We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The Barrister's post today on whether aid organizations know what they are doing struck a chord with me. Last week, the non-Nobel Prize (it's not one of the originals, but was funded by Sweden's Central Bank in memory of Alfred) was given to Angus Deaton.
Deaton is well-liked in the community of Economics because he is generally perceived as not having an ideological ax to grind. In other words, he hasn't spent time justifying one school of thought versus another as many economists, such as Krugman, typically do. Deaton has spent his time analyzing the reasons for, and solutions to, extreme poverty in the world. He was not wedded to a school of thought which supported intervention over markets, or vice versa.
What he found, as a result, is broadly accepted by many different schools of thought, because he plumbed the depths of human behavior, particularly the behavior of the very poor.
In seeking solutions, he did not limit himself to the need for individual endeavor, or simply promote ideas supporting government aid and intervention. What he found is that inequality was a great driver of behaviors to improve individual position, and promote general progress, as long as there were structures in place to protect individual rights.
Most overseas development aid, he argues, is a waste and even destructive use of money, and he worries that even some humanitarian aid ends up doing more harm than good.
Deaton is critic of foreign aid, as that line suggests. His primary thrust, however, is that the world is on the whole wealthier and healthier than it's ever been in history and has the potential to continue getting wealthier and healthier. He points out there is not a nation on earth where infant mortality has risen since 1950. The main reason for this, is income growth which is the result of trade and markets. However, Deaton points out that aid is similar to using an engineering approach to solving a problem. Pumping money into the 'problem' doesn't solve it. The solution requires strong institutions to protect rights and activity.
“Innovators need to be free from the risk of expropriation, functioning law courts are needed to settle disputes and protect patents, and tax rates cannot be too high. When all of these conditions come together— as they have in the United States for a century and a half— we get sustained economic growth and higher living standards.”
Deaton is by no means advocating Laissez-Faire Economics. He recognized strong judicial institutions supporting individual drive and effort are necessary, or gains are easily lost. However, he points to the value of trade and markets and the goodwill they spread over a broad swathe of society. He generally disagrees with Piketty's claim that income inequality is a scourge. However, he did worry about centralization of undue influence in the realm of politics, since wealth can be used to derive political power.
In the United States, in one paper with co-author Darren Lubotsky, he showed that—contrary to deeply held views—income inequality in the U.S. was not linked to higher mortality rates.
By focusing on how the poor behave, rather than on seeking institutional solutions that adhere to a particular economic theme, Deaton has found ways to help the poor, and has created the potential to completely eliminate extreme poverty (as opposed to the relative poverty we often see positioned here in the US by politicians as reasons to provide assistance) within our lifetime.
Deaton has done a great service to the realm of Economics. It is a field which often comes under justifiable criticism. One area of criticism has often been the lack of attention paid to poverty, as opposed to wealth accumulation. Deaton, in focusing on poverty, has shown that the two are inextricably linked. Not because wealth accumulation makes others more poor, but because wealth accumulation spreads goodwill to all, if institutions exist to protect individual rights. But he is critical of the use of intrusive aid and handouts, particularly in environments where individual rights are still lacking.
Not really. No doubt these agencies and people hope to do good, but they view "poverty" through Western, materialist eyes. Many people do not know that they are poor and deprived until Westerners tell them that they are because they lack refrigerators and large-screen TVs . (See Eskimos as a case in point.)
I am not talking about famine and the like, just about normal times in subsistence pre-industrial areas with pre-industrial societies. Isn't there a condescending assumption that these brown people cannot figure out their lives by themselves? Why do Westerners wish to intrude on these peoples' lives and cultures? I suppose the Asians and Westerners have done so already through our desire for their natural resources, though, especially in Africa.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
Mike Rowe is one of my favorite life commentators. His program Dirty Jobs was excellent television, not just for his portrayal of the everyday laborer as a hero of modern culture, but because he showed that hard work is its own reward. He has assiduously avoided taking sides in political debates, though he's made it pretty clear people need to be left to their own devices as much as possible. Mike is a trained opera singer, who stumbled into television quite by accident via QVC, and has become a bit of an icon, though he tries to distance himself from any kind of hero-worship. His life advice, I've found, is usually spot-on. I don't know if he comes up with it himself, but it's all pretty darn good.
He seems like the kind of guy you would love to have an everyday conversation with, toss back some beer or bourbon, then work with him to replace your septic system. In no particular order.
He responds to fan mail fairly regularly, and I really enjoyed his post today:
The New York Times just published a 27-point guide on what it means to be a “Modern Man.” As someone widely regarded as a “Man’s Man,” I’d love to get your take. (Personally, I’m not sure what a “Man’s Man” is, but my wife assures me that you are one.)
The left is in full-blown smear-Carson mode. He is, after all, the left's worst nightmare — a black Republican who is brilliant, kind and widely admired, including by many blacks.
From an American perspective, handing the Middle East over to the Russians is not a terrible thing. Americans are far too moralistic to run a proper empire. The Russians are too incompetent to remain a big player in the region in the long run, but in the short run they will be the whip hand that is needed to keep the peace. The Russians will kill everything that moves in eastern Syria, for example, in order to subdue ISIS.
Somewhere
between 1 million and 2 million Europeans came to the New World between
1500 and 1800; by contrast, over 8 million Africans came via the slave
trade. - See more at:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/10/americas-fact-of-the-day.html#sthash.nZxXKlEJ.dpuf
Jim Webb, American Hero- He's everything voters pretend to want in a politician -- but don't.
On the evidence of this book Coates wants to raise up in his son an ideological resentment, to querulous monomania. He repeatedly extols what he calls the “struggle,” though he does not tell his son what it is a struggle for. He makes explicit his disbelief in the likelihood of real change, given that America is ruled by what he so elegantly calls “majoritarian pigs,” so that it cannot be for any concrete or tangible political or economic goal. There is not a single call to his son to expand his horizons beyond “the struggle,” which is really that of giving a meaning to life in the absence of any other. Of course, it is also (potentially) a lucrative career: but while Coates sees the economic beam in everybody else’s eye, he does not see the financial mote in his own. He has successfully commodified his dissent, to adapt slightly the title of Thomas Frank’s book. It does not occur to him that, even in America, outrage cannot be the way forward for millions of people, or indeed that dwelling exclusively on injustice, real or supposedmay not be the best advice to an adolescent (adolescence being, in any case, the great age of resentment).
Mr. Coates, tell your kid he can be a famous neurosurgeon
“He is a progressive on the home front, but he is pretty reactionary when it comes to foreign policy,” says Gloria La Riva, the 2016 presidential nominee for the Party of Socialism and Liberation. “He supported the Israeli war against Gaza. He supports the drone bombing campaigns in other countries, which is a war crime. He has said that Cuba needs to be a democracy, but we believe Cuba already truly is a system for the people there.”
Funny - had dinner with friends last night at a fancy Portuguese restaurant, and had Portuguese cod cakes for appetizer. They served them with a parsley pesto.
My father in law wants to give me his .38 Colt Detective Special. I'd be happy to have it. He carried it for many years, and it slept in his bedside table at night. Just one of many reasons to respect his daughter.
It's a safe firearm to carry fully loaded.
I have plenty of long guns and I have a CC permit, but figuring out how to legally accept and register a handgun gift from a family member from one state to a blue New England state was not easy to figure out until I reached the right person.
All he has to do is to bring the gun to his local dealer. That dealer will mail it to my local gun shop, where it gets re-registered to me. Simple enough. Main thing to remember, once you have possession, is not to transport the handgun out of state unless there is reciprocity.
I have a place quite near by where people can play with handguns. Not being a handgun afficionado, a simple revolver instead of a 9 mm is all I want or need. For home defense, I still think the Taurus that fires shotgun shells might be best. However, I can hit close targets with handguns.
When we were kids, we had a loaded .22 revolver in the kitchen drawer and a loaded 12 ga. leaning against the kitchen entry. Not paranoid at all - just country ways. Shooting beer bottles off of stumps was the main handgun violence. Difficult to hit them - easier with a snowball.
I taught all of my kids - and Mrs. BD - firearm handling and firearm safety. Learned it from my sportsman gramps and my ex-Army Dad. Hope to pass it on to grandkids, God willing.
When sellers manipulate you, that's bad: It's phishing for phools. When the government nudges you, that's good: It's behavioral economics for the benefit of the public.
Then lenders will scrutinize their loans more closely, then government will give them lending mandates. Same thing happened with mortgages. The government's playbook is to screw something up, then to appear to fix what they did with even more rules and constraints. A downward spiral.
"From the 11, 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."
CBS
News Slams Rathergate Film: 'It's Astounding How Little Truth There Is
In TRUTH' - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/10/08/cbs-news-slams-rathergate-film-its-astounding-how-little-truth-there#sthash.T12QA45F.sqhxOuHy.dpuf
CBS
News Slams Rathergate Film: 'It's Astounding How Little Truth There Is
In TRUTH' - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/10/08/cbs-news-slams-rathergate-film-its-astounding-how-little-truth-there#sthash.T12QA45F.sqhxOuHy.dpuf
It's not just that humans are tribal, although they are. I am almost always curious about people with other backgrounds and stories, but I am most "at home," most relaxed, with people whose backgrounds and stories are similar to mine. You can help me explain all of the reasons for that, but part of it is social predictability. For example, it is difficult to build trust when you do not know or understand another person's definition.
A good degree of cultural homogeneity is good for a society because there is a shared context, shared values, shared referents, and shared meanings. This goes far beyond language itself, so assimilation into a culture takes several generations, with real effort, if it is to happen at all.
I suspect that the only places into which I could assimilate would be Canada, England, Oz, and Germany. In other places, I visit more as an amateur anthropologist, an outsider, and I know I will never really get it. Mind you, I live in NYC which is a United Nations of immigrants, a tower of babel. It's fun, but there is a right amount of it.
I think I am in the mainstream to hold the simple view that a society/culture can handle a modest or moderate degree of immigration, but not an invasion. Borders and armies exist primarily to prevent invasions. Today in a few parts of the world we see unarmed invasions, and many governments do not seem to know what to do. Suppose that Charles Martel had met 200,000 unarmed Muslims thronging towards Poitiers on their way to Paris?
The greater the cultural disconnect, and the fewer the cultural connections and traditions, the more likely one will feel like a stranger in a strange land and the more likely that the immigrant will be viewed as one. Whatever the multicults claim, there is a shared American culture from California to New Jersey, from Michigan to Alabama. Lots of subcultures, but an overarching set of shared ideas and assumptions.
Europe and the US seem to have had enough. I think it's a combination of the volume and of the feeling of being exploited. My basic question to legal immigrants would be "What will you do for America?" (I question myself every day about what I do for friends, family, community, God, and country. Scouting brainwashed me that way. Whenever I ask what is done for me, I squash the thought). For illegals, I tend to be with Trump. I guess that makes me a meany.
De
Blasio threatens New York City’s museums and cultural institutions over
“diversity” - See more at:
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=57745#sthash.mFG0XDxz.dpuf
“Our experience is that diminishing opportunities for unsupervised play in our society have left kids with a very thin understanding of how to manage their own play and that it is important to have grown-ups introduce some basic rules to make play work,” the Playworks website states.
It is emphatically not the case that the South, or the United States in general, engages in less manufacturing today than it did in the so-called golden age of the postwar era (during which years a lot of poor people in the South, members of my family included, supplemented the wages they were earning during the manufacturing boom by . . . picking cotton, by hand, and being paid by the pound). We manufacture much more today than we did in the 1950s, and we grow a lot more cotton, too — and both enterprises require fewer workers today than they did back then. When one worker can produce what ten workers used to produce, or a hundred, wages go up, which is why you can make $100,000 a year harvesting cotton today, massive capital investments and innovation having turned what was once the work of slaves into a fairly lucrative skilled occupation.
The ME is one of those little disputatious, duplicitous corners of the world which attract the interest of diplomats and strategists far out of proportion to their intrinsic importance or value. Small pawns in the big game of international politics.
Obama or not, the world is not America's sandbox. Most of the world does not think like Westerners, much less think like Americans, and they never will see life through our eyes.
Furthermore, while the American people like the idea of being the world superpower, they have not been particularly enthused about geopolitical adventures and military maneuverings in minor places since WW2 - none of which have ended very successfully anyway (eg Korea, Cuba, Southeast Asia, the Muslim world, Nicaragua, Ukraine, etc.). Reagan's pressure for the dismantling of the Soviet empire was a success without a single military death, but the result is less than beautiful except for a few ex-eastern bloc nations.
The argument is always that X is critical to America's interests. Really? Syria? Ukraine?
Syria has been a Russian client/ally for a long time. Some good points here: The Mind of Mr. Putin
If you wish to debate, first tell me a few places in the world which can not be construed as"critical to US interests." (I'll use "critical" meaning worth going to war about.)
How much sleep 
Amazing 
Cabin porn 
How 
Connecticut School District Bans Halloween, Will Rebrand Day As “Fall Themed”… 
Forgiveness and Grace: 
Robocoach, 
My father in law wants to give me his
Image via