FRC IV: Mike Huckabee Inverts a Cat

Left an interview late and missed the first few minutes of Mike Huckabee, but it's worthwhile hearing him ladle sugar down the throats of a friendly audience.

11:20: Some interesting framing of his immigration record. "I get down on my knees and thank God we live in a country that people are trying to break into and not one they're trying to break out of.

11:22: And on protectionism: "I don't want to see our food come from China, our oil from Saudi Arabia, and our manufacturing from Europe."

11:25: Here's a new rationale for the Fair Tax, or at least one I didn't hear when I asked him about it early this year. "We need stop the muzzling of ministers and the Fair Tax does that."

11:27: "Any federal judge who uses international law as precedent ought to be impeached."

11:29: Excellent, Huckabee blames our "work force problems" on the "Holocaust of liberalized abortion." Will Matt Yglesias withdraw his support?

11:30: "We need to move the cultural norms to fit God's standards." Huckabee tells a story about Billy Sunday being told he was "stroking the cat the wrong way." Sunday's comeback: "Then Lady, turn the cat around." I realize I'm not as religious as I thought I was. Or maybe not as Southern.

11:31: He's hit the Romney button! "It's important that people sing from their hearts and not just mouth the lyrics."

11:32: "There was a time among us when there were certain things that were negotiatiable." He's talking about taxes, sizes of departments and whether these things should exist… stuff that is still negotiable, actually, but Huckabee doesn't win with the base here, so--pivot! "Sanctity of human life, definition of marriage, and the purpose of our freedom. Let us not sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics: Not now, not ever."

11:36: "I don't ever want expediency or electability" to become more important than "our values."

11:38: Yes, he's really hammering this home. "I do not spell GOP G-O-D. Our party might be important but our principles are even more important." I anticipate at least one question in the media availability about whether he'd go third party. He'll say no.

Overall, a successful speech. But Mike Huckabee scoring a Roy Hobbs home run with this crowd is less impressive than Rudy Giuliani hitting a double.

Comments

[kwais]

I suppose he is right; I would rather our food come from Japan, our weapons from China, our oil come from Mexico, and our manufacturing come from India.

Sushi is better than them cheap Chinese joints.
Manufacturing from Europe with their high taxes and all? That would be needlessly expensive.

[Mike Laursen]

I thought our manufacturing came from China and our food from South America.

[James Sorrell]

This is for ALL you know.......please help me spread this to save lives......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~S.O.S.~~~MayDay***
~~~"Suicidal thoughts, up since Katrina, PTSD survey says........"
------->>>"Suicide rate among girls skyrockets 76%, says Centers for Disease Control & Prevention"means, see to it that your neighbor has it just as good as you do, self-lessly!~~~"Who is my neighbor?"....EveryOne on the planet!
"LOVE is the Real Thing" on:
http://CaptainChurch.proboards57.com
http://groups.google.com/group/TeenAnswers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BestTeenAnswers
http://blogs.albawaba.com/captainchurch
--->>>Also, the solution to impulsive depression/suicide:::
SUICIDE VACCINE is on these sites...it works!!!
Jim Sorrell [CaptainChurch]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[iih]

kwais: Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than the best-quality-in-the-world cotton)?

[J sub D]

Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than the best-quality-in-the-world cotton)?

Maybe this? 😉

[Bingo]

Brain. Hurts. Too early on Saturday to read this.

[Sarcasmo]

Thanks, CaptainChurch. If I find out any teens I know are contemplating suicide, I'll refer them to your incoherent website.

[J sub D]

Sarcasmo, wouldn't that likely push them over the edge?

[Alan]

11:30: "We need to move the cultural norms to fit God's standards." Huckabee tells a story about Billy Sunday being told he was "stroking the cat the wrong way." Sunday's comeback: "Then Lady, turn the cat around." I realize I'm not as religious as I thought I was. Or maybe not as Southern.

Southerner here. I have no idea what he is trying to say either.

11:27: "Any federal judge who uses international law as precedent ought to be impeached."

Guess he is unaware that there has been a solid basis of international law followed by the courts that goes back to the Colonial period.

[alan]

11:30: "We need to move the cultural norms to fit God's standards." Huckabee tells a story about Billy Sunday being told he was "stroking the cat the wrong way." Sunday's comeback: "Then Lady, turn the cat around." I realize I'm not as religious as I thought I was. Or maybe not as Southern.

Oh, I get it now. It is a retro 90s Culture War thing.

[Grand Chalupa]

Hey did anyone see this story...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/index.html?iref=newssearch

I love it when stuff like this breaks. The average person sees this and it confirms what they secretly think. Dark people are stupider and we can't talk about it because of political correctness.

As for our liberals and educated classes, those that have had the common sense educated right out of them, I imagine them curling up in the fetal position trying to make the bad thoughts go away. And for the rest of their lives they will have this little nugget that adds to the doubt, weighing down on their need to believe in the equality of all mankind.

And I imagine them going to the local Wal-Mart and seeing refutation of the race and intelligence theory when the black cashier makes correct change or when a white girl bumps into and knocks over a shelf. Reminds me of once when Jared Diamond on a TV show was hanging out with some Africans and was amazed by the little hut that they built, saying no European could've accomplished such a feat. My friends and I made better, more self sustaining structures in grade school.

Assuming that history doesn't end and we wake up to the necessity of eugenics before its too late, science will prove me right and all you who disagree as delusional cowards! I'm having more and more faith that I shall live to see the day.

[iih]

J sub D:

Well, other than that!

[Kenny]

J sub D
Sarcasmo didn't say he liked the teens. I thought you of all people would appreciate where he's coming from.

[TLB]

If Weigel wanted to do something beyond simply acting as a transcription service, he could ask Huck this question.

[J sub D]

J sub D
Sarcasmo didn't say he liked the teens. I thought you of all people would appreciate where he's coming from.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

[Neu Mejican]

Grande Cabron,

Dr. Watson's take on your interpretation of the evidence...

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

[J sub D]

Assuming that history doesn't end and we wake up to the necessity of eugenics before its too late, science will prove me right and all you who disagree as delusional cowards!

I nominate Grand Chalupa for sterilization, if not retroactive abortion. It's for the gene pool! Won't anyone think of the gene pool!

GP, Are you happy now?

[J sub D]

Oops. Make that GC vice GC.

[Neu Mejican]

Grande C,

Have you read this yet?
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

"Let me sum up.

1. The most common formulae used to estimate heritability are wrong, either for trivial mathematical reasons (such as the upward bias in the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins' correlations), or for substantive ones (the covariance of monozygotic twins raised apart neglects shared environments other than the family, such as maternal and community effects).
2. The best estimate I can find puts the narrow heritability of IQ at around 0.34 and the broad heritability at 0.48.
3. Even this estimate neglected heteroskedasticity, gene-environment interactions, gene-environment covariance, the existence of shared environment beyond the family, and the possibility that the samples being used are not representative of the broader population.
4. Now that people are finally beginning to model gene-environment interactions, even in very crude ways, they find it matters a lot. Recall that Turkheimer et al. found a heritability which rose monotonically with socioeconomic status, starting around zero at low status and going up to around 0.8 at high status. Even this is probably an over-estimate, since it neglected maternal effects and other shared non-familial environment, correlations between variance components, etc. Under such circumstances, talking about "the" heritability of IQ is nonsense. Actual geneticists have been saying as much since Dobzhansky at least.
5. Applying the usual heritability estimators to traits which are shaped at least in part by cultural transmission, a.k.a. traditions, is very apt to confuse tradition with genetics. The usual twin studies do not solve this problem. Studies which could don't seem to have been done.
6. Heritability is completely irrelevant to malleability or plasticity; every possible combination of high and low heritability, and high and low malleability, is not only logically possible but also observed.
7. Randomized experiments, natural experiments and the Flynn Effect all show what competent regressions also suggest, namely that IQ is, indeed, responsive to purely environmental interventions. "

[Neu Mejican]

Grande Cabron,

The average person sees this and it confirms what they secretly think.

Damned mind reading mutants need to be stamped out.

[iih]

The average person sees this and it confirms what they secretly think.

What is the population you're averaging over? Supremacists? Well, duh, yeah!

[Neu Mejican]

secretly think

The problem with your logic here GC is an assumption that your subjective point of view is shared by others.

I believe X, therefore X must be what the average person thinks. But, MOST people don't state assert a belief in X. To account for the disparity between number of people who believe X and the number asserting X, we must posit force PC.

But following Occam, PC seems an unnecessary complication. The disparity between assertions of belief in X and the number of people in the world results because most people don't believe X.

Blind faith in the truth of X motivates finding a mechanism (PC) to counter evidence against it.

[J sub D]

J sub D:

Well, other than that!

Why not. Belly dancing has long been making inroads into mainstream American culture. I would think that as a native Egyptian you'd be proud to have a positive influence on our culture credited to your national traditions.

It's a light topic, yes. But I'm not joking. One more item on the Sm?rg?sbord is always welcome.

[Neu Mejican]

JsubD,

Have you visited this website
http://www.radiobastet.com/

Best internet belly dance station I have heard.

[J sub D]

JsubD,

Have you visited this website

H&R - Stimulating conversation, witty repartee, and it's educational too!

[J sub D]

Neu Mejican, iih,

Isn't belly dancing a more pleasant topic than some imbecile's racist rants?

[Neu Mejican]

JsubD,

The real question is: Why is there a positive correlation between how cheesy the belly-dance album cover is and how kick ass the music.

The more professional the graphics, the suckier the beats.

[Cesar]

Grand Chalupa, you've really jumped the shark.

[Cesar]

I'm I the only one that thinks this might be a Grand Chalupa impersonator? This is a little over the top even for him.

[Max]

"Work force problems"?

[Grand Chalupa]

My friends, my friends...

Dr. Watson's take on your interpretation of the evidence...

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

You must be extremly naive. Here's Watson from a couple days earlier

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

What's more likeley, that he made a 180 degree turn in a couple days that happened to coincide with his losing his job and becoming a social pariah or that James Watson simply isn't a very brave or principled man?

And I only have personal anecdote to go on, but at least I've found on my campus my views on race, and actually all conservative views in general get you shouted down in front of a big audience and agreement in small groups. This is impossible to prove, but white nationalists have a saying that for every one that says he agrees with us ten do in private.

As for the evidence you presented, Mr. Mexican, it's obvious that the experts disagree and I don't have a PHD in social statistics and I don't think you do either. The problem is putting the burden of proof on those on my side. Different populations evolved different looks, susceptibility to disease, and even testosterone levels, there is no reason on earth to belive that evolution left the brain and temperment alone. Claiming we're all equal where it counts seems to be an extrordinary claim and you know what those require.

I don't believe it and what makes me passionate about this is how emotional our educated get over even asking the question.

From Wikipedia...

As a result the London Science Museum cancelled a talk that Watson was scheduled to give on 19 October 2007. The museum spokesperson stated that "We feel Dr. Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his talk."

On what other scientific topic would a spokesperson for a museum say that something was "beyond the point of acceptable debate"? Also, Watson was apparentley being investigated under Britain's liberty smothering hate speech laws. We're a long way from discussing these things rationally. Have a good day, off to faire du shopping!

[Cesar]

This is related to the FRC, how?

[THIS CHALUPA WAS DROPPED]

THIS IS AN ACTUAL IMPERSONATOR. NOT ONLY IS THIS OVER THE TOP, IT IS GUARANTEED 100% CONTENT FREE.

GARG BLATH BONG A DING FRIED DONG.

[SIV]

11:27: "Any federal judge who uses international law as precedent ought to be impeached."

I knew there had to be at least one thing I agreed with Huckabee on.

[SIV]

Chalupa's comments are usually much shorter.
I call fake.

[Cesar]

Chalupa, I'd just like to say just because you think black people are genetically stupid and don't have the balls to say it in real life does not mean everyone else secretly thinks it, too.

[iih]

I'd say it is the real GC.

GC: I thought you yourself were Arab. Does this mean that your terroristic IQ is higher than average?

[iih]

JsubD, NM:

So, good, Egypt has belly dancers and cotton.

By the way, talking about "what is made where", this is a very insightful (and funny, especially the first 10-15 minutes or so) talk by Sudha Shenoy. The question is: Why are Australians are doing so well economically even though everything is "Made in Elsewhere"? Of course this would apply here in the US, too. If only Huckabee and followers would stop, listen, and think (something they have shown very little capability of doing).

[Alan]

Joe,

Sorry I accused you of hijacking a topic yesterday because your approach to the topic was a bit indirect. That was certainly nothing compared to this eugenics in a Huckabee smoozes his base post.

[joe]

Grand Chalupa makes me proud to be a liberal; you don't ever see regulars at liberal web sites write nonsense like that, and there's a reason.

I don't have to worry about how long I'll live, because I get to my belief in racial equality vindicated every single day.

And people wonder why I'm smug.

[Cesar]

Grand Chalupa makes me proud to be a liberal; you don't ever see regulars at liberal web sites write nonsense like that, and there's a reason.

Thats because you get banned. On libertarian sites it takes a lot (witness TLB, Dan T., Lemur, et al) to get banned. You can do just about anything on a libertarian blog except impersonate moderators.

[Cesar]

Oh, and Grand C. isn't a "regular", hes a troll.

[alan]

Since the subject has been breached, here is my 2 cents:

Watson is wrong in his assumption that aid to Africa has been based on a false notion of equality of intelligence. If anything, the treatment of Africans in the colonial period and in the modern period by Westerners has been the opposite to a condescending degree.

I don't need to point out that I have friends of the African persuasion who are obviously intelligent, or point to the brilliance of Thurgood Marshall in his early career as a rejoinder here because mean intelligence is irrelevant to a functional society.

Above a certain threshold point all humans who are not severely mentally handicapped are capable of attaining a sustainable level of well being within a functional society. Pointing
at the current state of Africa as a counterpoint to this argument ignores the damage created by irredentist practices to traditional societies in the colonial period.

You speak of intelligence as if it were a fixed point. Obviously,a mind can grow sharp or grow doddery depending upon a persons actions or inattention. When people are coddled the likely result in diminishing of their common sense and intelligence. I believe we witnessed this with Katrina.

The response of the people between Katrina and when my grandmother lived through the devastation of Hurricane Betsy showed an astounding degradation of the human condition. Welfare policy being the main factor in the social changes of that time compared to now.

[Happy Jack]

And I only have personal anecdote to go on, but at least I've found on my campus my views on race, and actually all conservative views in general get you shouted down in front of a big audience and agreement in small groups. This is impossible to prove, but white nationalists have a saying that for every one that says he agrees with us ten do in private.

Fat, virginal, and stupid is no way to go through life son.

[The Real Chalupa]

I don't have to worry about how long I'll live, because I get to my belief in racial equality vindicated every single day.

Yes, I remember when the white people first tried to send a man to the moon. The spaceship collided in outer space with the Mexican ship and the black ship (blasting rap music of course!). All the races watched the invent on the television that they all simutaneously invented and went on to equal one another in scientific advancement and economic matters.

The end.

The question is: Why are Australians are doing so well economically even though everything is "Made in Elsewhere"?

Because they're white you idiot.

Fat, virginal, and stupid is no way to go through life son.

My first was a black girl, father. She later became a stripper and told me she had had five abortions. Also, she voted for John Kerry in 2004. All a coincidence? She did do well in school though, see I am willing to look at opposing views.

[Annonymous]

If this is Chalupa, at least he's become funny!

[kwais]

""kwais: Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than the best-quality-in-the-world cotton)""

Well, I wrote a paper on the benefits of free trade, and I am trying to translate it into Arabic. It seems whenever I tell a local Egyptian that gas subsidies, and price controls are a bad thin, they look at me as though I was crazy.

I think Egypt could contribute a lot more to the region and to the world if they had a free market.

[iih]

I think Egypt could contribute a lot more to the region and to the world if they had a free market.

I thought they had one since Sadat? The problem is that much of the population is poor and any really switch to a free market will cause a very bad economic crisis. If they survive it, good. If not, a revolution can take place (a la 1979 Iran). Don't you think?

Are there any free-market reports on Egypt out there that I can read?

[kwais]

I want to translate it both to fus'ha and to ameya.

I think that the population is poor due to government repression and regulation, not in spite of it. I think that is also the reason that the streets are full of trash, and that the pollution is so bad.

I think that attempts to tax the rich and subsidize the poor only lead to greater devide between the rich and poor.

[kwais]

If I get the paper translated, and I am happy with it, I will email you a copy if you want.

It might be somewhat amateurish though.

Also, all I know about the Egyptian market is from talking to Egyptian, I haven't seen the laws written, and I don't know the exact impact. I just know that Egypt is poor, and that there is a lot of government intervention of the free market, and I just got done reading a book about Adam Smith.

[iih]

I want to translate it both to fus'ha and to ameya.

Don't worry about amiya. What would the point be?

I think that attempts to tax the rich and subsidize the poor only lead to greater devide between the rich and poor.

Society is highly polarized also because, among other reasons, the rich are better connected and get the opportunities than the rest of the population.

I haven't seen the laws written

I do not think there are any laws. Saddat just said "let there be free-market (so called 'open door policy') and, well, most socialist regulations were dismissed but so abruptly that only crooks, drug dealers, and corrupt opportunists (mostly not so-well educated into free-market --or anything for that matter) manipulated the new "system" and things went down hill from there. Egypt is suffering the repercussions ever since.

For any real free-market economy, the manufacturing and agricultural sectors have to boost themselves and Egypt has to be good/best at something (especially cotton, potatoes, steel, aluminum) to give to the world. The communications sector is growing I believe. An Egyptian company has a contract for Iraqi cell services I believe.

If I could be of any help, let me know. Are you there permanently? Do you mind my asking about the nature of the work you do there?

[Neu Mejican]

Grande C, (yes its the real guy folks)...

As for the evidence you presented, Mr. Mexican, it's obvious that the experts disagree and I don't have a PHD in social statistics and I don't think you do either. The problem is putting the burden of proof on those on my side.

The burden of proof is always on the side making the claim to reject the null hypothesis. In this case the null hypothesis is that racial category is too weakly linked to intellectual capacity to have an important impact.

You are wrong, of course, on the degree to which there is disagreement between experts in this area. All agree on the important point - we don't have evidence to make a definitive determination in this area, but racial category will be a minor factor even if the strongest versions of the race-intelligence theory are proven correct. That geographic region provides a better basis for population studies than race is also generally agreed upon.

Remember, even Jensen only claims that 14% of the variance is explained by race (an estimate that is certainly too high). That leaves 86% explained by other factors. Those other factors, having the bulk of the influence, are the ones you want to build you social policies on...not the unimportant minor factor that you obsess over.

I don't have a PHD in social statistics and I don't think you do either.

Correct, I don't have a phd in social statistics.

[iih]

I don't have a PhD in social statistics either 😉

[Neu Mejican]

And Grande C,

Regarding the phd in social statistics.

The "evidence" I presented you with was in the form of a link to a post on heritability by a professor of statistics at Carnegie Mellon University.

His latest post is a much longer and more detailed look at the origins of the "g" factor of intelligence.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

[johncjaxons the 3rd]

Grand Choda,

Even if Watson and many others believe there is/may be a racial element to intelligence, they do not advocate using that as a basis for discrimination, eugenics,etc.

There are racists and then there are people who oppose PC-thought and aren't afraid of the truth but still behave as decent human beings. There is a big difference.

[Neu Mejican]

Buried in the three toed sloth link is a nifty experiment...

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/fagan-holland-2007.pdf

[Jabooty]

Why do you all pay attention to Chalupa? He's either trolling or deranged, maybe both.

[Jim Walsh]

I get down on my knees and thank God...

He lost me right there...

[prolefeed]

Can you see anything coming from Egypt (other than the best-quality-in-the-world cotton)?

iih: How about this?

Even though you prefer the Lebanese version ...

[iih]

Even though you prefer the Lebanese version ...

I do indeed, though beauty pageants are probably the stupidest thing ever.

[iih]

I would add the tourism is an obvious industry. Search Wikipedia for "Egypt" --good stuff. Here is Cairo at sunset.

[Mike Laursen]

Grand Chalupa makes me proud to be a liberal; you don't ever see regulars at liberal web sites write nonsense like that, and there's a reason.

If you think this blog is inferior to liberal websites, why do you spend so much of your time here?

[Neu Mejican]

Grande Cabron,

I just noticed this...

white nationalists have a saying that for every one that says he agrees with us ten do in private.

Does that mean you are a white nationalist of Arab descent?

You realize, I assume, that if white nationalist were in power, you would be among the first to go...

You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
Unless you think?

[Neu Mejican]

But more importantly,

Good things from Egypt...

I love this stuff
http://www.realworldusa.com/albumpages/nile/default.html

And this man's writing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naguib_Mahfouz

[JD]

iih - Actually, there is in Australia now a movement to label things "Australian Made" or "Australian Owned". Not too surprising...they're human and they've got national pride like anybody else. And there's probably some national memory there too: as I understand it, prior to WWII, there was basically no manufacturing in Australia at all, so any kind of self-sufficiency is new to them.

While I was there I caught a comedian on TV who noted that a lot of people were getting tattooed with "Made In Australia", and quipped that they should add "Of Imported Parts and Materials".

[iih]

JD: The argument is that with protectionism there could/will be less development and economic progress. Just make sure that you are good at something and export it to the world.

Actually, I am learning about free markets right now (the von Mises Institute online lectures were very helpful in getting me started). One thing I still don't quite see is that free-markets work so well on a macro-scale. I.e., an entire country benefits on average, but wouldn't that come at the cost of those who make stuff that is imported from and better made elsewhere?

[iih]

NM:

Yeah, but what about real stuff to be given to the world?

[Bob]

7:34: David, have you ever had an inane thought that you *didn't* write down?
7:35: I'm guessing no, but in case you ever did...
7:36: I think you should try that more. You might not
7:37: like it but I assure you the rest of us will.
7:38: Tha
7:39: nks!

[Neu Mejican]

iih,

what about real stuff to be given to the world?

I consider art and literature as real as any other product. The arts and entertainment industry is among the largest export industries of the US, the largest economy in the world.

but wouldn't that come at the cost of those who make stuff that is imported from and better made elsewhere?

Yes, it does.

For a radically different view than you would get at von Mises...read some Herman Daly.

"Against Free Trade: Neoclassical and Steady-State Perspectives by Herman E. Daly

Journal of Evolutionary Economics.

Volume (Year): 5 (1995)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 313-26

Abstract The author argues against free trade as a default position for international trade. He shows that arguments for free trade based on comparative advantage do not hold in reality. First, free trade makes cost-internalization for single countries difficult leading to standard-lowering competition and misallocation. Second, the international mobility of capital leads to absolute rather than comparative advantage for single countries, thus leading to maldistribution. Finally, the ecological basis seriously limits the scope for catching-up. Priority should be given alternatively to domestic production of a steady-state type with balanced trade.

Wiki has links to more of his work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly

Here is his UofM webpage
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty/Daly.html

One that is on my reading list from Daly
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/WW%20rev%20pop,migr,glob%20copy%201.pdf

Free trade, specialization, and global integration mean that nations are no longer free not to trade. Yet freedom not to trade is surely necessary if trade is to remain voluntary, a precondition of its mutual benefit. To avoid war, nations must both consume less and become more self-sufficient.

The truth will, of course, rest somewhere between Daly and von Mises, but I think it is important to understand the issues from both sides.

[Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L]

No Ph.D. in social statistics here either.

So, anyways, how about that Huckabee, huh?

[J sub D]

I do indeed, though I do indeed, though beauty pageants are probably the stupidest thing ever.

iih, you've got it wrong, I'm afraid.

The correct statement is "beauty pageant CONTESTANTS are probably the stupidest thing ever."

I'm just being picky. 😉

[iih]

NM:

Thanks for the link. I think that I have electronic access to the journal.

The other thing, of course, seems to be that with more decentralization of governments, and the weaker they become, with freedom of movement (i.e., immigration/migration), and blurring of national borders, the von Mises version tends to be more equitable to everyone.

P.S. I see that you make many references to the UofM. FWIW, I did not get my PhD from UofM Dearborn.

[iih]

J sub D:

I wasn't feeling this morning, but watching that clip makes me feel much worse. I have heard the story and the audio version, but first time to watch the video. Oh, man!

[Neu Mejican]

Daly's publications page is quite extensive if you are interested in more of his writing.

http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/Dalypapers.html

Daly's main argument is that Free-trade arguments are based on strategies for maximizing comparative advantage for nations, which should be beneficial for both trading partners. The trouble is--if you have truly free trade (not Free Trade), then nations are taken out of the equation as entities, and absolute advantage is the more appropriate way to conceptualize the situation.

Under absolute advantage free trade does not necessarily benefit both partners although it does benefit the world as a whole in net
terms; under comparative advantage it does benefit both partners. Mutual benefit of free trade is a trump card that the IMF-WTO doesn't want to give up. Without that trump card it would have to
face the political question of distribution of these global gains, and
explicitly acknowledge that some countries could lose from free
trade.

[iih]

NM:

Oh that was UofM as in Maryland. Duh! Well, for us Wolverines, there can only be one UofM. So watch it buddy!

[J sub D]

iih, ALCS, Game 7, tonight, 8 pm.

Go Tribe!

[iih]

J sub D: Ha! Did you get my message here?

[Neu Mejican]

iih,

the von Mises version tends to be more equitable to everyone.

I think that is incorrect. "Equitable" is not a goal or advantage that the von Mises position would consider important. Despite being an individualistic argument, the advantage seen in the totally free trade (not Free Trade) argument, is for an aggregate advantage. That aggregate advantage can result in extremely different outcomes for individuals within the group. Big winners are thought to more than balance out big losers, so equitable distribution of benefit is not taken into consideration.

[iih]

"Equitable" is not a goal or advantage that the von Mises position would consider important. Despite being an individualistic argument, the advantage seen in the totally free trade (not Free Trade) argument, is for an aggregate advantage. That aggregate advantage can result in extremely different outcomes for individuals within the group. Big winners are thought to more than balance out big losers, so equitable distribution of benefit is not taken into consideration.

Yeah, that I realize. The goal is not to benefit everyone. On aggregate, there is benefit, so goes the von Mises claim. And that I have trouble with if we stop at the national level (it sounds like a collectivist argument if one talks about "aggregate" advantage, which the Austrian school seems to be talking about --but I am still no expert). But again, if nations are broken down into minute little communities and if there is absolute freedom of movement, then free trade would have as a consequence (and certainly not a goal) benefit for all individuals. It will be left to the individual to choose to be productive or not. It then becomes a matter of personal choice. Depending on productivity and demand on one's "product", the wealth of the individual will be determined.

BTW, when I say "equitable" I do not mean that we have a society in which all are equally rich or poor (that would be communism). Instead, I mean that we will have a society in which every individual has an equal opportunity to excel. Those who do not decide to excel or who were not endowed with the resources will end up among the "have nots". I am a firm believer that it is part of human nature to have diversity in income levels, wealth, and resources. There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots". The goal is to have an equal opportunity to be among the "haves", and leave it up to the individual to be among those.

[Neu Mejican]

iih,

Instead, I mean that we will have a society in which every individual has an equal opportunity to excel. Those who do not decide to excel or who were not endowed with the resources will end up among the "have nots". I am a firm believer that it is part of human nature to have diversity in income levels, wealth, and resources. There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots". The goal is to have an equal opportunity to be among the "haves", and leave it up to the individual to be among those.

Equal opportunity will, of course, always be unrealized as long as you recognize the role of resources in the equation. Those who start out in the "haves" column will have a resource advantage over the "havenots" no matter the motivation or talents of the individuals. The empirical question, of course, is what systemic policy will balance the relative access to opportunity given the inequitable distribution of resources. In my view, no absolutist position will ever provide the best solution when you consider things at the level of nations.

In nature, complex systems (think brains, ant colonies, forests, ecosystems) all contain regulatory mechanism to optimize performance. It seems that economies and nations are also complex systems and will benefit from regulatory mechanism. The trick is to avoid over-regulation, not eliminate regulation.

To extend the economy-is-like-a-brain analogy, an unregulated brain results in epilepsy. We want to avoid an epileptic economy.

[Neu Mejican]

iih,

Another interesting paper on the problems inherent in systemic behavior around resource allocation

http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/WealthInequality1999.pdf

It is clear, then, that distributional and allocational issues are thus inextricable,
and that while there can be no presumption that egalitarian redistribution will improve
efficiency, the conventional presumption to the contrary must also be rejected...Thus institutions may endure for long periods because they are favored by powerful groups for whom they secure distributional advantage. For this reason
inequality in assets may impede economic performance by obstructing the evolution
of productivity enhancing institutions. In addition to the incentive problems on
which we have focused, this may be true both because maintaining highly unequal
distributions of assets may be costly in terms of resources devoted to enforcing
the rules of the game and because at least under modern conditions inequality may
militate against the diffusion of cultural norms such as trust that are valued precisely
because they are often able to attenuate the problems arising from contractual incompleteness.

[Neu Mejican]

And this one

http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/01-01-005.pdf

Addresses the issues that Watson brought up in his statements (to bring us back to the Grande C debate).

The perpetuation of a family's position in the distribution of income from parents to children reflects the genetic and cultural transmission of individual traits, as well as the inheritance of group memberships and income-earning assets. We showthat the extent of intergenerational economic status transmission is considerably greater than was thought to be the case a generation ago, the genetic inheritance of traits contributing to the cognitive skills measured on IQ and related tests explains very little of the intergenerational transmission of economic status, even if the heritability of IQ is quite high, and the combined genetic and cultural inheritance processes operating through superior wealth, cognitive levels, and educational attainments of those with well-off parents, while important, do not fully explain the intergenerational transmission of economic status. We identify some overlooked individual traits that enhance economic success that are transmitted across generations.

[iih]

Equal opportunity will, of course, always be unrealized as long as you recognize the role of resources in the equation. Those who start out in the "haves" column will have a resource advantage over the "havenots" no matter the motivation or talents of the individuals.

But isn't that what makes life interesting? Isn't competition and struggle to do better every single human being's (at least those who care and try) goal? Even the super rich will seek to do better.

The empirical question, of course, is what systemic policy will balance the relative access to opportunity given the inequitable distribution of resources.

Ideally, the answer is to get rid of any entity that has a monopoly over who "gives access" to opportunity. Or, at least, that entity should be restricted only to the basic needs that guarantee that all have access to the same opportunity to succeed, even with limited resources. There is only one such entity that we know of. Lets keep that entity (peacefully, within the law) under control. But that still lies in the domain of theory.

In my view, no absolutist position will ever provide the best solution when you consider things at the level of nations.

Yes. Agreed.

In nature, complex systems (think brains, ant colonies, forests, ecosystems) all contain regulatory mechanism to optimize performance. It seems that economies and nations are also complex systems and will benefit from regulatory mechanism. The trick is to avoid over-regulation, not eliminate regulation.

Once we talk optimization, we have to define a metric of performance, which in this case has to come from some commonly agreed upon moral system. I would define that metric as "equal opportunity" and not "equal return". You will probably define it differently, a communist would have a different version, a socialist another, and so on. That is what I find problematic about "optimization". Instead, each "agent" or a "collection of agents" in that dynamic situation defines its/his/her own metric and the end result seems to be along the lines of the von Mises school (and my personal philosophy).

To extend the economy-is-like-a-brain analogy, an unregulated brain results in epilepsy. We want to avoid an epileptic economy.

The fallacy here, I think, is that we are dismissing the fact that there will be competitions between NGOs and between donors to give to such NGOs (which include churches, research institutes, etc) that would aim to benefit the less fortunate in society. Why would the "haves" seek to help the "havenots". I can think of 2 good reasons:

(1) a brilliant mind will always be sought regardless of whether that brilliant mind was born in the "haves" column or not. Private schools will seek students with potential (even if incapable of paying tuition) since these students will then help boost the schools reputation whenever such a student wins the Nobel Prize or gets appointed as a Supreme court judge, or becomes a successful business man or woman. Extend this to other NGO areas.

(2) By giving to the less fortunate who are not willing to help themselves, the "haves" are essentially paying for a sense of security as the tendency to commit crime etc is lower. But I admit that that is a weak argument.

BTW, someone has recently told me that ant colonies actually do exhibit elements of competition for food, in which that outcome is (on aggregate) the overall system benefits.

[iih]

NM:

Thanks for the other references.

As a side note, for the record since I am often asked about this, is the above (more von-Mises oriented view) consistent with my personal religious beliefs? The clear answer to me is "yes it certainly is". Unequal resources are viewed as tests in humans' lives. Will the "havenots" just give up, or will they struggle (which is always interpreted in a negative light in the West) within the bounds of the prevailing law to better themselves? Will the wealthy just stay idle because they are wealthy, or will they always seek to better themselves? According to my view, if they seek to better themselves, they will have to attempt to better others in society who are less fortunate (but are willing to better themselves). I think that some of these are also reflected here, though I have not read everything at the web site to say whether I agree with them on issues. My 2 cents.

[Neu Mejican]

All good points.

I, btw, was using "equal opportunity" as my metric when talking about optimization.

someone has recently told me that ant colonies actually do exhibit elements of competition for food, in which that outcome is (on aggregate) the overall system benefits.

As do individual neurons in the brain. One of the reasons I chose those entities as analogies to the economy is that they operate under very similar mechanisms in the abstract. Aggregate complexes of autonomous agents (at a certain level) operate under coherently similar rules.

re: The fallacy here

I am not equating regulatory mechanisms with government as such. Or maybe more accurately, I am not making a distinction between NGO's and GO's in the process. Both will arise spontaneously in the complex interactions of a society. The need met by one will not need to be addressed by the other. The State is simply a type of governing agent in a society. It does not, despite its claims, have a monopoly on regulation of individual behavior.

[J sub D]

J sub D: Ha! Did you get my message here?
Yep, I did. As Yogi Berra reputedly said "it ain't over till is's over".

[J sub D]

Neu Mejican, iih, & all other rational posters,

How do you feel about economic affirmative action? Should the coal miners kid get preference over a Wal Mart heir? Not just scholarships, but points towards admission in an elite university. Realizing that economic preferences is certain to have unintended consequences, I lean to a yea vote. IMHO, basing prefernces (and dicrimination) on "race" is out of bounds for a multitude of reasons, among them the constitution. Your thoughts?

[Neu Mejican]

JsubD,

I think, ideally, the scheme you are talking about is the better idea.

Take a look at the disaster that Brazil is in the midst of trying to define racial groups post-hoc to get their AAction programs up and running.

Changing the grouping variable from Race to Class, of course, doesn't really get rid of the complications. It just moves them into another set of fuzzy parameters.

Basing things on income level is easier to measure accurately. It, however, ignores the non-economic factors that provide advantages to certain groups in our society.

[J sub D]

Basing things on income level is easier to measure accurately. It, however, ignores the non-economic factors that provide advantages to certain groups in our society.

Doesn't meddling in non-economic (cultural?) factors have to be avoided? That certain cultures value economic success more than others is demonstrated every generation. If we wnat to decrease/eliminate cultural transmission of lower socio-economic status, wouldn't we have to decrease/eliminate cultural influence on children?

I DEFINATELY don't want the government involved with that. The Bush administation's incoherent attempts should scare any rational being away from that idea. Just consider the Aussies (well intentioned) attempts to modernize the aboriginal culture to see where that can lead. NGO attempts to modify a culture, from within and without, are going to happen, but cultural habits and attitudes are going to require generations to make significant changes. Patience is recommended for all social reformers.

I guess where I'm leading is we can't give preferences to a group, however defined, because they do not stress education, a work ethic, or amassing wealth.

[Neu Mejican]

JsubD,

Well of course there may be a difference between meddling and providing opportunities. I think AfAction programs are about providing opportunities for members of disadvantaged groups that do value the opportunity (even if other group members don't).

FWIW, education is always about changing the way people think about, frame, solve, and define problems. AA programs for education are about strengthening the shared space of the culture, the confluence between groups to the betterment of all. Excluding (whether actively or passively) a sector of society from that process weakens that shared cultural space, imho.

[Neu Mejican]

And since we are in a thread about ethics (Huckabee, right?).

How does everyone feel about outing someone without their consent?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2702644.ece

[J sub D]

How does everyone feel about outing someone without their consent?

If you out someone w/o their consent, you're an inconsiderate, selfish piece of whale excrement. How would you feel if your wife, significant other, or ex-lover, detailed your sexual habits, desires, fantasies, performance, whatever, for the world to cluck over? The immorality of it seems obvious to me.

[Neu Mejican]

JsubD,

I am with you on that.
I am not sure we can condemn JK Rowling in this case, however. She seems to have special status that complicates the ethical questions...

;^)

[iih]

If you out someone w/o their consent, you're an inconsiderate, selfish piece of whale excrement. How would you feel if your wife, significant other, or ex-lover, detailed your sexual habits, desires, fantasies, performance, whatever, for the world to cluck over? The immorality of it seems obvious to me.

Ditto.

[J sub D]

JK Rowlings gets a pass on this one.

"Because, celluloid heroes never feel any pain"*. I think that goes for the print heroes as well.

*Ray Davies

[iih]

Now, regarding affirmative action, well all of the above discussion regarding equal opportunity and free markets (the von Mises form anyways) is all theoretical. It is a dream/goal that has to be sought from the bottom-up. People start with small discussions like we're doing here. Eventually, this notion of freedom and equal opportunity (as Ron Paul always says "individual rights" as opposed to "any other kind of rights") propagates and while everything else is failing, this notion/argument strength should sustain the test of time. 600-800 years ago a few people talked about a republic like we had in the US after independence, and into the early 19th century, people would have said "oh that is just theory/dream and has nothing to do with reality". Well, look what we have (had?) in North America a few hundred years later. Philosophers' and political thinkers' dreams became reality. So while the above may sound like theory, I think it is a beautiful philosophy that will not harm, if not result in something that is beautiful.

In the meantime, however, going back to the current reality. It is clear that race is a big issue. Minorities have started on the wrong footing (the "wrong initial conditions" if you are a dynamicist). Just the same way these wrong initial conditions were intentionally created by the majority in a very unjust social system, these injustices have to be fixed promptly, possibly using intervention. We have to.

OK, what kind of intervention? I am for affirmative action in public education. Not in employment, especially in critical occupations such as hospital doctors. In these cases employment has to be based on merit. My 2 cents.

[Neu Mejican]

JsubD, but the pain of Dumbledore is real. Oh so real...

http://fanfiction.mugglenet.com/viewstory.php?sid=65547

full disclosure...I couldn't make it through even one of Rowlings' books.

[iih]

I wholeheartedly supported UofM's position against the WH and other groups regarding affirmative action.

But I also think that

NGO attempts to modify a culture, from within and without, are going to happen, but cultural habits and attitudes are going to require generations to make significant changes. Patience is recommended for all social reformers.

was very well said by J sub D.

[iih]

I could never, by the way, ever digest nor understand the hysteria surrounding Harry Potter. What's the big deal! I originally also dismissed Lord of the Rings, but only liked the effects in the movie later (still think the movie kind of silly, and also saw the danger of "good vs. evil" kind of theme, especially in light of the then Bush rhetoric "either with or against us" because, I for one, was really not with "him" nor with "them"). Also after dismissing the Da Vinci Code as yet another pop thing, I actually enjoyed reading the book (not for factual accuracy at all, but that it was outspoken, and simply suspenseful). Anyways...

[Neu Mejican]

iih,

Tolkien deserves a read.
His stories and characters are complex in very real ways despite the mythical settings. (And the good vs evil thing is far more complex in the books than the movies. It speaks more to the need to demonize enemies than anything else, as well as allegorically examining the personal toll that unethical decisions can have on a person).

The recent release of Children of Hurin

Might be a better introduction to his stuff than the better known works. A classical tragedy in the strict sense of tragedy.

http://fanfiction.mugglenet.com/viewstory.php?sid=65547

[Neu Mejican]

ooops,

That Childen of Hurin link is here
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618894640/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Neu Mejican]

I guess I just outed myself as a geek.
Anyone want to discuss the relative merits of the Radio version of Hitchhiker's Guide compared to the film?

;^)

[iih]

Neu Mejican:

For me it has always been about finding the time to read. When I do, I prefer (may be mistakingly as a friend of mine has been trying to convince me) reading non-fiction. Though I am coming to the realization that "fiction" could tell us much about man's "reality" than non-fiction can.

Don't be fooled by the amount of time I spend on H&R. H&R is a new (and good) habit that I am trying to self-regulate.

[J sub D]

I guess I just outed myself as a geek.

Self outing is completely ethical.
On Lord of the Rings - IMHO the beauty of the thing is the two concurrant struggles. In one, the battles get more and more momentous. The forces engaged get larger and more powerful. In the other, more important stuggle, the opposite occurs, eventually reduced to two hobbits, weaponless, naked, and alone trying to climb a hill. All in all a good read once you get past Bilbo's birthday party.

Of course, the movie is NEVER as good as the book. That's not an opinion, that's a rule to live by! 😉

[J sub D]

Hard to believe, I've only read the first in the Hitchhiker's Guide series. That's why I'm barred from the D&D tourneys.

[J sub D]

"fiction" could tell us much about man's "reality" than non-fiction can.

Well, Duh! There was this Greek storyteller, named Homer ...

[iih]

Well, Duh! There was this Greek storyteller, named Homer ...

yeah, I know. I used to read like crazy back in college (fiction and nonfiction). In one of the courses we had to read full books in a week. Stuff like Gilgamesh, Brave New World (which I really did enjoy), Hayy Bin Yaqdhan, Shakespear, etc. Then somewhere in the middle of not getting a phd in social statistics i found out that there is a lot of non-fiction stuff to read. My reasoning was that non-fiction is more useful than fiction. But I am now coming to realize that I might have been wrong. Oh well!

[iih]

J sub D:

I knew that those Tribe of yours had something big behind them.

In other news (I did post this before, but did not attract much attention). Have you seen this?

[J sub D]

I knew that those Tribe of yours had something big behind them.

iih, I saw that too. Fucking cheater.

In other news (I did post this before, but did not attract much attention). Have you seen this?

It's not surprising. Kids imitating the adults that they see around them. It helps explain, though not cure, hatreds that persist for generations.

[iih]

J sub D:

Wouldn't it be great if Iraqis learn how to have a right to bear arms but keep its use to the absolute minimum? That would be a greater lesson for the kids to learn --self control.

[J sub D]

That would be a greater lesson for the kids to learn --self control.

That and it's corollary, When you get offended you give enemies control over your mind.

[iih]

When you get offended you give enemies control over your mind.

Very true! Many Muslims seem to need much of that. Unfortunately, the culture of hollow rage has become popular amongst many Muslims.

[x,y]

"Any federal judge who uses international law as precedent ought to be impeached."

Precedent is bullshit. Judges cite it when it supports their position and ignore it (or find any of an infinite number of ways to distinguish it) when it doesn't support their position.

[J sub D]

Very true! Many Muslims seem to need much of that. Unfortunately, the culture of hollow rage has become popular amongst many Muslims.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Some atheists get the same way. I mean, how could you give a damn about a manger scene in the town square? Don't thet realize that makes them look as petty and intolerant as the Puritans they so despise? Sheesh!

[Neu Mejican]

That's why I'm barred from the D&D tourneys.

They barred me because of all the pointing and laughing.

Oh, and the getting laid.

Full Disclosure: I played D&D once. Never got invited back. Was fine with that.