This is pschaeffer's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following pschaeffer's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
pschaeffer
Recent Activity
Kaleberg, David McCullough wrote an excellent history of the Wright Brothers a few years ago. The army procurement center played no role whatsoever in their success. In real life an elaborately funded (by the Federal government) effort (the Langley project) to build a flying machine failed at the same time the Wright Brothers succeeded. Try to get your facts correct. Some major industries were the product of Federally funded R&D. Others were not. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry (drilling, production, pipelining, refining, distribution, etc.) developed with almost zero government support. The same can be said for the coal, railroad, and steel industries. In truth, many examples of major industries built with almost no government support exist. Others, (such as computers and the telegraph) did have extensive public support. Of course, aviation became a very public project after the Wright Brothers (for DOD related reasons).
1 reply
jorgensen, "What would it cost for government to establish a dedicated industrial research lab on the model of Bell Labs?" The U.S. currently has 10 national labs. See http://science.energy.gov/laboratories/
1 reply
jorgensen, Republicans esteem traditional American culture, not European culture (which they generally disdain). In the U.S. the retreat from reason is at least bipartisan. Shall we discuss the Larry Summers affair?
1 reply
I can't say if everything published here is right or wrong. However, the history of the transistor is clearly incorrect. "The Innovators" by Walter Isaacson has a quite detailed history of the transistor. The first transistors were not field effect devices and were not based on surface-deposit circuits (which came decades later). They were bipolar devices using large pieces of Germanium and other materials.
1 reply
jorgensen, The Erie Canal was built by the State of New York (the Federal Government refused to do so). The financing came from the usual collection of domestic and foreign banks.
1 reply
Please indicate what type of astrology you specialize in. Wikipedia list many types. Burmese astrology Chinese astrology Electional astrology Horary astrology Horoscopic astrology Natal astrology Indian astrology Sidereal astrology Sri Lankan Astrology (Sinhalese Astrology) Tibetan astrology Western astrology Tropical astrology Which one do you favor?
1 reply
DD, You need to switch from Astrology to something related to reality to understand this sort of thing. Probably too late for you.
1 reply
"but favor imposing legal penalties, either civil of criminal, on groups linked to acts of violence" Starting with BLM no doubt...
1 reply
+1 There is "good hate" and "bad hate" and only "bad hate" counts as "hate"...
1 reply
Mr. Rodrik, I appreciate that you have many other topics to address at this point... However, the Sibel Edmonds story has long struck me as important and badly under-reported. She alleges all manner of illicit relationships between the U.S., Turkey, Israel, etc. Any comments you might offer would be welcome.
cm, "You are making a lot of specious arguments around an issue that isn't under debate - that there are genetically determined physical, cognitive, and behavioral gender differences is obvious and well documented." Actually, no. You may believe "that there are genetically determined physical, cognitive, and behavioral gender differences is obvious and well documented" I happen to agree. However, the Spelke, Dickie, Nancy Hopkins, etc. crowd vehemently disagrees. They allege that no genetic determined cognitive and behavioral differences exist (or are so minor as to not exist for any practical purpose). Can I prove this? Yes, as it turns out. Read Larry Summers actual remarks to the NBER conference. Tell me what exactly he said that should have offended anyone who believes "that there are genetically determined physical, cognitive, and behavioral gender differences is obvious and well documented". If you were correct (everyone accepts certain differences), his remarks wouldn't have offended anyone. They did. The Blank Slate fanatics reject the very idea "that there are genetically determined physical, cognitive, and behavioral gender differences is obvious and well documented" You are seriously underestimating the depth of liberal/left/elite/cosmopolitan fanaticism on this subject. A few quotes from "Men Are Stronger Than Women (On Average)" should help. "To give a concrete example of how far this goes, there are many liberal Left people who won’t even accede to the proposition that men are, on average, stronger in terms of upper body strength than women. A few years ago this came up on social media, where a friend who has a biology background from an elite university, even expressed skepticism at this, when I was trying to get her to be open to behavioral differences between the sexes by starting with something I thought she would at least agree with as reasonable. When I saw the lack of unequivocal acceptance of this point I decided to opt out of the conversation. This was basically face to face with Left Creationism." Note that the Creationist in question has a biology background from an elite university. "Every now and then there is a debate on who is more “anti-science”, the Left or the Right. I’m not too interested in the details of that, but, a few years ago I expressed my skepticism to Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, that liberals were somehow reflexively more “pro-science.” I suggested to him, for example, that when it comes to aspects of the biological basis of human behavior, with the exception of homosexual orientation, liberals are highly resistant to accepting any differences across groups because of their adherence to social constructionism. Chris brushed this off, suggesting that the “science wars” were over, and even when it came to evolutionary psychology (broadly construed) the liberal Left had conceded to the best evidence on hand. I was not moved, because I’ve had years of exchange with many liberal Left folk who defy Chris’ assurance to me. This is most notable when it comes to sex differences, which are usually seen as less controversial, and evolutionarily should have some prior expectation due to dimorphism." The quotes are out of order. However, the point(s) should be clear. Left Creationists believe 2+2 = 3 (or whatever it should be), not 4. For another taste of how dark this has become, see "The Lack of Progress in Science: Sex Differences" People are seriously proposing to abolish women's sports... Read it all.
Toggle Commented Aug 1, 2016 on Women and Econ Blogs at Economist's View
1 reply
Dickie, "All we have to do is read your asinine, fact free posts to demonstrate that" Nearly a quarter of the state’s 38 million residents (8.9 million) live in poverty California ranks 44th in inequality Fourth-graders in California are in the bottom 8 percent in the country 48th and 49th in fourth-grade math and reading California eighth-graders are ranked in the bottom 20 percent of states ranking 41st in eighth-grade math and 44th in eighth-grade reading 9 states are actually poorer than California The CEO/worker pay ratio appears to exceed 25,000 (yes 25,000) In 1970 California had the 7th most educated work force of the 50 states By 2008, it ranked 50th, making it the least-educated state One in six workers in the state has not graduated high school 50th. No need to look down on Mississippi In 2011, 8,944 people move to California from Utah 18,237 moved the other way. Since 1990, California has lost 3.4 million people (net) That's significant simply because Utah is number 1 No facts. No numbers. Just keyboard characters that "look" like numbers.
Toggle Commented Aug 1, 2016 on The Path to Prosperity Is Blue at Economist's View
1 reply
Dickie, Hard to get an MBA without a high school diploma... A degree in astrology might be within reach.
Toggle Commented Aug 1, 2016 on The Path to Prosperity Is Blue at Economist's View
1 reply
pgl, "Wow - a right wing troll that does transfer pricing" So transfer pricing abuses are now a left-wing ideal? Or our they a "bad" thing. My position has been, and is clear (opposed for many years). You seem ambiguous on the subject. Are transfer pricing abuses OK if socially conscious, enlightened company does them? Would they be OK for a pharmaceutical company? What about an oil company? Back 2013, hearings were held on Apple's coroporate tax avoidance manuvers. Carl Levin (D-MI) condemned Apple's conduct. Rand Paul (R-KY) defended Apple. Looks like you are on the Paul side. I can find no evidence that Apple ever made a deal with the IRS in the USA. Lee Sheppard ("How Does Apple Avoid Taxes?") has looked at Apple's tax conduct in some detail. It may or may not be legally sustainable. The question here is not criminal violations of the tax code but civil. Less ambiguous is Apple's domestic borrowing to pay dividends using offshore cash as the (de facto) collateral. The tax code bars sham transactions making Apple's conduct (in this case) quite vulnerable. I find it interesting that attacking Apple's tax abuses is now considered to be "right-wing". Perhaps it is.
Toggle Commented Aug 1, 2016 on The Path to Prosperity Is Blue at Economist's View
1 reply
Thank you for your comments
Thank you for your detailed and informative comments
Did the euro just enter its death throes? We can certainly hope so. At this point the Euro is the prison of nations, condemning Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and perhaps Ireland to one or more decades of economic ruin. Almost 10 years ago, Argentina broke the chains of dollar parity that had plunged that country into a 30s scale depression. The economic rebound has been stunning. For a variety of reasons, Club Med won't do as well (in relative terms). However, it can do better than the current ongoing tragedy. Hint folks. What other country do we know that might be suffering from a fixed exchange rate?
1 reply
JK has already made this point. However, much (most) of the growth in median family income is a consequence of higher LFP (women working). A missing point is that median family income would have risen considerably more, were it not for this rise in inequality. Per-worker productivity has risen over 20% since the 1970s. Note that per-capita productivity has risen more because of smaller families and greater overall LFP.