Long but very interesting look at the resale market for Nike shoes.
Long but very interesting look at the resale market for Nike shoes.
Sorry, I just can't help myself.
And best of all, Megan McArdle's "GruberGate's Insider Problem".
So let me finish by noting what I actually find disturbing about the whole Gruber episode. It is not that voters aren't particularly well-informed; voters could not possibly be well-informed about all the issues that our government deals with. No one can be, which is why, when people ask me my opinions about foreign policy nowadays, I say, "I don't know. Looks like a hard problem to me."
Nor is it that politicians lie to voters. We reward them for lying, because we want to be told that we can have everything we want, plus a pony, and the only cost will be that some undeserving layabout will get their benefits cut off, or some very rich person we don't like will have to sell the second yacht and pay higher taxes instead. We should not be surprised when they tell us exactly that. I'm not saying that I approve of this, mind you; I'm just saying that the way to stop it is not to tut-tut at the politicians, but for voters to stop demanding that they give us the pretty moon.
To which the right response is: expose the politicians' lies, embarass and shame the liars, and then elect new ones. Repeat until the costs of lying outweigh the benefits.
More on lying from Kevin D. Williamson:
The lies are everywhere: California teachers go to the mattresses to protect child-molesters while po-facedly insisting that whatever they do, they “do it for the children,” even as their colleagues do it to the children. LAPD promises “To Protect and Serve” even as the officers in its crime-ridden ranks plant evidence in hundreds of cases, as its gang task-force turns into a gang itself, as the traditional game of cops-and-robbers breaks down completely, with police robbing banks. Politics corrupts even our best institutions. “Semperfidelis”? Not at the top. In the upper echelons, “Saepe fidelis” would be more accurate.
Ah, Baghdad by the Bay: I'm so glad I turned down a chance to work there.
This is just spectacular. If he's not willing to run for office as a conservative he should at least be willing to contribute a bunch of money. Just one great bit:
The critique of Silicon Valley is also that it isn’t very diverse. At Twitter, for instance, 90 percent of the tech employees are male and more than 50 percent of them are white.
I think these discussions are totally valid. Now, I disagree with many of the specific points.
What’s your take?
Shall we? Let’s launch right into it. I think the critique that Silicon Valley companies are deliberately, systematically discriminatory is incorrect, and there are two reasons to believe that that’s the case. No. 1, these companies are like the United Nations internally. All the diversity studies say that the engineering population is like 70 percent white and Asian. Let’s dig into that for a second. First, apparently Asian doesn’t count as diverse. And then “white”: When you actually go in these companies, what you find is it’s American people, but it’s also Russians, and Eastern Europeans, and French, and German, and British. And then there are the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thais, Indonesians, and Vietnamese. All these different countries, all these different cultures. To believe in a systematic pattern of discrimination, you’d have to believe that we’re discriminatory toward certain people without being discriminatory at all toward an extremely broad range of ethnicities and religions. Because of Pakistanis, we’re seeing a higher-than-ever proportion of Muslim employees in a lot of our companies.
No. 2, our companies are desperate for talent. Desperate. Our companies are dying for talent. They’re like lying on the beach gasping because they can’t get enough talented people in for these jobs. The motivation to go find talent wherever it is is unbelievably high.
(On diversity in tech see also the excellent "Cellophane Diversity".)
And here is Mr. Andreessen citing Claudia Goldin. Good on you, sir.
Yes, indeed. Unless there are some major changes it won't be too long before the federal government does little more than cut entitlement checks.
And so I humbly present my own proposal for closing the gender wage gap, which I hope will not only solve the problem but also satisfy voices on all sides of the argument. As a society, we must begin telling women what subjects they can major in, what colleges they can attend, and what jobs they can take.
When asked about the accreditation review, UNC Provost Jim Dean told ABC11, "The entire university should not be punished for the academic fraud that went on for nearly 20 years."
"During that period of time that the report represents, we had about 97,000 students and about 3,000 of those students were engaged at the most in this activity," said Dean. "So as bad as it was, to say that it represents the whole university is pretty disingenuous."
I eagerly await the next time a Chapel Hill male student is accused of sexual assault for him to declare, "I've been alive for about 158,000 hours. To take what I did for less than one hour and characterize me as a bad person is disingenuous."
There has been lots of additional commentary posted since last week. Six of the best pieces I saw:
James Bovard, "The Obamacare deception of ‘stupid’ Americans: How the liberal elites rely on lies to pass their paternalistic agenda". Makes the fine point that the operation of Social Security was, and continues to be, lied about.
Philip Klein, "Gruber's Obamacare comments expose what's wrong with liberalism". I'd substitute "illustrate" for "expose," but that's a nitpick.
Ian Tuttle, "Smarter than Thou: The “stupidity of the American voter” is an article of faith for the Left."
[Dr.] Marc Siegel, "Calling Me Stupid".
My patient with a thyroid problem couldn’t afford the necessary ultrasound and antibody tests to better understand her condition before Obamacare, and she can’t afford them now, either, because of her large deductible. This gap between coverage and actual care is not a surprise to people who have struggled with the limitations of insurance of all kinds their entire lives. Most Americans do not believe in a free lunch these days – and certainly not when the government is pitching it.
Americans have always understood the Obamacare gap between insurance and actual care.
Ron Fournier[!], "Obamacare's Foundation of Lies".
Liberals should be the angriest. Not only were they personally deceived, but the administration's dishonest approach to health care reform has helped make Obamacare unpopular while undermining the public's faith in an activist government. A double blow to progressives.\
Well, as they say, "Every cloud has a silver lining."
Finally, Patterico, "Lefties Deceive as They Try to Distract from Gruber's Praise of . . . Deceit".
This is who they are and this is what they do.
The Grey Lady gets caught, yet again, on the Dvorak keyboard myth, hook, line, and sinker:
How we became stuck with the Qwerty is a matter of debate, but some historians point to a national typing-speed competition in the late 1880s. Unlike the other contestant, the winner had memorized the key positions, in part, the story goes, because they made no sense. The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, invented in 1932, is objectively superior, so much so that, in the 1940s, the United States Navy determined that it was worth retraining its typists. As the evolutionary biologist and science historian Stephen Jay Gould (whose mother was a typist and father a court stenographer) wrote, 'If every typist in the world stopped using Qwerty tomorrow and began to learn Dvorak, we would all be a winner.'
It's not just that it's a mistake--everybody makes mistakes. It's that the paragraph is so credulous, so uninformed, so amateurish in the worst way. And it conforms, of course, to the Times's long-standing anti-market bias.
Why would you possibly trust what they tell you about global warming? Or anything else important?
(If you haven't heard, there's a large literature on the myth of the Dvorak keyboard. Start with Liebowitz and Margolis, "The Fable of the Keys," Journal of Law and Economics, April 1990.)
If you believe as I do that we desperately need much more "transparency" in our government--when I was a kid it just called honesty--Mr. Gruber could well be our man. He is, shall we say, honest to a fault:
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass....Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."
A reason to think this admission is deeply embarassing: the University of Pennsylvania supposedly pulled it off the Net.
Here's a reminder of another one of Mr. Gruber's greatest hits (and its relevance to King v. Burwell).
UPDATE: see Keith Hennessey's concise and very fine discussion of how pervasive hidden, lied-about cross-subsidies in government are.