I agree but I think that's the point of Eddard Stark. A Song of Ice and Fire is in may ways a deconstruction of conventional fantasy or medieval tropes, and Stark is a deconstruction of the loyal Right Hand of the King. His loyalty does no one any good, not Robert, not himself and not The Seven Kingdoms. But Stark can't see that and his blindness dooms him.
I believe the proper role for the central bank is to keep prices stable. That means you'll get some stimulative activity since recession tend to coincide with low money supply, but I don't think there should be a deliberate policy of stimulation through expanding the money supply.
If I had to pick something it'd be the teaching of religious belief to children, inflammatory enough?
Of course that's part of the reason that I end up identifying with the regulated, and not the regulator. Which only emphasises your point that if you try to enforce community standards and want "community standards" to mean more than "tyranny of the majority", you get nowhere fast.
You may have me confused with someone else. I'm agnostic-to-opposed on the theoretical merits of fiscal stimulus, and I'm especially hesitant to recommend it for a country running significant structural deficits.
I'm leery of the term "neo-liberal", since I'm not entirely sure it means anything. But as a disciple of Milton Friedman I suppose it fits me as well as anyone.
I had the same problem. I rated 5 on left/right and -5.18 on libertarian/authoritarian (so smack bang in the middle of the purple quadrant), but there were about a dozen questions where I answered agree but could have just as easily answered disagree (or vice versa).
Personally I'd prefer to see a quiz that asked questions based on hypothetical policy proposals. I think that would help make things more concrete.
Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy is simply incredible, though all his book are worth reading. He was able to make The Wheel of Time good again, so that should give you some idea of his talent.
Also I'd recommend Australian author Jennifer Fallon. Her Second Sons trilogy is brilliant and really breaks free of the standard tropes of the genre.
Yes, I shouldn't overstate my differences with the left either. Actual socialism is no longer advocated by the mainstream left, which puts us much closer together than in times past.
I think one of the reasons I spend more time arguing with liberals than conservatives is that I feel with liberals we both have a similar view of what good government is, our disagreements are about mechanisms. With conservatives, I don't think we share even basic premises which makes debate kinda pointless.
And I totally agree about monitoring and evaluation of welfare programmes (of all programmes in fact). I push for this whenever I can in my own Department. It's tragically underdone in government, with monitoring and evaluation frameworks often created as an afterthought, if at all.
I don't want to understate my disagreements with the left. My conception of the proper role for government would result in the state doing a lot less, whether you're talking about your government or mine (though I'm happier with mine than yours on the whole).
I'm a critic of government, but ultimately I'm one of the Loyal Opposition. I want to hold the government to the fire because I care about whether its working or not, and where is isn't working I want to fix it.
I'm definitely a libertarian of a Hayekian stripe. I'm OK with welfare (I have some bones to pick on specific points, but I don't want to tear down the whole edifice) and if there are real market failures, I support government action tailored to correct those failures if it passes basic tests of good quality policy.
And yet equities and commodities do have exchange-traded derivatives whose prices are public knowledge. And yet equities and commodities suffer bubbles.
It's true that derivatives markets do help prevent bubbles form forming, but there's no silver bullet here.
This is the reason why I'm a big fan of Milton Friedman. If you read his major political work (Capitalism and Freedom) he doesn't spend a lot of time trying to develop a first-principles account of the proper role of government, he just goes through a series of issues of the day, explaining what he thinks the problem is in each case, and what he would do to fix it.
I think the reason for the difference is that unlike Rand or Rothbard or even Hayek, Friedman started out in government. He understood at a visceral level that the "size of government" is just a convenient handle for thousands of individual policy decisions.
That's not to say that high-level thinking is without merit, you need some kind of principles to determine what qualifies as good and bad. But once you have your evaluative criteria, there's no substitute for getting to the details.
To the extent George Mason is Austrian I am not George Mason. In any event I'm a microeconomist so I don't spend much time thinking about monetary policy.
I'm not sure what you mean by choice. However much or little evidence one has, that evidence will point toward one hypothesis as being more likely than the alternatives. If you don't then go with the probabilities implied by the evidence then what you are choosing is to me more wrong than you need to be.
I'll freely admit to being relatively uninformed about Austrian Economics (I'm more of a Chicago meets George Mason guy), but I don't think the Austrians ever said that a lack of regulations means nothing bad will ever happen ever.
At its core, what happened was a classic speculative bubble, and the trouble with those is that you just can't stop them, not with regulation, not with anything. I've actually read some of the experimental work that's been done on bubbles and what they found was 1) once a bubble gets going its impossible to stop 2) there are two things that help prevent bubbles a little: highly liquid derivatives markets for the good and not letting your interest rates get too low. Oddly enough, those prescriptions are actually more consistent with Austrian thinking than other groups of thought.
To be more specific, Keynes appeals in a recession. When times are good, the Keynesian prescription of running surpluses garners no more political interest than Austrian thought.
Possibly, but that to me still falls under "overreact to emergency". Politicians tend to be the sort of people who believe they can fix anything if they just have enough power. Hell, I consider it one of the primary reasons that power corrupts.
But in seriousness I think you make a lot of sense here. This is a story about governments overreacting to emergencies, rather than any specific idealogical agenda.
I haven't seen the show (it'll could be years before we get it down here), but I wonder if the difference is that when reading about Tyrion your opinion of him is shaped more by how others treat him, since novels are more dialogue-driven. But in a TV show we can make up our own minds, and we don't think dwarfism is as grotesque as medieval people did.
If Robert Jordan put you off fantasy, then read Brandon Sanderson, he's Jordan done right. The Mistborn Trilogy will blow your mind.
For SF, I second the recommend Iain M Banks. Also try John Scalzi. Old Man's War is basically a more sophisticated non-didactic version of Starship Troopers (and is much better because of it)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Cersei”
I agree but I think that's the point of Eddard Stark. A Song of Ice and Fire is in may ways a deconstruction of conventional fantasy or medieval tropes, and Stark is a deconstruction of the loyal Right Hand of the King. His loyalty does no one any good, not Robert, not himself and not The Seven Kingdoms. But Stark can't see that and his blindness dooms him.
On “The Rapture in Stereo”
The whole piece was gold, but that line in particular was hilarious, kudos!
On “Political Compass Open Thread”
I believe the proper role for the central bank is to keep prices stable. That means you'll get some stimulative activity since recession tend to coincide with low money supply, but I don't think there should be a deliberate policy of stimulation through expanding the money supply.
"
I was responding to Jason, if you check you'll see my comment is nested under his not yours. In fact I disagree with your point.
"
If I had to pick something it'd be the teaching of religious belief to children, inflammatory enough?
Of course that's part of the reason that I end up identifying with the regulated, and not the regulator. Which only emphasises your point that if you try to enforce community standards and want "community standards" to mean more than "tyranny of the majority", you get nowhere fast.
"
Yes, I suspect you're right.
"
You may have me confused with someone else. I'm agnostic-to-opposed on the theoretical merits of fiscal stimulus, and I'm especially hesitant to recommend it for a country running significant structural deficits.
I'm leery of the term "neo-liberal", since I'm not entirely sure it means anything. But as a disciple of Milton Friedman I suppose it fits me as well as anyone.
"
I had the same problem. I rated 5 on left/right and -5.18 on libertarian/authoritarian (so smack bang in the middle of the purple quadrant), but there were about a dozen questions where I answered agree but could have just as easily answered disagree (or vice versa).
Personally I'd prefer to see a quiz that asked questions based on hypothetical policy proposals. I think that would help make things more concrete.
On “Are you watching ‘A Game of Thrones’ yet?”
Yeah, fair enough I wouldn't recommend it.
"
Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy is simply incredible, though all his book are worth reading. He was able to make The Wheel of Time good again, so that should give you some idea of his talent.
Also I'd recommend Australian author Jennifer Fallon. Her Second Sons trilogy is brilliant and really breaks free of the standard tropes of the genre.
On “Another Keynes & Hayek Open-Thread”
Yes, I shouldn't overstate my differences with the left either. Actual socialism is no longer advocated by the mainstream left, which puts us much closer together than in times past.
I think one of the reasons I spend more time arguing with liberals than conservatives is that I feel with liberals we both have a similar view of what good government is, our disagreements are about mechanisms. With conservatives, I don't think we share even basic premises which makes debate kinda pointless.
And I totally agree about monitoring and evaluation of welfare programmes (of all programmes in fact). I push for this whenever I can in my own Department. It's tragically underdone in government, with monitoring and evaluation frameworks often created as an afterthought, if at all.
"
I don't want to understate my disagreements with the left. My conception of the proper role for government would result in the state doing a lot less, whether you're talking about your government or mine (though I'm happier with mine than yours on the whole).
I'm a critic of government, but ultimately I'm one of the Loyal Opposition. I want to hold the government to the fire because I care about whether its working or not, and where is isn't working I want to fix it.
"
I'm definitely a libertarian of a Hayekian stripe. I'm OK with welfare (I have some bones to pick on specific points, but I don't want to tear down the whole edifice) and if there are real market failures, I support government action tailored to correct those failures if it passes basic tests of good quality policy.
On “Keynes vs. Hayek, Round 2”
And yet equities and commodities do have exchange-traded derivatives whose prices are public knowledge. And yet equities and commodities suffer bubbles.
It's true that derivatives markets do help prevent bubbles form forming, but there's no silver bullet here.
"
Roberts has said on Econtalk that he's somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean - half way between Chicago and Austria.
On “His Master’s Voice”
This is the reason why I'm a big fan of Milton Friedman. If you read his major political work (Capitalism and Freedom) he doesn't spend a lot of time trying to develop a first-principles account of the proper role of government, he just goes through a series of issues of the day, explaining what he thinks the problem is in each case, and what he would do to fix it.
I think the reason for the difference is that unlike Rand or Rothbard or even Hayek, Friedman started out in government. He understood at a visceral level that the "size of government" is just a convenient handle for thousands of individual policy decisions.
That's not to say that high-level thinking is without merit, you need some kind of principles to determine what qualifies as good and bad. But once you have your evaluative criteria, there's no substitute for getting to the details.
On “Keynes vs. Hayek, Round 2”
To the extent George Mason is Austrian I am not George Mason. In any event I'm a microeconomist so I don't spend much time thinking about monetary policy.
On “Living According to a Story”
I'm not sure what you mean by choice. However much or little evidence one has, that evidence will point toward one hypothesis as being more likely than the alternatives. If you don't then go with the probabilities implied by the evidence then what you are choosing is to me more wrong than you need to be.
On “Keynes vs. Hayek, Round 2”
I don't think its that clear BlaiseP.
I'll freely admit to being relatively uninformed about Austrian Economics (I'm more of a Chicago meets George Mason guy), but I don't think the Austrians ever said that a lack of regulations means nothing bad will ever happen ever.
At its core, what happened was a classic speculative bubble, and the trouble with those is that you just can't stop them, not with regulation, not with anything. I've actually read some of the experimental work that's been done on bubbles and what they found was 1) once a bubble gets going its impossible to stop 2) there are two things that help prevent bubbles a little: highly liquid derivatives markets for the good and not letting your interest rates get too low. Oddly enough, those prescriptions are actually more consistent with Austrian thinking than other groups of thought.
"
To be more specific, Keynes appeals in a recession. When times are good, the Keynesian prescription of running surpluses garners no more political interest than Austrian thought.
On “The Czar of Benton Harbor”
Possibly, but that to me still falls under "overreact to emergency". Politicians tend to be the sort of people who believe they can fix anything if they just have enough power. Hell, I consider it one of the primary reasons that power corrupts.
"
Oh please, we all know the cake is a lie :)
But in seriousness I think you make a lot of sense here. This is a story about governments overreacting to emergencies, rather than any specific idealogical agenda.
On “The Libertarian Response? Happy You Asked!”
Just as liberals are anti-democratic by insisting that public schools can't teach creationism.
Fundamentally, pure democracy is highly overrated.
Besides which taking over a town isn't just anti-democratic it has rule-of-law implications.
On “TV Review: A Game of Thrones (HBO)”
I haven't seen the show (it'll could be years before we get it down here), but I wonder if the difference is that when reading about Tyrion your opinion of him is shaped more by how others treat him, since novels are more dialogue-driven. But in a TV show we can make up our own minds, and we don't think dwarfism is as grotesque as medieval people did.
"
If Robert Jordan put you off fantasy, then read Brandon Sanderson, he's Jordan done right. The Mistborn Trilogy will blow your mind.
For SF, I second the recommend Iain M Banks. Also try John Scalzi. Old Man's War is basically a more sophisticated non-didactic version of Starship Troopers (and is much better because of it)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.