Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Weekend roundup
Tupac vs. jazz is surprisingly good.
What tying basic goods to debt means about our claims for society.
Human tendency to be risk averse works against conservative dogma.
Wooden Shjips heard you bought some acid.
Out of print Guggenheim catalogs now free on the internet, art nerds.
US Chamber of Commerce proves that there's more than one kind of corporate stooge by hobbling new businesses in order to prolong the obsolete.
I've played this song about thirty times this weekend. George McCrae is worth it. I get lifted.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Thursday, October 06, 2011
The lemon's long tail
A few months ago, I posted a complaint about a thin bit of anecdotal sub-journalism by Nicholas Martin. In it, Martin complains that his daughter can't open a lemonade stand in a park, or at home, without getting permits for commercial food prep. Or so he says.
I pointed out that the laws were unlikely to be enforced — the same thing he was told by the person he says he spoke to — and that they have a broader purpose that supports the public good, and that complaining that the zoning laws technically prevent food stands is pretty weak sauce.
Martin, having apparently just gotten around to googling himself, complained in my comments. Because I know that literally no one reads comments on months-old entries unless they're googling themselves (or tapirs, which has been my number one search term for about a month), I've decided to move it up here, out of fairness to Martin. (If anyone else has comments they think I missed, let me know).
Nicolas Martin said...
There is nothing misleading about my piece, which you could have verified by contacting me. Through some painless googling you could also have discovered that the Consumer Health Education Council has been around since the 1980s.
Since the piece ran there have been several incidents of lemonade stands being shut down by authorities. But more importantly, the regulations prevent adult entrepreneurs from offering services and selling products. Unfortunately, there are reactionaries who oppose the liberalization of consenting economic activities among adults.
7:10 AM
Josh said...
Well, there was plenty misleading about your piece, which I verified by reading it.
And just because the Consumer Health Education Council has been around since the 1980s doesn't mean it's not astroturfing, a phrase that's been around since the '80s.
In fact, the first result of a painless google search is Sourcewatch's article on the American Council on Science and Health, an astroturf organization.
As far as lemonade stands being shut down, well, you know, one of those things about being a journalist and not a flack is that you could provide at least a couple of links to support that.
Further, as long as we're talking — those regulations also prevent health risks and deaths. Reactionaries, a term usually reserved for conservative revanchists, generally want to remove regulations in order to socialize risk and privatize profit.
But I'm glad that the Consumer Health Education Council will be fighting to overturn drug laws that prevent consenting adults from enjoying economic and recreational activities.
12:48 PM
(EDIT: Corrected spelling of "flack" from "flak," a typo.)
If any of you several readers have comments on this, this post is probably the most likely place to get them read.
I pointed out that the laws were unlikely to be enforced — the same thing he was told by the person he says he spoke to — and that they have a broader purpose that supports the public good, and that complaining that the zoning laws technically prevent food stands is pretty weak sauce.
Martin, having apparently just gotten around to googling himself, complained in my comments. Because I know that literally no one reads comments on months-old entries unless they're googling themselves (or tapirs, which has been my number one search term for about a month), I've decided to move it up here, out of fairness to Martin. (If anyone else has comments they think I missed, let me know).
Nicolas Martin said...
There is nothing misleading about my piece, which you could have verified by contacting me. Through some painless googling you could also have discovered that the Consumer Health Education Council has been around since the 1980s.
Since the piece ran there have been several incidents of lemonade stands being shut down by authorities. But more importantly, the regulations prevent adult entrepreneurs from offering services and selling products. Unfortunately, there are reactionaries who oppose the liberalization of consenting economic activities among adults.
7:10 AM
Josh said...
Well, there was plenty misleading about your piece, which I verified by reading it.
And just because the Consumer Health Education Council has been around since the 1980s doesn't mean it's not astroturfing, a phrase that's been around since the '80s.
In fact, the first result of a painless google search is Sourcewatch's article on the American Council on Science and Health, an astroturf organization.
As far as lemonade stands being shut down, well, you know, one of those things about being a journalist and not a flack is that you could provide at least a couple of links to support that.
Further, as long as we're talking — those regulations also prevent health risks and deaths. Reactionaries, a term usually reserved for conservative revanchists, generally want to remove regulations in order to socialize risk and privatize profit.
But I'm glad that the Consumer Health Education Council will be fighting to overturn drug laws that prevent consenting adults from enjoying economic and recreational activities.
12:48 PM
(EDIT: Corrected spelling of "flack" from "flak," a typo.)
If any of you several readers have comments on this, this post is probably the most likely place to get them read.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Dick Durbin puts the smackdown on Chase's CEO
Interchange fees are a bit of banking jargon, but Durbin does a great job dismantling Jamie Dimon's specious anti-regulation screed with this sharply-worded letter.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Wisconsin GOP doesn't want you to see this.
Now, it's kind of mediocre as a gotcha — some former Real World/Road Rules dufus is now a congressman, and he wants you to do more with less while simultaneously complaining about how bad he has it at $174,000 a year.
But it's more interesting that the Wisconsin GOP has been sending a passel of cease-and-desist letters around because they don't want the public seeing Sean Duffy cluelessly defending his money.
(Though, to be fair, the audience member who thinks that 435 times $174,000 is equal to the $14.21 trillion we owe in public debt is probably just as silly, if not more.)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Social Security policy homework
The next time you feel tempted to describe Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme," feel free to read through the resources linked here. It's a fantastic round-up and I'm only, what, 50 pages deep?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
What Wisconsin is really about
Kevin Drum runs through a brief modern history of labor and the left, why the working class is alienated, and what that means.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Monday Morning Link Dump!
MoJo does inequality.
Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All, home of Earl Sweatshirt.
Porn machete murders.
Top Six LULZ from Koch punking.
Full text of A History of Jury Trials by Forsythe.
When did kids get stupid, exactly? 1985. Which seems about right to me. I was educated stupid.
Despite somebody lecturing me about how "Beyond the pale" was racist (or at least anti-semetic), it's not.
Ted Serios, charlatan psychic but pretty good photographer.
Another zombie playlist, mostly worth it for reminding me of "Knuck if you Buck."
Bikeroots article in the LA Weekly did Alex no favors but I'm probably voting for Box anyway. I voted for Nader in 2000 too, so I might be too dumb to vote.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Fannie and Freddie sub-prime culprits?
Nope.
Lots of good data (and pretty graphs!). Long story short, Fannie and Freddie were doing fine because they largely avoided the sub-prime market (due to dastardly Democrat regulations!), then they bought a bunch of mortgage-backed securities that were inaccurately rated. Sub-prime foreclosures undercut the value of those securities, and the F&F siblings got hosed.
Lots of good data (and pretty graphs!). Long story short, Fannie and Freddie were doing fine because they largely avoided the sub-prime market (due to dastardly Democrat regulations!), then they bought a bunch of mortgage-backed securities that were inaccurately rated. Sub-prime foreclosures undercut the value of those securities, and the F&F siblings got hosed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)