JayB

Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates. In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else. It's a good thing the Green Revolution that lifted so many millions out of poverty wasn't subsidized. It happened through magic. Then again, it's all subjective. Except cultural relativism, of course. Damn hard to think in binary these days. "The term “Green Revolution” was first used in 1968 by former USAID director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violet Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution." The Green Revolution describes the transformation of agriculture that led to significant increases in agricultural production between the 1940s and 1960s in developed countries and now in underdeveloped countries. This transformation occurred as the result of programs of agricultural research, extension, and infrastructural development, instigated and largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation...." Might be instructive to add up the total combined value of 1st world farm subsidies, toss in the total economic damage they've done to poor farmers around the world, and divide that total by the amount that governments have spent on initiatives like Borlaug's...

if we had waited for the private sector to invest in electrification, railroads, and pretty much everything else we'd literally still be living in the 19th century. If we'd allowed the dominant economic players in any particular era to rig the game on their own behalf, then they'd merrily go about squelching any threat to their position or status until competitive pressures from outside the said country made it impossible for them to continue doing so. Generally the less capacity the state had to enforce the status quo on behalf of entrenched interests, the greater the rate of innovation.

Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates. In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else.

This neatly constitutes the economic role of the capitalist state in all its iterations. The only question is to what degree is economic well-being shared amongst the populace. More in agreement with that statement than not with the above modifications.

Subsidies for stupid things, like corn-based ethanol (cellulose based ethanol is actually not a bad idea) result in, well, stupidity. Subsidies for smart things, such as energy saving appliances in the home, can greatly accelerate real solutions to problems, particularly where there is technological risk involved. Of course, all subsidies are evil, because, as we all know, gubmint is evil. Sarah knows that, and so did the FOUNDING FATHERS . Since the determination of what constitutes a "smart thing" to subsidize or exempt from competition is completely subjective, the objective factor that actually determines the magnitude and duration of a given subsidy is the political power of the constituency that will benefit from it. You can make a defensible case for the public paying for things that aren't a good or service that the private sector could conceivably provide - like public lands, national defense, etc - but that's about it.

Energy subsidies work like a charm, for their actual purpose - which is to use public means to enrich private economic interests. Particularly when they can do so behind the PR-veil provided by tropes like "Green Energy!!!" and "Energy Indpendence!!!!" Exhibit A: Corn Ethanol. Exhibits B through infinity....every other specialized tarriff, subsidy, or preferential exemption from competition.

Green Energy! Massachusetts leads the way!!! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959104576081991727353356.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_wdfw_dnr_rec_reform_fs2011.pdf

"A classical education teaches you to despise the wealth it prevents you from earning." -Lord Taverne

Much more where that came from in Paul Offit's book. http://www.amazon.com/Autisms-False-Prophets-Science-Medicine/dp/0231146361 And in Brian Deer's investigation; http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try. You apparently believe that politicians and pundits deserve immunity, unlike the rest of us, because they've got a microphone and a large audience...precisely the reasons why we should not tolerate this kind of criminal speech from these folks. Threat of an investigation is usually enough to get a public figure to tone it down a bit. Public rejection of the message is, of course, another. Actually I believe the reason they aren't being investigated or prosecuted is that their speech doesn't meet the relevant legal thresholds for incitement, etc. If you want to exploit some crazy guy shooting a member of congress and several other people to promote your own political ends, as a "strategy" to discredit things like limited government, go nuts. I actually hope that all of the other "progressives" uncritically adopt this strategy and make it a central focus of all of their political activities from this point forward. Have at it.

Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try.

-This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. There's zero evidence that political repression of these modes of expression will result in anything other than...political repression of these modes of expression. Anyone who thinks that granting the government the power to supervise the modes of discourse, expression, etc that sane adults choose to expose themselves to will deliver any benefit in terms of improved public safety or reduced violence is even crazier than the nutjob that inspired this thread. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder.

"It suggests rather that there is something fundamentally wrong with an approach which habitually disregards an essential part of the phenomena with which we have to deal: the unavoidable imperfection of man's knowledge and the consequent need for a process by which knowledge is constantly communicated and acquired. Any approach, such as that of much of mathematical economics with its simultaneous equations, which in effect starts from the assumption that people's knowledge corresponds with the objective facts of the situation, systematically leaves out what is our main task to explain. I am far from denying that in our system equilibrium analysis has a useful function to perform. But when it comes to the point where it misleads some of our leading thinkers into believing that the situation which it describes has direct relevance to the solution of practical problems, it is high time that we remember that it does not deal with the social process at all and that it is no more than a useful preliminary to the study of the main problem." Date and source for triple bonus points!

Besides - isn't this what everyone wanted? Finally - we have a candidate to end the malignant materialist imperial consumer hegemony established by and for the exclusive interest of the Great Satan - right? Judging from the rhetoric issuing forth from the global left from 1917 onwards the rise and dominance of China should be greeted with a chorus of hallelujas, no? China is eating Uncle Sam's lunch, showing him who's boss, delivering him the comeuppance that he's sorely deserved and everyone from Lenin onwards has failed to deliver but finally, finally - the Chinese are here to deliver the knockout punch! All of the liberal values that we cherish will flourish now that the global hegemon has been kicked off of his throne!!!! Multipolitopia - here we come!!!!!

Reminds me of the Japanic of the late 80's. Their economy will continue to grow, they'll become more prosperous and influential over time, but no country has ever had compound growth at 10% a year and China won't be an exception to that rule. If the technocrats running China are as smart as the Chanxiety chorus make them out to be they're probably mostly pre-occupied with having real estate development contributing 60% of their GDP growth, the ~30 million young and mathematically un-marriageable "bare branch" bachelors cruising around, and the demographic consequences of the one-child policy.

Not sure if I speak for everyone, but when I hear "Alpine Climbing" I think of an ascent requiring technical rock and/or ice climbing with minimal gear and no fixed camps, whereas "mountain climbing" encompasses pretty much everything from hiking to the top of a mountain via an established trail to scrambling to snow-slogging My sense is that "alpine climbing" refers to a more technical subset of "mountain climbing" that's done in a very particular style.

I've heard vague murmurings about seeing Extremo hooking up double-cougar-milf dance-sandwiches at Buffalo Bill's during the last Greater Midwestern Parent-Teacher Association conference at Whistler, suspicious looking characters in one-pieces throwing corked out triple-twisters in a terrain park here or there, but it's been many years since he's graced this site with his presence. If you've seen Extremo, or have any information about his whereabouts, no matter how insubstantial - share it here...

Is climber traffic really down that much in Lillooet? Haven't been there since 2004/05, mostly on account of moving away for a few years - but I just kind of assumed that if anything, climber traffic would have increased in the meantime. Bad conditions or people seeking greener pastures elsewhere?

How much does America suck? Can't think of anywhere I'd rather live than the PNW in the USA. Bits of the intermountain west come in second, and outside of the US I give high marks to BC and selected bits of NZ. Looking forward to visiting other places with mountain landscapes to play in, but really wouldn't want to create a life there. Where is your preferred alternative and why aren't you living there? You gotta be pushing 40 - how much longer are you going to suffer here?

None for Shasta, but IIRC the AAI has some pretty comprehensive multi-day seminars on Mt. Baker that typically include a summit attempt. http://www.aai.cc/

Dude - where *did* you go to college? Clearly you missed out on ethno-gendo-culturo-senso course/seminar/retreat/confessional that would have clearly and definitively answered this question for you. Tisk-tisk.

Thought a little gallows humor might lighten the mood. One of these days you're going to have to at least make a pretense of understanding the topics that you throw out there as a pretext for going meta. Elinor Ostrom, Diedre McCloskey, and Nassim Taleb might be good places to start.

Sounds like your gay friends are lame.

Might be able to outsource the parents to India and other places where its still customary to 1)have children, and 2)take care of one's parents or...grant permanent visas to third world families on the condition that they provide home-care for a pair of aging, barren first-world hedonists.