This is reason's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following reason's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
reason
Recent Activity
Why borrow?
1 reply
Is that relevant? A human colony on Mars - they have a harsh environment, but they are not exactly surrounded by enemies (from whom they stole the land).
Toggle Commented 7 hours ago on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
So long as you speak only in vague generalities I don't believe a word you write - and neither should anybody else. A. I am not an academic B. You do not need to tell me anything about yourself, just give specific information. After all we are all anonymous here to some extent, but I none the less give specific information where it is relevant. C. Nothing you have written could not just have been plucked from thin air. Your refusal to supply any specific information really hurts your credibility here. You are just like the Republicans who promise the impossible, but when it comes to actual delivery, can't.
1 reply
"According to the show they have a common purpose in making Mars a livable planet" Soldiers? Really? It seems to me soldiers do one of two things 1. They protect things (and almost always things not people) that people have already claimed as theirs 2. The take things that other people have claimed. I propose that soldiers are actually the takers so calling receivers of basic income takers is massive projection.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
"The Martians have compulsory service in the military and they call Earthlings "takers." " mmm... The "takers" are given things (i.e. they are literally receivers). What are soldiers doing exactly?
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Putin is in charge of a country of 130 million or so people. I guess he delegates.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Yes - the problem is that those 17% gains don't go into median income. Most of them go to above median income. Tax and spread.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Up to then, I could have given him the benefit of whatever doubt there was. But that was blatant and incredibly pathetic. I wouldn't even think Trump could sink so low. I'm sort of puzzled that it didn't cause more outrage (perhaps that was due to the timing during the US electoral season). It seems to have passed Anne by.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Yes, but this site is not a advocacy organization trying explicitly to get regulation reduced and seemingly counting some very odd things in federal "regulation". (I wouldn't be surprised from the figures if they included health insurance and payroll taxes there - which I really, really regard as cheating).
1 reply
WHAT REGULATION EXACTLY - and how are the costs related to the regulation - you didn't answer the question. And I still don't believe you that you actually have a new business.
1 reply
kthomas calls Peter K a troll? And I always thought they were sock puppets.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Yes I agree completely there - but do you see the problem with framing this as "we did a lousy job of negotiating". No "we" got exactly what we wanted. The problem is who is "we".
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Point 2 Clinton's policies did help lead to mass incarceration. How exactly? Most crime enforcement is a state responsibility. Point 1 - he did increase taxes and wages did increase. He just happened to be in charge when there was a massive increase in the stock market. Point 4 - he mentioned specifically China, not "corporate globalization".
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
"But they are less inequitably distributed than what we produce here at home: serious worriers about economic equity do not start with foreign trade, only non-serious worriers do." So is he arguing for a UBI (i.e. a national dividend) to ensure that everybody has a stake in the health of the economy as a whole and not just in their own small corner of it?
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Sounds like Sargeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes - "I know nothink!" But yes, what really drives the exchange is completely up in the air. But I find it confusing that he keeps talking about the "nominal exchange rate". I don't know that anybody makes any predictions about "nominal exchange rates". Most people prefer to deal in real exchange rates because significant short term inflation effects are quite possible.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Point 2 has almost nothing to do with the Federal Government. Point 1 seems to have happened world wide (to admittedly varying extents. How much of that can be attributed to Clinton remains to be seem. But during Clinton's time in office there was the only substantial increase in median real wages seen in the whole post-Reagan time. Point 3 - I agree with. Point 4 - I'm not sure that having Indonesia or India or the Phillipines play the role played in the world China would have made so much difference to the outcome in the US. Most studies show that automation was at least as big a factor. So 1 out of 4 ain't bad I suppose.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
It seems just as likely that one of Yanukovych's people did this as that the order came from Putin. Not that I have any time for Putin. (He lost all respect I might have had for him when he had his airforce attack UN relief columns in Syria). I don't understand why Anne insists on not seeing the evil side of Putin.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
But what has that to do with "free" trade. It seems to me that some people think "free" trade means without tax - but that just transfers the tax burden somewhere else (including lack of government services). (Note VAT falls on imports but not exports and income tax on exports but not imports). Or does he just mean without product or environmental standards? Or does he mean without quantitative restrictions. Or what? Free trade is a meaningless phrase here. Surely he just means trade. I think Dean Baker should start a movement - no more talk of "free" trade.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Who are "we"? Most people in the rest of the world thinks the game was rigged by the U.S. (whose main interest seems to be in protecting its patent holders and agriculture).
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I sort of wonder what are "economic" regulations. Does this mean accountancy standards, or anti-corruption/organized crime due dilligence? I notice they include tax compliance in "regulatory burden".
1 reply
P.S. I don't believe a word of that propaganda piece you linked to either. Nothing about it is independent.
1 reply
"when a zipper manufacturer has to file annual reports about where and how their supplier sources zinc, it is a business killer." Oh come on - don't zipper manufacturers have contracts and accountants? You have to be kidding me. One report forces someone out of business? Can't be very profitable.
1 reply
The main reason people are not starting businesses in the US is the lack of a safety net (the great risk shift), and the concentration of income (how can a new business get a start when its customers have falling incomes). Regulation is just a just an excuse. And I personally don't believe that you actually know what you are talking about. What regulation in particularly are you complaining about and what is its actual cost?
1 reply
Rubbish - spoken by somebody who has worked in both the public and the private sector. 1. Nobody thinks that regulation doesn't cost 2. but it also has benefits - for the consumer 3. for the neighbourhood 4. And possibly for other producers Just looking at it from the point of view of a single producer is totally misleading. And doing something well is just as important as whether you do it or not. Cop out has nothing to do with. And cost is widely misunderstood. One man's cost is another man's income.
1 reply
Is the question "Are there Benefits from Free Trade" - different from the question "Are there Benefits from Trade"? What work is word "free" doing here - and what does it even mean? I'm beginning to hate the word "free". It is so vague and so often misused that I'm beginning to think it should just be banned. It is a hindrance to communication.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 03-23-17 at Economist's View
1 reply