The points I just listed are commonly accepted among economists of all ideologies, my apologies if you find them ideologically inconvenient.
Also, I would note that Republicans seem to have as much trouble with points 2 and 4 as the Democrats, and the Democrats don't attempt point 1 any more. This isn't about left vs. right, this is about good economics vs. bad economics.
1) I'm making a narrower point than you think I am making. I'm talking about the comprehensive central planning of an economy in the manner of a communist country. Not that the government should never provide services nor that the government should never engage in regulatory activity. I will write a post about this at some point.
2) Actual slave labour is a legitimate exception, one of about two or three exceptions I would accept. It is also an exception that the WTO accepts. Bear in mind that there is a huge difference between slavery and people voluntary working under conditions you (or I) would personally find unacceptable.
3) I'm not sure I'm getting your point. If it's that bad economics is not confined to one side of the political spectrum, then I'm willing to stipulate that. I would also point out that subsides and price fixing aren't the same thing and subsidies are less problematic (though they still need to be justified on policy grounds).
No, saying they may be negatively correlated is simply stating a possible scenario. Sometimes they'll be positively correlated, sometimes negative correlated and sometimes orthogonal. I meant nothing more than that.
1) The Coriolis Effect is real, but very weak in bodies of water smaller than a cyclone, so in practice our water goes down the drain in whatever way local conditions dictate. Which side of your sink the water pipe is on affect water flow a lot more than your hemisphere.
2) New Zealanders call each other "New Zealanders" or "Kiwis". Incidentally, we call the fruit kiwifruit (kiwis are a native bird), so telling a New Zealander that you like eating kiwis will get you an odd look. I'm afraid I'm not aware of a site covering our local idioms though.
And I see nothing wrong with the framing Tomasi (and by extension Erik) uses. First of all, even if justice and economic prosperity are never in conflict it's hard to establish that a priori, and justice and freedom are at least conceptually different this so its good to keep them as separate concepts even if they prove to be strongly correlated.
Secondly, if one is describing the difference between liberalism and libertarianism what descriptive framework would you use other than private economic freedom vs. distributional outcomes?
Self-serving bias is definitely a problem, I'm sure most American farmers genuinely believe that agricultural subsides are important for the economic health of the US.
Clearly not self-evident, since there are people who disagree with them (number 2 is especially controversial, though not among economists). But the list I put up would be held to be a good one by a large majority of economists. There are complications that need to be worked though, but I feel it's a good starting point.
Thanks everyone for your kind welcomes. I'll be away from home for much of the day, but I except I'll have my first substantial post up some time tonight (tonight my time, so sometime in the next 8-12 hours).
Since James K is actually part of my name its more of a psuedo-pseudonym really.
And I've done my due diligence, ultimately I have the same rights of free expression as anyone else, It's more about risk management than me doing anything I'm not allowed to do (trust me, if I wasn't allowed to do this, I wouldn't be doing it).
That sounds like a fine idea. Even in an environment where most schools are controlled by the government, it is possible to structure the schooling system so that schools compete with each other.
Since the benefits of unions tend to be stronger in uncompetitive markets, this would have the effect of squeezing unions, but not necessarily at the expense of teachers.
I think the younger ages fit with what I see as Martin's vision - a desire to portray a fantasy world with authentically medieval elements. Fourteen might be a child by modern standards but in much of medieval Europe it was the age a boy became a man. It makes sense that Jon Snow is that age.
But I agree it wouldn't work for TV, for one thing you simply couldn't screen Danaerys's wedding night if the actress looked thirteen.
While I'm sure there are some benefits to be gained from having a background in classical literature, I wonder at the opportunity cost.
Speaking for the quants of the world, the one thing I think needs to be better taught for good citizenship is statistics and probability. A large number of foolish beliefs held by the voting public are due to being easily deceived by numbers or failing to understand the nature of probability and risk.
Adam Smith once said that it took government to turn dearth into famine. Interestingly, the main thing he fingered as the cause of famine was laws banning price gouging, or "engrossment" as it was known in his day.
I think its more an indication of the difference between those who see politics as personal and those who see it as institutional.
If you think of the quality of policies as being about whether "good people" or "bad people" are elected term limits make sense as a stop-loss measure - they cap the harm that can be caused by individual bad people in office.
If however you think that the quality of policies and politicians depends mostly on voter preferences and institutional structures then term limits are pointless at best - get rid of one bad politician, and another will take their place. And term limits make politicians less experienced and less accountable.
I lean toward the latter view, but I suspect the playwright favours the former.
Down this end of the planet, winter's nearly here.
As luck would have it I just started reading A Game of Thrones again last week. I'm re-reading the series in preparation for the release of A Dance with Dragons.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Doubt and Ideology”
The points I just listed are commonly accepted among economists of all ideologies, my apologies if you find them ideologically inconvenient.
Also, I would note that Republicans seem to have as much trouble with points 2 and 4 as the Democrats, and the Democrats don't attempt point 1 any more. This isn't about left vs. right, this is about good economics vs. bad economics.
"
1) I'm making a narrower point than you think I am making. I'm talking about the comprehensive central planning of an economy in the manner of a communist country. Not that the government should never provide services nor that the government should never engage in regulatory activity. I will write a post about this at some point.
2) Actual slave labour is a legitimate exception, one of about two or three exceptions I would accept. It is also an exception that the WTO accepts. Bear in mind that there is a huge difference between slavery and people voluntary working under conditions you (or I) would personally find unacceptable.
3) I'm not sure I'm getting your point. If it's that bad economics is not confined to one side of the political spectrum, then I'm willing to stipulate that. I would also point out that subsides and price fixing aren't the same thing and subsidies are less problematic (though they still need to be justified on policy grounds).
"
No, saying they may be negatively correlated is simply stating a possible scenario. Sometimes they'll be positively correlated, sometimes negative correlated and sometimes orthogonal. I meant nothing more than that.
"
I suspect that some policies would make both better, some would make them both worse and some would necessitate a trade-off.
"
1) The Coriolis Effect is real, but very weak in bodies of water smaller than a cyclone, so in practice our water goes down the drain in whatever way local conditions dictate. Which side of your sink the water pipe is on affect water flow a lot more than your hemisphere.
2) New Zealanders call each other "New Zealanders" or "Kiwis". Incidentally, we call the fruit kiwifruit (kiwis are a native bird), so telling a New Zealander that you like eating kiwis will get you an odd look. I'm afraid I'm not aware of a site covering our local idioms though.
"
I'm a big fan of Hayek for just this reason.
And I see nothing wrong with the framing Tomasi (and by extension Erik) uses. First of all, even if justice and economic prosperity are never in conflict it's hard to establish that a priori, and justice and freedom are at least conceptually different this so its good to keep them as separate concepts even if they prove to be strongly correlated.
Secondly, if one is describing the difference between liberalism and libertarianism what descriptive framework would you use other than private economic freedom vs. distributional outcomes?
"
Self-serving bias is definitely a problem, I'm sure most American farmers genuinely believe that agricultural subsides are important for the economic health of the US.
"
Well, Rhys Darby is a tough act to follow, but I'll just have to see what I can do.
"
Thanks Erik.
"
Clearly not self-evident, since there are people who disagree with them (number 2 is especially controversial, though not among economists). But the list I put up would be held to be a good one by a large majority of economists. There are complications that need to be worked though, but I feel it's a good starting point.
On “Let the wind between howl, lonely and wild”
Scepticism is commendable and all too rare. Policy problem are some of the most complex problems to be addressed by human minds.
I think I need to write a full post to do the subject justice.
On “Introductions and Disclaimers”
Thanks everyone for your kind welcomes. I'll be away from home for much of the day, but I except I'll have my first substantial post up some time tonight (tonight my time, so sometime in the next 8-12 hours).
"
It's not a bas comparison actually. Basically, they're bigger, but we're better.
High fives for all the Canadians!
"
I prefer a Trilby myself.
"
Actually Australia and New Zealand gained independence at the same time in the same way.
"
Since James K is actually part of my name its more of a psuedo-pseudonym really.
And I've done my due diligence, ultimately I have the same rights of free expression as anyone else, It's more about risk management than me doing anything I'm not allowed to do (trust me, if I wasn't allowed to do this, I wouldn't be doing it).
On “Beyond Unions”
That sounds like a fine idea. Even in an environment where most schools are controlled by the government, it is possible to structure the schooling system so that schools compete with each other.
Since the benefits of unions tend to be stronger in uncompetitive markets, this would have the effect of squeezing unions, but not necessarily at the expense of teachers.
On “Game of Thrones Book Club: Meet the Starks”
I think the younger ages fit with what I see as Martin's vision - a desire to portray a fantasy world with authentically medieval elements. Fourteen might be a child by modern standards but in much of medieval Europe it was the age a boy became a man. It makes sense that Jon Snow is that age.
But I agree it wouldn't work for TV, for one thing you simply couldn't screen Danaerys's wedding night if the actress looked thirteen.
On “Secret Trials, Secret Laws”
So basically, the Patriot Act is now Catch 22? It empowers them to do things that it allows them to keep secret from you.
On “The Humanities are Still Important (Supreme Court Edition)”
While I'm sure there are some benefits to be gained from having a background in classical literature, I wonder at the opportunity cost.
Speaking for the quants of the world, the one thing I think needs to be better taught for good citizenship is statistics and probability. A large number of foolish beliefs held by the voting public are due to being easily deceived by numbers or failing to understand the nature of probability and risk.
On “Raptured”
Adam Smith once said that it took government to turn dearth into famine. Interestingly, the main thing he fingered as the cause of famine was laws banning price gouging, or "engrossment" as it was known in his day.
On “Quote for the Day”
I think its more an indication of the difference between those who see politics as personal and those who see it as institutional.
If you think of the quality of policies as being about whether "good people" or "bad people" are elected term limits make sense as a stop-loss measure - they cap the harm that can be caused by individual bad people in office.
If however you think that the quality of policies and politicians depends mostly on voter preferences and institutional structures then term limits are pointless at best - get rid of one bad politician, and another will take their place. And term limits make politicians less experienced and less accountable.
I lean toward the latter view, but I suspect the playwright favours the former.
On “Liveblog at the End of the Universe”
Well after Febrary, there's only so much of Christchurch left to smite.
"
Well it's already past 6am in New Zealand, and no earthquakes, raptures or so forth yet.
On “A Game of Thrones bookclub begins”
Down this end of the planet, winter's nearly here.
As luck would have it I just started reading A Game of Thrones again last week. I'm re-reading the series in preparation for the release of A Dance with Dragons.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.