boona

It's disheartening to see that Matthew Yglesias has book, with an economic argument no less, that is incredibly popular here on HN. He's been discredited by many economists from the left/right/libertarian. That is, when his arguments aren't simply ad hominems.

If you've read this book, do yourself a favor and read some refutations. Or do one better, and learn economics so you can think about these issues clearly.

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understa...

I know the term, as well as Marx's class theory. Pointing me to a Wikipedia article doesn't change the fact that it's insensitive hyperbole.

Instead of smelling it, it may make more sense to actually read the arguments. ;)

Everyone needs to pitch in, you need to serve humanity so that it provides you with the things you need. If the only thing you can do to do your part is sanitation work, then sanitation work it shall be. That is, until you find new ways to serve others.

Slavery is something altogether different, and you really have to be in a position of privilege to conflate the two. The history of slavery is an incredibly dark one. Out of respect to those who've suffered under it's cruelty, I don't think it's right to use that word in this context. Doing your part is not slavery.

Let's be clear that Thomas Piketty's book has been thoroughly refuted, not in some minor way, but Thomas claimed that all he did was objectively looked at the data, and that the conclusion simply showed itself. Unfortunately he cherry picked data, and fabricated bits of history to make it fit his claim. The following paper does a great job of completely dismantling it.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2543012

Not to mention that most people haven't even read past the first few pages of the book, and yet they quote it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10951407/Has-an...

>Not to mention that at the time of the Second Amendment's writing gun technology was primarily limited to muzzle loaders.

The same way freedom of speech was written in before the advent of the internet.

> Landlords grow richer in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing.

Maybe in John Stuart Mill's time, but like anything in a free market, profit tends to zero (it generally doesn't hit zero, but gets closer over time). Those margins are calculated as part of time preference (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference). That's why you see some land owners purchase land and lose money while they wait for it to appreciate. Time is factored into the calculation.

> I wish more libertarians understood the Matthew Effect as well as they did supply and demand.

The Matthew Effect doesn't take into account the fact that many individuals get richer by requesting and receiving special legal privileges from state actors. Classical liberal thought rejects this i.e. equality before the law. That's why many libertarians are against the state's power to regulate, not because you can't have good regulation (the free market is far from perfect after all), rather because the power to regulate is the power to grant special favors. Politicians, like their private counterparts, are susceptible to self-interest. They need money to fund their campaigns. A consistent application of economic principles is necessary (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw).

Edit: Formatting

Asking for the solution, and asking about the process they've used to solve a problem is not the same. Learn the process so you can solve similar problems in the future. I wouldn't consider it cheating or "not counting", they've had to learn how to solve those types of problems somewhere.

> I see a lot of people that can do things much better, and faster than me. It's intimidating.

I think there is a mindset issue at play here. Instead of thinking "Wow, that person is such an elite hacker, I wish I had been born with that talent." think of it as "Wow, it was amazing how they came up with that solution. I want to learn how they did it so I can do the same.".

Stated different, ask people their process. If they came up with a solution that was much better than yours, ask them how they came about it. It may look like they've magically came up with a solution, but they do have a mental process that brought them to it. Find out what it is, internalize it and make it your own.

I'm going to get flak for this, but I've done a lot of online dating and in my experience the "educated women" on these sites tend to be third wave feminists/social justice warriors types who've studied either gender studies, political science, or some other unmarketable degree. I don't know what college does to them, but many are borderline undatable. The unshakable victimhood, the entitlement, the hatred of men makes it nearly impossible to maintain a functional and balanced relationship.

Men have also reached the peak of their disposability. It use to be that we would be sent to war, women and children first etc, now we don't even need to be there as part of the family. Woman can just have a child with male, and when she's done with him, can leave him and force him to pay for that child (which he may now rarely see). So what incentives do men have to make themselves productive members of society if their prospects are so poor.

Not to mention that college campuses have become truly scary places for young men with the ultra politically correct culture (though white men are open season) and the indiscriminate sexual harassment charges (which is deeply unfortunate for those who actually have been harassed since now people are becoming more skeptical).

The only thing that's shameful here is that this horribly biased article made it's way on to Hacker News.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Instead of complaining on Salon that the government should, using other people's money, do something about this problem. Why don't you go out there and do something yourself? Why don't you go out there a make a difference in the world?

When economists state that actors are rational, all they are is saying is that people act purposefully. Whether you water your plants, or pray to the magic unicorn in your closet for rain, both actions are purposeful, though both may not have the same result.

You are correct when you say that individuals are "moving far too slowly" with regards to anthropomorphic climate change, but that's rational since it makes virtually no difference if you, as an individual, change your habits and produce less pollution. Nothing you do will change the outcome. This is similar to voting, where most people don't vote because in the US national election, you have a much greater chance of dying on the way to the voting booth, than affecting the outcome of the election. It's irrational for an individual to vote (unless they're doing so to demonstrate to those around them what their values are).

Now, a libertarian might say that economic freedom is not utopic, there are plenty of market failures. However, if one looks at a situation of economic freedom, and decides that the incentives in place are sub-optimal and don't produce favorable results, it's usually suggested that government should step in and regulate somehow. Individuals in government are however, made up of the same rational actors as those in the free market. So while more mainstream economists may end their analysts there, public choice theorists on the other hand demand a more consistent application of economic principles. Namely, they want to know what incentives are in place for individuals in government, and if those incentives will provide better or worse outcomes than a situation of economic freedom. If you're interested, here is a short 10 minute video by Mark Pennington where he introduces this form of analysis i.e. Public Choice Theory.

Edit: I might be useful to include the link. :/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw

>An ideal (or, a better) system would be responsive.

Like a situation of economic freedom where millions of individual actors and entrepreneurs can dynamically change the landscape of city transportation instead of imposing a one size fits all scheme?

The 20th century, in contrast to past centuries, was an experiment in progressivism. The idea that the state can be used by the masses to improve the well being of individuals over what can be achieved in a situation of economic liberty. So what came of this? We're finding out is that the power to regulate, is also the power to grant special favors. That giving this power, even to a well intended political class, was resulted in a poor outcome for us.

I find it interesting that the EU took over the currency, interest rates and inflation are set by state actors, and that now we're seeing articles such as this one that blame economic liberties for the failure of the system.

Has anyone tried beta testing iOS 9? I'm interested to see if there are any speed increases for iOS, since iOS 8, my iPad2 has been as slow as molasses.

Isn't it bad taste to say Germans rather than Nazis?

Google hasn't been paying enough campaign contributions in France it seems. Back in the day Microsoft tried to avoid politics, and the US government almost broke them up.

"You may have all the money, Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." (Frank Underwood, House of Cards)

Looks like you're going to have to start paying more attention to the wallets of those with all the guns Google.

Stephen Hawking wasn't "wrong", it was a theory. Theories aren't nessacarily what's actually going on, it's just a way of viewing a problem in a way that helps you predict outcomes. People who say things like "this theory is wrong" are the same typ of people who say "scientists say" or "science says". Susskind simply came up with a theory that is less wrong, and that will spark new conversations and one day someone will come up with a theory that's less wrong than his.

Giving ownership of all land to a small group of political elites and their politically well connected friends, what could possibly go wrong?

When the right control most of the media "We will have 20 hour work weeks!". When the left control most of the media "capitalism will destroy us all!".

Where is a 'report a user' button when you need one?