This is reason's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following reason's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
reason
Recent Activity
Is this satire? Is North Korea populated exclusively by the lazy? A what happened in the early post in the first half of the twentieth century? Did Malthus take a holiday? So many questions and so few answers from the intellectually lazy.
1 reply
P.S. I have always argued that in fact the human brain is hard wired to look for determinism. Stochasticism is unnatural for humans. That is where Austrian economists come from.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on 'Not Seeing Luck' at Economist's View
1 reply
Larry, actually tennis is a good example of the fallacy of winner takes all. The point is if tennis tournaments really were winner take all, even though the prise money is very large, the players would essentially all be amateurs (because nobody but the already rich could afford to travel the world to get enough experience to have a chance of winning). Essentially, I think this is what happens with CEOs. In order to have a meritocracy you don't need high rewards at the top, you need ladders.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on 'Not Seeing Luck' at Economist's View
1 reply
Why does anybody pay attention to these idiots?
1 reply
I'm a bit surprised at the way the people here responded to Joe Le Taxi, because he sets himself up for ridicule by claiming that he is a (G)libertarian who doesn't believe in utopian solutions - (G)libertarianism IS a utopian solution (ignoring the experience of history that unregulated free markets don't work as advertised).
1 reply
cm my ????? directed at ilsm was because of his strange comment about lawyers and Hitler.
1 reply
ilsm ?????
1 reply
Rusty, "Government does not want to solve problems, because the government looks out for the government." Tell me, who exactly is this "government" that you are talking about? I get the impression when people use that word, the concept is very fuzzy. See my first comment.
1 reply
Oops Freudian slip there. Davos of course not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davros . Although I'm sure Davros would expect to be invited to Davos.
1 reply
I think it is interesting that in the US most politicians are lawyers. In Germany, the most parliamentarians were previously public servants including teachers and professors. Lawyers are a significant group, but in no way dominant. http://www.zparl.nomos.de/fileadmin/zparl/doc/Aufsatz_ZParl_10_03.pdf The reason for the difference is clear, with proportional representation, and partly public financing of elections, time to devote to politics is a larger factor than public presentation.
1 reply
Bob Zonis, maybe the people who made them dirty.
1 reply
OK I see three separate issues that are getting a bit intermingled here. 1. the necessity for democracy as a countervailing power to the power of money 2. the necessity of government to ensure the smooth working of society 3. how to achieve the functions of government (many and varied as they are) at the highest possible quality and lowest possible cost. To some extent these various issues act against one another (democracy is messy and inefficient, sometimes it act against the function of government as a regulator as special interests attempt to disrupt it). I think a lot of the problems we have in discussions about these, is that these different things get mixed up. I think we need to be clearer in what we are talking about, and in some ways the language gets in the way (because we use words that have come to have multiple or unclear meanings).
1 reply
Davros? Is Davros a democratic event? I thought it was the 1% snubbing their noses at the rest of the world. Isn't it better to encourage the development of populist policies (or is it just that Summers identifies too closely with the elite).
1 reply
I've been thinking about this more, and I have come to a realisation that rather disturbs me. What set it off was the author arguing that some particular approach was "conservative" as though that was important to justify it to convince his audience. I found this odd, what label you apply to an idea is irrelevant to whether I think it a good idea or not. Then I realised that this approach should have been familiar to me, it is the approach of someone giving a surmon in a church. If I replace the word "conservative" with "catholic" or "moslem", the context becomes clear. He is making a theological argument. But in politics there is no revealed truth. There is no holy book, no god, no prophets. Why does he think this approach is valid? Is American conservatism a religion?
Toggle Commented Jan 16, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Well if Romney runs they can hardly criticize Hillary for being too old (which I think she is by the way). 68 + 8 = 76.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Peter K "I think it's a good sign Hillary picked Podesta." Odd sentence. A good sign - not a good thing - or a good choice - but a good sign. What is it a sign of?
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
ilsm regarding Chris Dillow (Stumbling and Mumbling) is a self-described Marxist.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
To put it another way, if someone was to call me "a liberal", I would regard it as a description, but if an American conservative calls himself "conservative" he seems to regard it as badge.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
ilsm With respect that doesn't answer my question.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Actually, can anybody explain to me the label phenomenon in the US. I could be called a Liberal because I support policies which are mostly espoused by Liberals, but I don't support those policies because I like to be called Liberal. But American conservatives seem to decide that they a Conservative, and so they support "conservative" policies. How else can you explain an article by an American conservative addressing other conservatives arguing what is "conservative".
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Oops sorry ...heart... should be ...hurt... of course.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never heart me"? Why is America so hung up on labels (so that socialist and even liberal are regarded as dirty words), and people care if they are conservative enough. What crap!
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
pgl I don't have much time for this "who is more conservative than whom" business. Who cares what is "authentic conservative". I just care about what helps people.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply
ThomasH I don't either, but a BI (national dividend) is better than either. The main issue with a low minimum wage (even with higher EITC) is that increases the bargaining power of employers wrt employees which may lead to exploitation, but a high unemployment rate will do that as well. A BI lets people say no to exploitation.
1 reply
Stumbling and Mumbling is very interesting as usual. I thoroughly recommend looking there every now and then. I don't always agree (I'm not a Marxist), and sometimes he is not fully seriously, but he does challenge your preconceptions and that is useful.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2015 on Links for 01-15-15 at Economist's View
1 reply