Facts And Science And Argument
December 22, 2010, 4:18 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized
  • Eratosthenes on a repeal amendment. Silly him, doesn’t he realize that ‘progress’ is a one-way ratchet?
  • Charles Rowley on the Federal Reserve.
  • zbicyclist on how to make banks small enough to fail.
  • tjic on getting things done. The post looks like it may have some promising ideas in it, but I haven’t gotten around to reading it all.
  • Robin Hanson is still going on and on about this ‘forager’ hypothesis he’s trying to shoehorn everything into. And, I still don’t get it.
  • Eric Falkenstein demolishes Taleb. Like catnip to me.
  • Joseph Dantes has an interesting theory that one of the keys to happiness may be contempt for others. But of course, Joseph Dantes is a pitiable person and in every respect is way beneath me so he can’t possibly be right. On an unrelated note, suddenly I feel very content and happy!
  • Although I can understand the frustration of which it was borne, I actually did not like this response by Professor Mondo to a grade-grubber. HT mkfreeberg
  • Russ Roberts, What’s Wrong With Keynes. Worth a read, but do we really need to delve so deeply into it? One may as well be asking in 2010: What’s wrong with phlogiston? What’s wrong with the luminiferous ether? What’s wrong with phrenology? The main thing that’s wrong with ‘Keynesianism’ is that (unlike these others) it’s still with us.
  • Whiskey on The George Clooney effect.
  • Arnold Kling on FDR and elevation of group status.
  • I really like and fully endorse tjic’s notion of how pardons should be dealt with:

    …freeing a man from wrongful imprisonment by the state would be a high ritual: as soon as the pardon or appeal was read, trumpets would sound, cops would halt traffic so that the the governor and his retinue could march directly from the court house to the jail, ceremonial sledgehammers with carved ironwood handles would be used to break the hinges off the cage, the free man would be draped in a [….]

    Go over there and read it all.

  • John Papola (via David Henderson):
    Why in the world do behavioral economists who study our flaws and irrational quirks advocate centralized power in the hands of a small group of flawed overlords? If people are irrational, so are government regulators, only they have corrupting monopoly power.

    Isn’t the answer obvious? We may be flawed, but they aren’t – and they see themselves as the overlords-in-waiting.

4 Comments so far
Leave a comment

FWIW, it was just a general-purpose vent. No undergraduates were harmed in the production of my post.

Comment by profmondo

Actually that does make a difference yes – it reads far better as pure vent :-)

Comment by Sonic Charmer

Come now, where’s the harm? Undergraduates heal quite rapidly.

Just a pedantic note for accuracy’s sake, contempt should be activated only when your ego is scrambling. Attempting to use it all the time is depressingly alienating. It’s a depression defense.

Comment by Koanic

Oops, that last comment was from me.

Comment by Joseph Dantes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 483 other followers

%d bloggers like this: