Ilkka translates some aphorisms.
Lots of people have been commenting on this article, which criticizes public sector unions. It makes some good points, however, I think it misses the most pernicious aspect of public sector unionism. Some public sector workers now draft, enforce and interpret laws. If you can’t fire your lawmakers, executives or legislators, you’re screwed – paying them well is the least of our problems.
Sonic Charmer had a good post on regulation a while back. I would only add that most of the industry representatives I deal with want more regulation. If you support "more" regulation in order to punish financial institutions, you’ve got things generally backwards.
Not getting married is prole: "As Murray documents in his new book, the key class divide today centers around marriage and legitimacy."
nydwracu did some good DC-demographics blogging a while back.
Eugenicist asks what we’ll (HBDers) do when the truth comes out. My suggestion would be that we return to an older system of organizing society. Everyone should have a place in society that is suited to their abilities. If we can’t do something this productive, at least we could stop wasting so much money trying to improve the un-improvable.
ZH: "Kyle Bass was right about everything . . . again"
Mangan on doing what you love (a phrase which I also hate – I particularly dislike "follow your passion"):
Why should we care? Because this mantra enchants and fools legions of young people. It’s akin to the idea that if you practice 10,000 hours you can be an expert at anything, or that anyone can be president. People who take the mantra seriously – and since the average inhabitant of our benighted land is so uneducated and culturally illiterate that he is unlikely to have the wit and examples at hand to refute it easily – can go on to put a serious dent in their life prospects. I suspect that all those OWS folks who feel entitled to earn a living through puppetry or bachelor’s degrees in anthropology are following this script.
Mangan is also good on the NYT’s discovery that IQ maybe sort of matters.
Sometimes it’s surprising how little things change. For example, this story could easily have been written anytime after the Civil War.
OneSTDV on the police. My own views on the police are a bit more nuance, but not much.
WRM: "What’s interesting, of course, is how much more mature physicists seem to be than climatologists." That’s because physicists are scientists and climatologists are statisticians.
Most of said middleman costs would be calculated in as part of what economists call GDP. Something to think about when one hears that economists say that ‘immigration is good for the economy’. How can one take them seriously when they have not even a mechanism to measure how much the degradation of trust created by diversity costs? You could probably even argue that increasing diversity creates an artificial economy of scale benefiting larger firms versus the guy—probably a retiree, who likely enjoys cutting wood.
He also has a good post on getting the money out of politics.
Alex Tabarrok: "It’s one of the ironies of American history that when the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth rock they promptly set about creating a communist society." Actually, I think it’s about right.
Isegoria links to a review of Herbert Hoover’s book, Freedom Betrayed, which sounds quite interesting.
Aretae summarizes the zero marginal product workers debate that was very interesting last week.
Whiskey has some interesting thoughts on divorce in your 20s.
Aretae tries to explain democracy, he believes its purpose is:
To constrain the executive. 2000-10000 years of history demonstrate that roughly all kings all the time are horrid. They range from uninterested, and therefore only minimally oppressive to interested and(theref0re) atrocious. Democracy is an attempt to constrain the power of kings, whose power is known to be dangerous on a level somewhere between forest fires and Cthulhu.
Interestingly I think this is wrong on every possible dimension. Far from restraining executives, democracies have set them free. They are now not shackled by any restraints. After all, they represent the people, and who dares oppose the people? The kings of old (many of whom were – obviously – not horrid) could only dream of exercising the power that modern executive branches exert. The modern executive is also free from any consequences of his actions – the most terrible sort of freedom.