural geniuses have an excuse for working at a university, and the two or three people who have understood how to be the two or three best out of ten thousand college coaches at the unlovably difficult, but very remunerative, task of being a college football coach of an interchangeable college football team have a good reason to work at a university as the HIGHEST PAID STATE EMPLOYEE IN THEIR STATE - but in general the people who are the most worth listening to are living their lives as far away from where the New York Times expects them to be as they can.

(for another example Batman knew more about Shakespeare than the Puzzler --- dude even knew what act the best quote from the MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR was from ----- even I didn't know that!)
(well I know it now after having spent 20 bucks on Batman Season 2 Part 2, where the duel of wits (Shakesperiana version) between Batman and the Puzzler can be found)
(lucky for Batman and the Puzzler they were not trading barbs from Finnegans Wake or A la Recherche du Temps Perdu ---- Batman, Albert, and the Puzzler put together could not equal me on that)

Shakespeariana, not "Shakesperiana".

Not as common a word as Dickensiana, for reasons that should be obvious. (Having to do with time, the differential between our connection to our great-grandparent's generation and generations six or seven more times removed, and the relative success or lack of success of the attempt at artistic (and solely artistic, we are not talking about crazy people here) ensoulment, measured by the detailed efforts of the writer, of fictional characters - please consult the references in Balthasar's Theo-Drama for more details ... or better yet, Erich Pryzwara on Antalogia Entis, in the more relaxed passages... and best of all, for most of us, Bernanos on the inner thoughts of Vianney (in his youthful novel "Sous Le Soleil" and his mature novel "Journal d'un Cure de Campagne") and Therese Martin (in his series of novels "L'Imposture" and " La Joie") .... those novels are also instructional .

It is more important to correctly spell uncommon words than it is to correctly spell common words, for reasons that should be obvious.

As always, thanks for reading.

If nothing else, I mentioned that the correct spelling of "Shakespeariana" is important.

Merry Wives of Windsor, Act Five, first few lines (spoken by Falstaff).
Bruce Wayne, back in the day, cited to Act 3, Scene 4, line 22, but he was wrong.

Also in Vergil = "diei numeris imparis, tam loquitur, speremus .... cordis mitibus, numeris divinis gaudens atque gloria suo ....

(the gods themselves rejoice at odd numbers, it is said there ... let us hope their humble hearts, rejoicing in their won glory and and, God bless their prideful hearts, rejoicing in ...rejoicing in the fact that they find that such numbers remind them of the voice of God)

For some reason lost to history, the actor playing Batman in the 1968 version of that epic cited to The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 3, Scene 4, line 22.

Trust me, the relevant quote can not be found where our respected superhero said it could be found, but rather it can only be found in the first few lines of Act 5.

Which read as follows:

"There is a divinity in odd numbers, either in nativity [or] chance, etc."


Ramanujan knew that, he knew what it means to be a friend to the most seemingly banal of numbers


Just saying, ymmv, but seriously, think about what I just said.

And don't bother to respond, I am not writing this out of hope of response (and to tell the truth I KNOW THAT ALMOST EVERYONE READING THIS IS READING IT ON AN ARCHIVED SITE where response is not a viable option, more or less)

I might sound like a fool but THIS IS MY WORLD

and YOUR WORLD too

Why would an heir to a fortune waste their time in a law firm, Wall Street company, or a consulting firm?

Because that's where all his friends/peers are working

Twitter is now censoring coordinated tweets from China attacking the HK protestors. Where is the line to be drawn between censorship and propaganda? I don't believe Russiagate settled the matter.

Arent t they censoring the propaganda?

I think he's asking if propaganda is free speech or if it should be censored. Twitter has made up their minds but should they be doing that? Certain groups feel that tech companies are censoring their political views yet propaganda is literally a political view. If an American supports Trump on Twitter that is one thing, but if a Russian does the same thing is that now another? So Dorsey bans pro-China tweets but allows pro-HK tweets, is that ok?

It's the "coordinated" part that is relevant. That means the tweets are coming from chinese government officials using fake names, not ordinary chinese people. They're censoring "fake" tweets, not anti-HK tweets.

"Arent t they censoring the propaganda?"

It's a bone headed move. Now they've given the Chinese government a valid argument that Twitter favors the other side. Essentially they've handed the government a bigger propaganda win than the tweets they censored ever could have been.

MR comments may be sparse for a few hours as readers struggling to follow the nugget of insight in #1 finally awaken hours later to find themselves slumped on the floor.

#4) I'd rather drive a convertible through a car wash, top down. I guess we can also look forward to faux prisons and labor camps

2. also is a purty good narrative!

My colleague's daughter was at Purdue for a whole semester before she found out the freshman who shared her twin dorm room had a 100 million dollar trust fund.

My freshman roommate at Yale was the son of an 8-figure millionaire, and he spent almost all his 4 years ingratiating himself with the son of a then 9-figure millionaire. I have done well in my career, but I probably would have done much better had I followed my roommate's path.

Guess what advice I will give my son if he ends up going to a school like Yale.

Why would you expect to find that out at all? Was your colleague's daughter rummaging through her room-mates hard-copy bank statements?

People slip up when drunk or tired and next thing you know everyone is googling dad's superyacht.

it is a way of counting one's age. maybe not viable but a durable term.

#3: Burn it! Everybody knows Catholic Emancipation was a huge mistake.

Mr Cowen, did you censor the word Papists because you feared it might trigger us? Are we, in your view, so childish?

"Are we, in your view, so childish?"


Walt Disney was a great patriot. Did you know that he was one of the first artists to warn America about the risk communist infiltration in the movies industry posed to our country? Yet, Disney hired a radical communist agitator to "star" a children's movie? I think Mr. Disney must be spinning in his grave.

3. Tolerating Catholics? Locke was an Anglican. Today, Anglicans are intolerant: many American Episcopal Churches (part of the Anglican Communion) have split because the Episcopal Churches were considered too tolerant, tolerating not only gays and lesbians but female priests. God forbid!

tolerating not only gays and lesbians but female priests. God forbid!

Sixty-odd years of living and you plumb the shallows of every subject.

He is being facetious. Right?

His comments are some of the reasons I come to this BS blog. I usually have a chuckle, which often is much needed.

He is no more silly than many other commenters.

To be fair, for some posts the best remarks are written by that 'cuck' numbskull.

"He is being facetious. Right?"

No, I think he means it.

#1: The beginning isn't the least bit interesting and it vitiates any motivation one might have had to read all the way through her 10,000 word yammer. The opinions and impressions of a 25 year old woman about the life histories and anxieties of people she isn't demonstrably well-acquainted with are not of interest. If there was one sentence in this piece that was instructive to anyone, please, tell us which one.

Well, I admit I only scanned but a new word jumped out at me: thumotic.

It was like a little Easter egg class marker (Greek/no Greek) embedded in a piece about gradations of wealth.

She could have said, "He didn't have the courage" but then we wouldn't know she went to Yale.

I suppose this was reasonably interesting (if depressingly true): “In effect, a large fraction of the administrators form a revolutionary class within the rest of the university structure. They use both their existing power and new ideological mandates to expand their own domain at the expense of other players. The purpose of the administrators is to shape, tear down, and rebuild the university on the institutional level, which lets them act on ideological goals in a way students and faculty generally cannot.“

There's sort of a middle section where she's discussing the elaborate social signalling rituals of the rich that is fascinating before she goes completely off the rails and starts trying to link it to everything that is wrong with PC and academic culture in general.

she's discussing the elaborate social signalling rituals of the rich

About which we have no particular reason to believe she's doing anything but elaborating on a tiny population of examples (wherein she's miscoded half the people she purports to be observing).

In Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, Paul Fussell made a point about conspicuous displays of wealth or their absence as a status signal that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this discussion.

One way in which someone signals membership in a given social class is by pointedly refusing to adopt the status markers of the class immediately below theirs. Consider cars, for instance. If I don't drive a Mercedes-Benz, it might be because I can't afford one. However, it might also be that I'm in a class above the lowest that can afford them. By not driving one, I'm making it clear that I don't belong to the same class as Beverly Hills dentists and Third World cabinet ministers.

So with ostentatious faux poverty at Yale. For someone with a six-figure trust-fund income, conspicuous displays of wealth wouldn't heighten his status; it'd lower him to the level of the sons of people who actually had to work for their money.

"Erika and Nicholas Christakis were on-the-record liberals who had fought for minority issues at Harvard." Serves them right, then: natural victims of the Woken SS.

I shan't take Yale seriously while it bears the name of a notorious slave trader. Nor will I take their students seriously until they demand that the name be changed.

Typically the best way to handle it is to find some personage of minor note with the same surname. Usually there are lots to choose from, maybe the first assistant commerce secretary of color, someone like that. Curiously the name Yale is rather short on Who's Who-types. The most promising candidate seems to be one Frankie Yale, an associate of Al Capone. Now I know what you're thinking! - but: he was a very deeply justice-involved person.

+1 I see what you did there.

Well Yale is also where you can get fucked up the ass in a crypt by a guy named like George Wilbur Haverford III.

#1 Yale is involved in the pedo-cult of Moloch just like Harvard

How many kilo-epsteins worth of depravity they got in the Ivy League?

#1 'What’s Really Behind The Campus Wars '

Some people just like to crap up the place for no reason.

Don't be naive. This has a perfectly obvious reason, it's about power. Not all the children of the elite believe in the Left wing Wokeness, but they've learned what will happen to them if they say the wrong thing. If the campus agitators can get Professors sacked for a Yelp review or an email about Halloween costumes, then a student doesn't have a chance of crossing that mob.

It's all a game of power politics of the Elite.

Yes , behold! The power of an 18 year old student!

Meanwhile the Republicans egg on mass murders of Undocumented Citizens, and the President winks at the KKK.

Examine your life.

You know, before I used "anonymous" at 5:58 pm, I scanned the page to see that it was clear. What did you do, wait all day to troll us, jumping in 15 minutes later?

Anyway, RatInPutinsMaze is an ass for obvious reasons

And you don't need to make shit up about Republicans, given the real thing.

To further elaborate. RatInPutinsMaze Is an ass because he believed an independent special counsel report and the testimony. He’s a murderer in theory if not in practice.

As my wife’s boyfriend likes to say, “any cop is a murderer.” Why are we trusting a lifelong FBI veteran to say Trump is innocent??

Only fascists and murderers fought in Vietnam. Mueller is a fascist. Vietnam veteran? Come on. He’s a mass murderer who should stand on trial next to Trump.

Vote Warren, and we’ll end this !

Did he believe? Mueller in that link? Huge Russian involvement? Criminal acts by Russians? Welcomed by the Trump campaign? Pretty shady stuff, even if it didn't hit the legal bar that the Trump campaign specifically *directed* any specific crimes. They just welcomed them. Useful fools.

And then Mueller says Trump is compromised as a result. The rat and assorted clowns say "but he isn't a total Manchurian candidate, we win!"

Such a low bar you all set yourselves.

Of course trolling and funny names are all you got. -

By the time Schiff and Nadler came up with their harebrained religious revival scheme, Russiagate had come full circle. Adherents were now back to making the same arguments editorialists were making in July and August of 2016: Donald Trump was simply too willing to be a partner to Putin. The crime was no longer any overt act of conspiracy, but in the mental state of being amenable to cooperation with the evil one.

This is how Vox reimagined “collusion” after the release of Mueller’s report: (snip)

Schiff in his opening statement before Mueller’s testimony took this all a step further. He said Trump “knew a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it,” a crime he described as “Disloyalty to our country.”

Noting that this offense “may not be criminal” (a fact Schiff hastened to blame on destruction of evidence and “the use of encrypted communications”), he went on to insist that, “disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship,” and is therefore unconstitutional, and a “violation of law.” That this concept was originally dreamed up in the Red Scare era (McCarthy also accused members of Truman’s administration of disloyalty) seemed not to bother anyone.

The full article is pretty good.

We have never had the level of foreign attack on an election like we had in 2016, period.

We had the trolls. We had designed and targeted disinformation. We had financial assistance. We had email hacks. We had intrusions into voting systems in all 50 states.

It's gaslighting to say critics found nothing and had to backpedal. They found a lot, and the US indicted Russians for related crimes.

But too we found loopholes in American law. Russians could not contribute to the Trump campaign. But they could contribute to the NRA for parallel work.

The candidate couldn't direct a crime, but he could (1) joke publicly that he'd like one to happen, and (2) Russians could launch that very effort later in the day.

That anymore would now accept this as the way things can and should be done in the future is totally appalling.

There's a story about "collusion" between foreign governments and a presidential candidate. Which doesn't really exist.

There's a story about the Obama administration dropping the ball on electoral security. That may exist, although you may also ask what can actually be done that they would be expected to be able to do without severely compromising the freedom of US citizens to use the internet, financial freedom, freedom of association, and whether the likely very small impacts of any of those argued compromises is really worth what could be done to mitigate those in the balance.

Fake news. Again.

The only plausible path for Trump when it became obvious PUTIN paid for $100,000 in Facebook ads was to resign. He's complicit. He's guilty. It matters not one whit that Mueller said he is not guilty.

$100,000 in Facebook ads. $100,000 out of $2.6 Billion. That's electoral interference, it's a foreign ATTACK. On our elections. I'm old enough to remember, as my wife's boyfriend does, when Republicans were against Russian interference.

That's not me.

But I'm afraid M is just playing a slightly more sophisticated version of "not a total Manchurian candidate, we win."

Mueller calls the attack unprecedented. And welcomed.

If you were honest you would not try to wave those two things, that significant pair, away.

Remember folks. One HUNDRED thousand. A thousand. Times one hundred.

That's how many dollars. In Facebook ads. UNprecedented. ATTACK.

Almost 1/20,000th of the political advertisement spending was from PUTIN. We're almost talking Elizabeth Warren Cherokee DNA percentages here.

Wake up sheeple. We're under attack.

He seems to be 0% Manchurian Candidate. Another zero percent is:

"Less than 1% of voters now consider “the Russia situation” the most serious issue facing the country. This isn’t a new development. Polls consistently showed this to be the case across the last few years, including earlier this winter, before Mueller’s probe ended without further indictments.

In other words, even when voters in both parties knew charges could be filed at any moment, this issue rated below the economy, immigration, civil rights, health care, and other concerns. In mid-March, just before Mueller’s probe wrapped up, CNN found a whopping zero percent of Americans identified “Russian investigation” as their primary concern heading into 2020."

On the note of welcoming Russian interference, the US left can go into your next Presidential Election holding up the "more nationalist / patriotic than thou" against Trump. Maybe it'll work or maybe it won't. I suspect that would not be a winner.

But there seems to be no crime there, other than:

"The precedent now would be impeachment of a sitting president for his response to a politically-charged investigation into crimes he didn’t commit, the same logic that rightly enraged Democrats in the Ken Starr days (articles of impeachment were filed against Bill Clinton, too, for obstruction, for coaching Monica Lewinsky and assistant Betty Currie). "

I'm just here loving that the left wing idiots with their "dark money" conspiracy, so convinced that "populism" was mere astroturf manufactured by the Russian and a dark money elite, have been left holding precisely nothing in their hands. So convinced that they know that politics is run by money, and that their political opponents were just stupid fools being tricked, but what we find is that they were the ones truly keen to believe in absolute fantasy and to be led by the media into believing ideas with no substance.

I stay on actual crimes that were welcomed, and you try to pull me off to some other meanless conversation.

You can't be this dense. "No crimes" which he has actually played a part in. The guy announced his joking or whatever embrace of Russian hacks during the 2016 election 3 years ago, and the American electorate made their decision on that, already.

Approximately 90% of the current epidemic of hatred and violence originates with the Democrat party, black/brown nationalism/privilege, and the alt-left.

The comical, amateurish attacks invariably are stopped. One can't be an effective terrorist when one can't decide which shit house to use.

To wit, Alt-Left ICE Office Attacks:

13 Aug 2019 – San Antonio, TX
16 July 2019 – Washington, DC
14 July 2019 – Tacoma, WA
12 July 2019 – Aurora, CO

Among many others, I blame AOC's, Ilhan Omar's, violent rhetoric.

If you’re going to blame Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration for shootings targeting minorities, you can’t simply turn around and ignore alt-left violence. You have Democratic presidential candidates, “squad” activists, cable news anchors and editorials from major newspapers constantly demonizing ICE, calling for it to be abolished and blaming all manner of human misery on immigration enforcement officers who are being attacked for upholding the law.

Oh, but you can, anonymous.

Geez, do you just count on me to set you straight?

Friendly reminder that registered Republicans are responsible for over 90% of violent crime, to include murder.

"1. Social class at Yale: rambling and at times vague, but also truly interesting in several segments, especially toward the beginning."

Overall it's a pretty good first hand account of modern Yale culture. Sure it's long and a little rambling, but was still an interesting read.

Why was a communist agitator hired to star a children's movie?! I hope the backlash helps Hollywood executies to rethink their ill-advised relationship with (and reliance on) Red China.

I won't patronize any Disney-controller business.

#1 - Since when have we started to track this kind of nonsense? Rich people trying to pretend to be poor... so what??? First of all, besides the kids who are involved in this kind of stupid drama, how does this even matter?

If you read the entireincreasingly rambling article you would have evntually gotten there. Because rich people pretending to be poor leads directly to ideological apocalypse.

Ah, I see. Like cultural appropriation but with class :-) What a bunch of nonsense, my gosh I feel like I am 90 years old when I hear this kind of thing!

#1. She gets at something here:

The capacity to really think through what an alternative should look like, and create one, is so rare as to be effectively nonexistent. Instead, idealists are forced to take the easy way of just going along with dominant ideological narratives of what it means to do good.

These people might sometimes say that they are “tired of fighting”—but this is not the full truth. Fighting is fun. It is always fun to be a warrior—to have something you believe in that guides you. To be part of a tribe, working for the good of mankind. To be revered and respected for being on the bleeding edge of the paradigm.

Especially when you’re winning.

Being part of an ideological crusade is entertainment for people who have experienced everything that wealth already offers. I've been there. I've always craved experience over material wealth, preceding this feature of the millenials by a generation. In high school, I once joined a protest march just out of curiosity to experience the novelty of being in one, not because I believed in the cause. I should note that I wasn't rich (pretty poor actually) so this particular kind of attitude isn't exclusive to the wealthy, but I can easily imagine that an ultra rich person could be so bored of everything else that they would start a revolution just for the fun of it. The students then, are basically trolling for the sheer entertainment value of the drama of it. Maybe not even consciously aware of why they are doing it, but just because the thrill of being part of a political movement wakes them up from the stupor induced by a life of luxury.

Well-said, this checks out. I award you 10 internet points.

This is another good reason to legalize psychadelic drugs. Because they're an outlet for people's need for meaning, o e which is less socially destructive than fomenting social conflict

Now you're talking!

More psilocybin, less Twitter!

Ugh. Peak Silicon Valley. "It's just a brain-hack! I'm microdosing!"

Out of curiosity, how many people do you know who consume psychedelics, and of that population, how many of them have weak opinions on social conflict?

"but I can easily imagine that an ultra rich person could be so bored of everything else that they would start a revolution just for the fun of it"

That's a reason why Jeffery Epstein existed and a new one probably exists now - although Tyler is loathed to mention this.

For that matter, probably most of our politics is entertainment for bored people up to and including fake meaning for people who crave meaning.
First world problems.

Locke then: “Toleration is important because you can’t force people to change their minds and believe something they don’t,” he adds. “Toleration allowed for people to continue to believe what they believed without leading to those horrible consequences of civil strife.”

Giuliani now: "nowadays" facts "are in the eye of the beholder."

And yet G doesn't seem too tolerant of liberals, or even federal investigators, with those other facts.

No, the degenerate right defines tolerance thus "you can't blame me, because I have my own facts .. but you are still bad, because my facts apply to you too."

My wife’s boyfriend is a justice involved person who is still on parole. He has been discriminated against consistently, but not in my wife’s house. We live together in harmony. The US can as well! With my wife’s matriarch household as an example, a city on a hill as it were.

It’s time for the government to shut down the spread of facts that haven’t been pre-approved by trusted institutions, which would be the DNC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Vote for Democrats across the board, and let’s ban any public discourse outside of NPR until we can get a handle on squashing the free flow of information.

Vote for Democrats across the board because the Republican base is as crazy as you are, troll.

To expand,

Anyone with a wife that has a wonderful boyfriend should vote Democrat!!

My wife’s boyfriend often let’s me eat food in the fridge. He’s a justice system involved human being and I appreciate his candor and generosity. We’re all voting against Trump, except for my wife’s boyfriend since he’s a justice involved person and has been stripped of his right to vote because of unserious rape allegations.

Thankfully my adopted children from my wife’s justice involved boyfriend are also democrats.

Warren 2020

The sad thing is, this is the best "defense" Trump has at this point.

Bring on a fool to caper and dance, and hope he distracts you from all the facts in evidence.

Mouse speaking ex cathedra is a good illustration of why Locke concluded that Papists should not be tolerated.

#2: It's almost shocking to me to read a "serious" economic history who argues so strongly from what they would wish to be true for their ideology.

Mokyr is the vast, vast superior in the realm of explanations for modern growth rooted in ideas.

I mean, and in the realm of talking about present day policy, where you do you start on the shallowness of this? The attempts to sell the "The Swedes are the true economic liberals today, not quasi-socialists" angle? (Seems to be gaining as some muddle headed Libertarians try to save face among the Voxxer crowd). The assertion "And government ownership of the means of production is trivial in all the Nordic countries" but no talk of Norwegian sovereign wealth funds and all the bits of developmental and industrial strategy? The "girl libertarianism and boy libertarianism"? So lame. This is someone who does not want to think about making real suggestions or reality, and has a position that means that their utterances are never checked by reality.

That spurred me to look, and holy cow:

"American Progressivism recommending the sterilization of defectives to improve the Aryan race and a minimum wage to drive non-Aryan immigrants out of the labor force"

Strange how you cross-match that with Locke on tolerance.

Sure sure, progressives really want eugenics and to protect Aryans, and how dare anyone deny Sarah Sanders a table! Incivility, carefully chosen.

Her taking the view that only "liberty" in toto across the board - though with that "strong social safety net" that differs in no discernible way from any garden-variety "modern liberal" - deserves the name seems sort of belied by her obsession with gays, leaving the impression however inadvertently that, in fact, everything could evaporate but as long as gays continued their advance in whatever ways are left them, it would be alright.

Nor, while it was meant as a wry, lighthearted comment on hoary tradition as represented by Harvard, does the closing anecdote about how she tried to retroactively make it appear she attended Radcliffe in the 60s, when a man, suggest reality has a stronger claim with her than fantasy.

The poor they are "at worst 1,000 percent worldwide" better off, but the smart-stupid - we have always with us.

1. Tax the endowments. F*ck 'em.

Why do we give a tax break the to the ultra rich and powerful to donate money to themselves?

What do we get out of it?

Tax 'em and tax 'em hard, right up the wazoo.

Is Big Business virtue signaling? They want to overpay their workers now? Companies exist because of shareholders. Workers are costs that need to be cut.

"... virtue signalling?"

You bet!

"Although largely symbolic, the group’s statement goes against a roughly 30-year viewpoint that corporations exist to serve shareholders."

"The statement comes amid calls for greater corporate responsibility from Democratic candidates for president and employee activists who want companies to take stances on issues outside of the corporate sphere."

Of course. They have to placate those activist, boycotting sjws.

What a world we live in.

#1: Orwell, 1937: The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white- collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting.

Still true, through the filter of a vastly richer global society.

It seems like there's no need to posit a particular, special contemporary crisis that encourages these folk to pose as being outside an elite. Rather a conjecture would be that we've simply systematically placed a growing share of the population through the environments that create those youthful snob-Bolsheviks and prim little men, and systematically removed the social censure that shifts those creatures from that path.

"and systematically removed the social censure that shifts those creatures from that path."

Yeah, I have even seen Black people seated on the bus. It is obvious communism.

I'm guessing you fit the "prim little man" subtype?

Quite the opposite, indeed.

Prim little mouse, or should I say mole?

The best passage in all of Orwell is that part in Homage to Catalonia where he's chasing a right-winger down a trench, trying to bayonet him, and every time Orwell sets up to stick him the winger pulls away just out of reach so he has to chase him some more. It reminds one of Walt Disney, who may have had Donald Duck doing that same thing in a cartoon somewhere, before he went bad.

Spoiler alert: the right-winger gets away. Orwell never gets to kill him.

3. New John Locke manuscript discovered, on tolerating the Catholics.
Sunday NFL seems to do the trick.

1. I went to a Yale-level university, and find it hard to relate to all these articles describing Yalies and peers as "the elite." Look at the data ( The median household income of incoming Yale students is $192,600. At age 34, the median income of a Yale student is just $76,000. These are "upper-middle-class" or even just "middle class" numbers, not "elite" ones. True elites are a single-digit percentage minority, even at Yale. The vast majority of Yale students "effectively become middle class," as the article puts it, and have lives that are not so different from successful state school graduates. The modal student at Yale and similar universities is someone who went to a suburban public school, with working professional parents, and who after graduation pursues a recognizably middle-class profession that offers a decent paycheck but no meaningful power or influence. Their middle-class affections are not "masks," but an accurate reflection of their lives.

"Income" is for losers who have to work for a living. Think of stocks, not flows.

It would be interesting to see data on net worth. I couldn't find any. I strongly suspect that my point would be even stronger if measuring net worth rather than income because most kids from high net worth families who never have to work prefer to go to fun party schools over Yale and such, which appeal more towards kids from working professional families who put a heavy emphasis on their own careers.

The median household income in the US is $59K per year. A student from a $192K is not close to middle class.

How many Yale students worry that they won't have enough money to cover rent if they can't bump their hours up at their part time job? How many moved out of the dorm the first year to look for cheaper housing off campus? Granted, it's become more common to just make the money problems go away with plentiful student loans, but that merely makes the average college student worse off.

To be fair, none of that qualifies them as "the elite" but it certainly means they aren't representative of Americans, even when adjusted for SAT scores.

I agree. But it's a big jump from saying that Yale students are more easily able to afford rent to saying things like Yale students "are expected to rule benevolently" because they have more "powers and privileges" than everyone else. Really, most Yale students don't rule anyone, and don't have any more powers and privileges than a state school graduate with similar income and career skills.

Yale's mission isn't and shouldn't be to train an "elite." Its mission is to teach and do research, same as every other university. We should think of Yale and similar schools as more analogous to an honors program at a state school rather than some secret society pulling the world's strings.

Medians aren't necessarily the best way to measure these things.
I would classify "middle class" as "can afford a suburban style single family home on a 1/4 acre lot". Depending on what part of the country they're in that may or may not be achievable on a $192K household income. In many major metro areas, that's enough to put you in the "upper middle class", maybe, but definitely not in the "upper class".

Ok, fair point. They still would have to work for a living so would be in the classic middle class. The upper class being those that don't need to work for a living.

Agree with Zaua's perspective. I, too, went to a "Yale-level" school, and today most of my peers are toiling in subalterns-of-the-universe jobs. Yes, there are visible and prominent successes--one schoolmate is mayor of a major US city, for example, and another is a presidential candidate. But I also have classmates happily making < $50K. Of course we had obscenely rich classmates, but unlike the author of the essay that I didn't finish reading, I had little interest in them. As for me, I have a normal job at an IT company, and for career mentoring I look to a woman who spent a decade working her way through community colleges and state schools.

#4: Escape rooms are old news by now. The article did have some interesting figures about potential costs and revenues, and the inevitable market consolidation.

I have a friend who helped some friends create three escape rooms (they put up the capital and were the owners, he simply helped them design it and was not an owner). As the article says, escape rooms don't have to be about escape, one of their rooms got noticed by online reviewers because the premise was that you're a dog trying to find your lost ball. But financial costs and opportunity costs exceeded their revenue so they closed their rooms after about a year.

I've been to two escape rooms, one was I think overly difficult and we were two full puzzles away from escaping. The other was perhaps too easy or maybe its puzzles were too similar but it was more fun and we got out with a ton of time to spare.

#5 1) obliquely, timing: Back in 1981 I was involved in a NASA project to strategize about incorporating more AI into NASA's missions and to bring NASA's computing capability up to current research university standards. One of the things we learned is that NASA's procurement cycle was such that by the time a computer tech request was approved, the technology was all but obsolete.

2) My mentor, David Hays, worked for RAND back in the 50s and 60s. He lead their effort in machine translation. He told me that back then RAND got half its budget from a single Air Force contract signed by the Secretary of the Air Force. The work order section of the contract specified only that RAND use the money to conduct research for the benefit of the country. That's it. When you've got talented people, let them do what they want. They'll do the best they know how.

Great points. It's hard to know what you need to do years into the future. Fixating on a preordained plan rather than on the process of learning/error correcting is a sure way to slow technology growth.

#2. Wow! What a tour de force on "liberalism 2.0" by McCloskey. Erudition at its best. You should interview her in your Conversations, Tyler....

Yes, a splendid interview.

Prof. McCloskey may be mistaken when she says "liberal countries like the U.K., the U.S., and France did not have passports until the First World War".
Passports were recommended for first-class passengers, and required for all others (or equivalent documents proving identity) for entry into South American countries in 1912 (two years before the Great War, for you econ nerds). We can easily verify this by reading cruise ship brochures from the pre-Great War period (as I have done).
However it may be true that the overall system of passport controls was modified as a result of the greatly changed national borders issues in Europe.

"Prof. McCloskey may be mistaken when she says "liberal countries like the U.K., the U.S., and France did not have passports until the First World War"."

That statement is wrong. The US has been issuing passports since 1775. Passports weren't mandatory till the WW1 period, and that requirement was relaxed in 1921. However, they were extensively used.

"Records of the Department of State show that 130,360 passports were issued between 1810 and 1873, and that 369,844 passports were issued between 1877 and 1909"

Comments for this post are closed