JayB

i'm not sure if you are posting the above as evidence of your point, or mine.... I'd be willing to wager that the author of the above would crush both of us on an IQ test, so if we're talking about precise definitions of what the word intelligence means, then probably not yours. If you're using the term as a proxy for qualities like wisdom, sound judgment, etc that don't necessarily have anything to do with IQ, then perhaps your claim that the guys working in this field aren't very intelligent would be more meaningful.

You can repeat what I have already answered several times, it won't make it anymore true. The dynamics of this exchange encapsulate failry well most exchanges with JayB: never expect a specific answer to arguments put forward, always expect a repeat of what you already answered in your previous post. Just to be clear - this: "There is no need for anyone to make such distinctions and any solution has to account for the role of media in society. I haven’t given lots of thought to this topic but off hand I’d say it should involve the break up media conglomerates and the enabling of media that do not resort to advertising techniques distorting perception, cognition, motivation, etc …" constitutes the answer-in-the-previous-post that you are referring to, no?

Anyone have numbers for C02 emissions for passenger mile for trains, busses, trams (including construction/build-outs) vs autos? How about numbers for efficiency trends (which mode is getting more efficient most rapidly relative to others) and replacement rates? Seems like incremental gains in passenger-mile efficiency could easily dwarf those obtained by mass transit, since the vast majority of all travel here is via auto. Also think that the fleet of autos turns over much more rapidly, so efficiencies become incorporated into this mode much more quickly than in busses, trains, etc. Per the GM/Chrysler issue - the essential problem has always been that ever since there's been anything like real competition in the marketplace, they've had a difficult time persuading consumers to buy their output at prices that cover the cost of producing them. The new MPG standards are only going to put GM et al further behind. Count on sqaundering scores of billions of dollars on enterprises that ultimately go the way of British Leyland. I suspect that it'd be cheaper to shutter all of the factories and give all existing UAW members salaries for life, and would make the underlying economic realities much more clear.

~$60, Northgate Joe's. Saw them on the table as part of the going out of business sale. Posted on the off chance that they might be of interest to folks that mount their own bindings. Store will close in 3 days.

Agreed. I suspect that this is without even factoring in the tab for public employee retirement costs. you say this as if public employees aren't entitled to retire. fascinating? is that the extent of your thought process on the topic? do you have anymore strawmen you'd like me to answer? There is nothing in these numbers which contradict what I said. Now if you want to make the effort of constructing an argument, I just may answer it in detail. So the problem down there - per you - wasn't that taxes were too low, and the profits generated in California weren't taxed too lightly to fund the budget? Just one other point of clarification before you go on - when you talk about wages do you mean total income (wages + benefits + transfer payments from the government*), or just money wages? Given the magnitude of benefits and transfer payments - this is an important distinction. Also - is this where you'll reveal how erecting barriers that restrict trade at some arbitrary level (between individuals, neighborhoods, towns, counties, states, or countries) and imposing more stringent price controls on labor will increase real wages (money wages + benefits)? Yes or no answer would be fine here if you don't care to elaborate. *This includes welfare, the EIC, federal subsidies for mortgage interest, etc.

Saying anything is "Hayekian" these days as if it's a good thing and has some connection to reality has got to be up for some irony award or something. Hilarious! Thanks. This comment takes us waaaay into recursive irony-loops here, no? It's far from clear to me that you: - Have actually read any Hayek, much less enough to fully acquaint yourself with his ideas. - Are capable of understanding them, even after doing the requisite reading. - Have the capacity to make technically and logically sound critiques of his central ideas, even if you've done the reading and understand his central arguments. Normally I'd hedge any statements like these, since I'd classify myself as a complete dilettante who's only read a fraction of his output and who has a very shallow understanding of his work. After reading what you've had to say on various topics, though, it's clear that no such qualifying statements are necessary. However - prove me wrong and resolve the information problem at the heart of his ideas, and the world will beat a path to your door! Let me know how it goes.

"extremely intelligent"? that's kind of a funny assertion....i guess "intelligent" can mean many different things to different people. what i always loved about hayek was his buddhist sensibility. I think that virtually all of the folks that constructed the mathematical models used to quantify various kinds of financial risk, as in the paper below, would qualify as extremely intelligent. "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach by David X. Li of The RiskMetrics Group April 2000 Abstract: This paper studies the problem of default correlation. We first introduce a random variable called "time-until-default" to denote the survival time of each defaultable entity or financial instrument, and define the default correlation between two credit risks as the correlation coefficient between their survival times. Then we argue why a copula function approach should be used to specify the joint distribution of survival times after marginal distributions of survival times are derived from market information, such as risky bond prices or asset swap spreads. The definition and some basic properties of copula functions are given. We show that the current CreditMetrics approach to default correlation through asset correlation is equivalent to using a normal copula function. Finally, we give some numerical examples to illustrate the use of copula functions in the valuation of some credit derivatives, such as credit default swaps and first-to-default contracts. JEL Classification: G13, C41. Published in: Journal of Fixed Income, Vol. 9, No. 4, (March 2000), pp. 43-54." Having said that, there's a distinction between intelligence and, say, wisdom - which is what I think that you must be getting at. Smart - yes. Wise - no.

you aren't really arguing for educated masses, are you? Doesn't this financial crisis show that even the experts are fucking retarded? I think that Nassim Taleb's analysis is the most compelling. Worth listening to: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/04/taleb_on_black.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/03/taleb_on_the_fi.html His central explanation for exactly how-and-why extremely intelligent people made such bad decisions regarding risk and leverage is that they based their decisions on statistical models of reality which assumed that all events which influence financial risk (e.g., reality) obey simple gaussian distributions for long periods of time. Kind of like looking at the aggregate historical data for average temperature, wind-speed and precipitation on Rainier in the summer and concluding that it'll be safe to take the family on a hike up to Muir without worrying about or preparing for bad weather. Very Hayekian in his warnings about the perils of confusing representations of reality based on sets of statistical aggregates with the real thing.

Nope, you didn't grant them - those are all powers that the one and only entity likely to enforce the kinds of restrictions that you are evidently in favor of. I never talked about restrictions even though restrictions already do exist (despite your behaving as if it were impossible) such as in adverts for children and regarding subliminal advertising. Furthermore, if anyone is for restrictions it is likely to be you for I suspect you want to keep the control of media in the hands of the highest bidder, i.e. mega-corporations, all in the name of “freedom” of course. Clubs, religion, sewing circles etc ... don’t have a virtual monopoly on coming into your home and brain uninvited to keep repeating the same manipulative messages. There is no need for anyone to make such distinctions and any solution has to account for the role of media in society. I haven’t given lots of thought to this topic but off hand I’d say it should involve the break up media conglomerates and the enabling of media that do not resort to advertising techniques distorting perception, cognition, motivation, etc … Well, after you have dedicated an appropriate amount of thought to this question and have figured how the government can objectively determine what constitutes every individual's real vs illusory self interest in practice, how they can best enforce these distinctions, and how all communication can best be monitored and restricted in order to prevent individuals from being exposed to, formulating, and or believing in notions of their self interest that vary with those that the government has decided for them - I hope that you'll post all of the details here. Should be fascinating.

You may be doing more than "wishing them well" - Arnold is looking for transfer payments straight from the taxpayer pockets of the other 49 states of the union Someone's got to pay-up if California's public employees are going to be insulated from the economic realities that everyone in the private sector has to contend with. "Benefits widen public, private workers' pay gap" By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY The pay gap between government workers and lower-compensated private employees is growing as public employees enjoy sizable benefit growth even in a distressed economy, federal figures show. Public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, the latest available data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says. Private-sector workers got $7.98 an hour. Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour — $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31. The gap has been expanding because of the increasing value of public employee benefits. Last year, government benefits rose three times more than those in the private sector: up 69 cents an hour for civil servants, 23 cents for private workers. Labor costs account for about half of state and local spending, according to BLS and Census data. Benefits consume a growing share of that, now 34%."

Agreed. I suspect that this is without even factoring in the tab for public employee retirement costs. Your post above that, where you lambaste the California legislature and the public employees unions for imposing draconian spending limits on the state in pursuit of a Thatcherite dreamworld, is fascinating. How does that argument square with the figures below? http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tol_tax_bur_pergdp-total-tax-burden-per-gdp http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_inc_percap-economy-personal-income-per-capita http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec_percap-caseloads-total-recipients-per-capita How well does this data comport with your model/hypothesis?

Nope, you didn't grant them - those are all powers that the one and only entity likely to enforce the kinds of restrictions that you are evidently in favor of. It's clear that advertising is only one mode of knowledge transmission that has the potential to lead individuals into making choices that others deem contrary to their self interest. Clubs, religions, schools, sewing circles, gossip, etc - singling out advertising that meets existing rules against fraud, etc seems a bit arbitrary. If exposure to other modes of communication also put people at risk for making choices contrary to their externally determined self interest, what argument can you make against granting the same entity to power to restrict any means of disseminating information that meets your "known to be harmful to their self-interest" test? If you argue against doing so, I hope you'll be careful enough to construct an argument that isn't at odds with your position on advertising. I'm also still curious about the mechanisms that you'd like to external agent determining and enforcing an choices that are in an individual's self interest use to make such distinction and impose them. E.g. how to distinguish someone duped into making a given decision by a corporocracy and someone who is making a choice consistent with real, objectively identifiable free will? Also, if a choice can be empirically determined to be driven by authentic free will, but has also been determined to be objective counter to the said person's self-interest, what would you still be comfortable for the external-self-interest-determiner using its power to prevent him from acting?

"Best recent quote - "We are concerned about bring these dangerous criminals into the US prison system" --- Mitch McConnell. Isn't that what prisons are for? Who's there now?" Agreed. Hard to believe that no one gave this question any serious consideration beforehand, much less that the political ramifications of moving them to detention facilities in the US seems to have caught everyone off guard.

You didn't take my position as granted. My position is that relentless commercial propaganda manipulates individuals into doing what they otherwise wouldn't do; therefore, the loss of freedom occurs when commercial interests control and distort human impulses in order to sell more junk. It's rather remarkable that repetitive manipulative techniques, which are otherwise branded as "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" suddenly become "informational advertising" when corporatists use them. It's not clear to me that you can draw the lines that clearly. If someone mightn't have taken a trip to Costa Rica if they hadn't seen a brochure, or read a particular book if they hadn't seen an ad for it in a paper both qualify as things that people "might not have otherwise done" if not for marketing, I drew the line at manipulating, distorting and controlling human impulses. Not at providing information. We could find zillions of outcomes that are harmful, and you'd probably agree that many are harmful. if observers can identify some propaganda as brainwashing, they certainly can determine what isn't in another person's interest. I didn't "grant external authorities all powers necessary to restrict the information that people are exposed to", but it is remarkable that you don't think it is already case insofar the corporate media only communicates "information" that furthers it own interests. Even if we accept that it's possible to draw a clear line between information and propaganda/brain-washing/etc in all cases, who or what is the "they" in the second to last response, and what mechanisms of enforcement and coercion should the "they" in question be granted to insure that people they're responsible for supervising don't make choices that "they" have determined are not in their self-interest? With regards to the last point, I'd certainly agree that every entity in society that disseminates information does so with an eye to advancing its own interests, including actors ranging from GM to GreenPeace to the government. Even if you agree with the far-from-certain proposition that their doing so always results in outcomes that are inconsistent with the interests of others - it's far from certain that granting the only party in society with the capacity to arrest, imprison, dispossess, detain, others the power to make and enforce such determinations will serve to advance the interests of those outside the government. Do the risks inherent in granting the only realistic "they" in question these powers not present risks that are far graver than the potential benefits?

Agreed. Much less after privately endorsing them beforehand.

You didn't take my position as granted. My position is that relentless commercial propaganda manipulates individuals into doing what they otherwise wouldn't do; therefore, the loss of freedom occurs when commercial interests control and distort human impulses in order to sell more junk. It's rather remarkable that repetitive manipulative techniques, which are otherwise branded as "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" suddenly become "informational advertising" when corporatists use them. It's not clear to me that you can draw the lines that clearly. If someone mightn't have taken a trip to Costa Rica if they hadn't seen a brochure, or read a particular book if they hadn't seen an ad for it in a paper both qualify as things that people "might not have otherwise done" if not for marketing, but it's quite a leap to go from that concession to agreeing that: 1)Those outcomes, and zillions of others like them, constitute activities that are objectively harmful in any sense. 2)Outside observers can reliably determine what's objectively in another person's interest. 3)We should grant external authorities all powers necessary to restrict the information that people are exposed to, and the choices that they make in response to it - even if it were possible to demonstrate that conditions 1 and 2 were true.

This kind of antisocial denial that private choices very often have far-ranging social effects has pretty much run its course as an idea about how real human societies work. You're becoming what the Bushies described as a "dead-ender". The "wide ranging social effects" of private choices has never been in dispute, and I would have thought that this elementary point would have been obvious. What's been under discussion has been the extent to which the reality of social effects that extend beyond the individual can be used as a justification for enforcing limits on the set of choices and behaviors that individuals can make. In the liberal tradition, the line has been drawn at those behaviors in which the direct risk and/or harm are confined to the individual. The central basis for protecting this sphere or individual rights been that allowing the state to cross this threshold is incompatible with the set of liberties that are necessary to maintain a social order predicated on the existence of a set of inalienable rights and liberties. Anyone remember the old admonition about the risks associated with forsaking liberty for security?

C'mon, Jay. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and guys like him - particularly if they actually were shown to have given intelligence that actually made us safer - were the only ones tortured there would be no big issue. You know that. I agree with a lot of your statements about how Obama has not and likely will not depart from the overall war plan in Iraq and Afghanistan - both wars that he INHERITED FROM BUSH, by the way. But do you suggest that Obama would have invaded Iraq in the first place? There's nothing purely partisan about thinking we might want to wait and see just what he does before we pronounce the Obama administration a complete disaster. At least he's said that torture is not going to be our FIRST choice of interrogation methods and that war and the abrogation of treaties is not going to be our FIRST choice of diplomatic method. It seems clear that Obama wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but he would have had to respond in some fashion, and that would likely have included a significant millitary dimension, and he would have had to construct a framework for detecting, targeting and apprehending/killing terrorists that forced him to confront the same nettlesome questions that he's currently dealing with. Given that he's shown a knack for combining diplomacy that caters to public sentiments while retaining an effective set of tools and tactics - there's every reason to believe that he would have done a better job of all of the above than the Bush administration. IMO the Bush administration should have had the sense to figure out that they would have to make considerably more concessions along these lines than any Democratic administration if they were going to wade into moral/legal/diplomatic grey zones like the prolonged detention of known or suspected terrorists, etc. The fact that they not only didn't do so, but more or less went the other way was a diplomatic blunder of the highest order. I haven't been critical of the Obama administration because I think they've made all of the right moves on these fronts thus far and, although this is less important by far, they're more or less identical to what I suspect a McCain administration would have done. One of my central arguments here is that I think that identical moves by the McCain administration would have received a very different response from the same folks who are largely giving Obama a pass here, but I've already beaten that point to death so there's no need to dwell on it any further.

If by "unopposed" you mean "made categorical denunciations of and unqualified opposition them the central focus of their campaign rhetoric" then I agree with you 100%.

Noting that the obscene amount of money spent every year in commercial propaganda leads to sales is "farfetched"? Apparently, you didn't go to business school. Nope - no plans to either. You? Me neither, but again I don't need to go to school in order to take note of the obvious: manipulative commercial propaganda is necessary to get people to buy products they otherwise wouldn't buy because they don't need them. I know it is your greatest wish to portray people like me as elitists who only have disdain for the "great grazing herd", but this terminology is yours, not mine, and I only disdain the demagogues, not their victims. I am hardly alone in refusing unsustainable consumerism and people follow different path to reach the same conclusions so I fail to understand how your question would be relevant, except of course to shift the goal posts and not discuss the role of commercial propaganda in getting people to purchase stuff that is harmful to them and their environment. I won't repeat the questions I posted for Justin, who seems to share your perspective on this matter, but I hope that you'll consider them and respond, because I'm just as curious about how you think about these things. For the sake of discussion, let's take your position as granted. Don't sane adults have a right to engage in activities that put their lives, health, etc at risk if they so choose, so long as the way that they do so confines the direct risk and potential harm to themselves? Isn't there an argument for preserving the right to engage in risky/harmful behavior so long as it satisfies the above test?

"Senate Leaders Balk at Closing Guantánamo Prison" http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/senate-leaders-balk-at-closing-guantanamo-prison/?hp "Sigh. It all seemed so simple once, didn't it, Nancy..."

But there is a critical difference between keeping something legal, and legalizing something, even disregarding the nature of the subjects. A "laissez-faire" mentality sounds perfectly fine for something that is already an equilibrated aspect of society, but I am wary of the inductive argument that this must also be the best way to liberate a currently restricted behavior. When deliberately changing conditions 'we' probably have a responsibility to buffer the inhumanities of the transition to this greater freedom. Of course nobody here is advocating instant deregulation of drug legalities and markets, but it is obviously more interesting to find something to argue about. Also, as much as social darwinism offers a perfectly cruel and simple solution to problems like overeating and addiction, I'm not convinced that it's the best that we can do. And I find it particularly unsettling that the selective pressures that are weeding people out at present are not natural circumstances but rather highly engineered industries by which a few disproportionately wealthy deceitfully prey on their own society. Society may be perpetually ill because this is a necessary side-effect of (largely) private profits. I agree with you on the first paragraph, but differ in that I think that the current state of affairs is much worse than the endpoint we'd reach if all drugs were currently produced, distributed, and sold like alcohol and nicotine. The bit about selective pressures and disproportionately wealthy deceitfully preying on society bit is where I think I disagree with you the most, and consequently what I'm most curious about. The first question that might help me better understand your perspective is - how do we know that the way that they live and the choices that they make aren't an accurate reflection of their true preferences? Even if there was an objective way to determine this - and I don't think there is - how would we determine who gets the power to determine what choices made on their behalf are acceptable, and where should the line be drawn concerning the freedoms that people have when choosing between various items available in the marketplace? I'm talking about goods and services that satisfy all of the existing rules that we have in place to prevent the sale of goods that are defective, adulterated, etc. Moving onto the role of deceit in building wealth - do you really believe that this is the central mechanism by which people build commercial fortunes in a situations in which competition prevails? People get conned into buying a crappy product that doesn't satisfy their expectations...and they don't seek out available alternatives, but just keep buying the same thing over and over again? Is this model even possible in the absence of government intervention to create a protected cartel that it insulates from competition? Where competition prevails, are consumers really at the mercy of businesses, or is it the other way around? If it's the former, how is it that you have - evidently - managed to carve out a psychic niche for yourself as an informed, independent, and autonomous fellow that external observes can be confident is making choices that represent his true self interest, and isn't in need of an external authority to supervise his eating, etc?

Noting that the obscene amount of money spent every year in commercial propaganda leads to sales is "farfetched"? Apparently, you didn't go to business school. Nope - no plans to either. You? Is there something special about you that renders you immune to its effects and thereby permits you to exist as an autonomous dissident amongst the great grazing herd? If so, how did you acquire those qualities, and is this a status that others can attain independently?

Witever.

I think that starting with legalized marijuana sold under very restricted circumstances and seeing how it goes is the best that anyone can realistically hope for in practice. When it comes to principle, I'm not sure that protecting people from the harm that they may or may not inflict on themselves constitutes a legitimate argument for criminalizing things that adults do to themselves or other consenting adults (note that this is not an argument about enforcing rules that govern where, when, or under what circumstances it's legal to consume or be under the influence of drugs) . Seems like you'd have a pretty compelling argument for confiscating all of the climbing gear in the country and outlawing climbing if it were. I'm not sure that you can make a logically consistent case for keeping climbing legal if you want to keep the consumption of cocaine, etc illegal on that basis. It probably goes without saying that I don't lose much sleep worrying about the sale and marketing of fast/processed food - but I do wonder how a fellow like yourself accounts for the rise of Whole Foods and all of the other assorted organica, micro-brews vs mega-brews, etc in light of the concerns that you've posted above. Are there any limits to the model of consumer-as-hapless-naif that might mitigate against adults that aren't in the habbit of using drugs from doing so if they were marketed like anything else? Any other factors - from religious to rational to cultural - that might stand in the way of ADM enslaving mankind with Crankies brand cereal?