tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3836118308314906973..comments2024-03-28T20:11:30.837-05:00Comments on Althouse: Things not believed: "I'm looking forward to voting Democrat again."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64344582464866796942017-05-20T09:02:34.648-05:002017-05-20T09:02:34.648-05:00Again and again Trump does stupid stuff like that....<i>Again and again Trump does stupid stuff like that. And I won't have any sympathy for Trump as a bit of a verbal bumbler but whose heart and head are really in the right place, because I don't even believe that. I think Trump is a mean-spirited sociopathic prick, with almost no conservative principles or beliefs.</i><br /><br />All you really need to understand him is two words: Roy Cohn.HThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11164697644251374452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73384446073277168472017-05-20T08:44:31.809-05:002017-05-20T08:44:31.809-05:00Yes, most knowledgeable people would say I'm l...Yes, most knowledgeable people would say I'm looking forward to voting Democratic. I wonder if that's an editorial policy at the Examiner? To change it to vote Democrat. I have long complained about the childish insistence among some conservatives to heed the calls of Rush Limbaugh to change Democratic to Democrat. <br /><br />OTOH, maybe she did say Democrat. I guess we'd have to look up some of her past talks to see if she says things like Democrat Party.HThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11164697644251374452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44521074943209999072017-05-20T07:32:27.793-05:002017-05-20T07:32:27.793-05:00Mike said...
Chuck look at the stale months-old cr...<i>Mike said...<br />Chuck look at the stale months-old crap you are fixated on. Trump's tweet about crowd size or winning big aren't "news" anymore, if they ever were! But you illustrate the absurdity by being a parody of yourself. Why does it matter? Why can't you "move on" and deal with today's events? TDS. It's a form of mental illness that you share with every news operation to more or less extent!<br /><br />"Silly immigration orders"? Really! Even the people arguing at the 9th this week admitted they would be legal orders if anyone but Trump had issued them. You sir are deranged. <br /></i><br /><br />Mike; all along, I have described myself as "mostly an immigration hawk." I have a lot of sympathy with the legal power, of a president to issue orders much like what Trump has issued. (I don't happen to think that Trump's orders are particularly important, as a technical matter, but whatever.)<br /><br />But Trump himself screwed it up. He never should have said that he called for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. That was a stupid statement. Such an order would never be enforced. It could not be enforced. When Trump got into office and got some very mildly competent people to help him, even they would not and could not draft such an order with any seriousness.<br /><br />Again and again Trump does stupid stuff like that. And I won't have any sympathy for Trump as a bit of a verbal bumbler but whose heart and head are really in the right place, because I don't even believe that. I think Trump is a mean-spirited sociopathic prick, with almost no conservative principles or beliefs.<br /><br />It's good that he got elected, and that Hillary didn't. But Trump is just that and no more. A placeholder.<br /> <br />Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07676108366725199186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41209087010933586132017-05-20T07:06:53.507-05:002017-05-20T07:06:53.507-05:00This may or may not be an improvement. I tend to d...<i>This may or may not be an improvement. I tend to doubt it. It seems to me that a whole lot of satisfying activities were absorbed by the intellectual equivalent of heroin.</i><br /><br />Well, since the men and boys you speak of could still engage in those activities today if they wanted to, they evidently don't agree with you. But I know where you're coming from. In 1975 the Army sent my 17-year-old self to South Korea, where I fell in love with the sound of Bose 601 Series II speakers, which I couldn't afford until 25 years later. But first MTV elevated appearance over sound, then came Ipods and compressed music files, earbuds that can't reproduce the feel of bass, rap and ridiculous subwoofers, and the result is that young people growing up in this environment just don't care about music the way us geezers did back then. Makes me wanna shout GET OFF MY LAWN!<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11691315256618262530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43531082576499969092017-05-19T18:53:43.438-05:002017-05-19T18:53:43.438-05:00She may not consider herself a philosopher but her...She may not consider herself a philosopher but her book Sexual Personae is certainly a philosophical work as it seeks to explain the different behavioral patterns of men and women based upon the physiological aspects, ie, men shoot out ideas easily, whereas women, not so much. (I may have abbreviated that too much)lonetownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10969510756729828503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53437062667771935892017-05-19T18:21:03.898-05:002017-05-19T18:21:03.898-05:00buwaya said...
"There has, very plausibly, b...buwaya said...<br /><br />"There has, very plausibly, been an observed Marxian effect in US wages since the 1970's, a result of women and immigrants expanding the labor force, and a long term deterioration in the ability of this culture to come up with new products and services, or at least at a rate faster than the obsolescence of old ones."<br /><br />The "obsolescence of old ones" is necessarily driven by the invention of new ones. Buggy whips did not become obsolete because someone ripped a page off a calendar. <br /><br />I do think the feminists made a Devil's bargain with the Capitalists. "Give us jobs, and we'll work for half of what you were paying our husbands." Of course, that only left the other half for the husbands. The capitalists got two workers for the price of one, and women got to leave their children in daycare while they perform some meaningless drudgery for a few bucks. Of course, this looked like a good deal to the college-educated women who invented feminism. Jupiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13008508862847561845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53806706838151943532017-05-19T17:31:36.863-05:002017-05-19T17:31:36.863-05:00An example of where innovation has displaced forme...An example of where innovation has displaced former products and services, but not necessarily to the good - <br /><br />Computers, PC's, killed a huge slice of boys and mens hobbies in the mid-1980's-90's. <br />You see this in the collapse of the camera industry (there had been a huge boom in hobby SLR'sin the 1970's); in stereo-audio equipment, in musical instruments, model building, in woodworking/home shop, auto customization, motorcycles, in hunting, in bowling (bowling alleys are a small fraction of their former numbers), even in golf. And etc. across a huge range of industries. All replaced by computers, the internet and videogames. <br /><br />This may or may not be an improvement. I tend to doubt it. It seems to me that a whole lot of satisfying activities were absorbed by the intellectual equivalent of heroin. buwayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388691837737324814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48788830879372757642017-05-19T17:17:28.903-05:002017-05-19T17:17:28.903-05:00"I would say that means he had no idea at all..."I would say that means he had no idea at all of what innovation is."<br /><br />A very incomplete and simplistic one, most certainly.<br /><br />"Furthermore, it always seemed to me that Marxism as an ideology is based much more on envy than on economic analysis. "<br /><br />It was indeed very much a rationalization of a desired set of conclusions. <br /><br />As for the rest - I doubt a great deal of the "quality" argument. For one thing it does not take into account similar losses in "quality" that are also missed by productivity figures. Such as for instance stupider service personnel, or more complex procedures (for anything), regulatory compliance spending, or reduced service quality (airlines for one). And longetivity of consumer products. Household appliances used to have, for instance, much longer warranties buwayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388691837737324814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60550437302312481742017-05-19T15:53:47.952-05:002017-05-19T15:53:47.952-05:00Buwaya, you say that Marx apparently thought that ...Buwaya, you say that Marx apparently thought that technical innovation would only affect the production of existing products and did not see that new products would be invented. I would say that means he had no idea at all of what innovation is. Even if you look at something like textile mills, which were around in Marx's time, it's clear that inventions in one area lead to invention in other areas and subsequent new processes and products. Marx spent too much time in libraries and too little time learning what businessmen and capitalists actually do.<br /><br />I don't hold myself out as an expert on Marx. I tried to read <b>Das Kapital</b> in grad school, but I just couldn't plow my way through the bad writing and convoluted thinking. Moreover, I was convinced a long time ago by Milton Friedman that you judge the validity of an economic theory by the accuracy of the predictions it makes. Marx made only a few predictions, but one of them was the subsistence wage I mentioned above, and that prediction was spectacularly wrong, even in his day. So I was never very motivated to study his stuff. <br /><br />Furthermore, it always seemed to me that Marxism as an ideology is based much more on envy than on economic analysis. None of the Marxists I've met in my lifetime had much understanding at all of economics.<br /><br />I don't agree with your characterization of the American economy as having run out of innovative steam. I think the slowdown in productivity growth has more to do with over-regulation, government-enabled rent seeking, and measurement errors. GDP accounting tends to value the output of service industries at the cost of producing those services. That kind of accounting grossly understates, for example, the value of Google searches and other online services, many of which are provided for free.<br /><br />Here is another example: If I buy Microsoft Office today for 20 percent of what I paid for an inferior product ten years ago, GDP thinks I'm getting less value. And Heaven forbid I should download LibreOffice for free.<br /><br />The effect of quality improvements is also understated. New cars today don't cost much more than they did 20 years ago, but they are much better products today. They are quieter, safer, more fuel efficient, more durable and more comfortable. But GDP values them about the same as before, because the cost is about the same. The price deflators used by the Commerce Department do try to make some accomodation for changes in product quality, but most economists, even the ones who work at Commerce, think they are off by at one or two percent per year. Just adding that back in to the productivity figures eliminates much of the supposed decline.<br /><br />It's also kind of funny that you should mention immigrants in this context, as immigrants are responsible for much of the technical innovation going on today, particularly in computer engineering. And there are a lot of women, like both of my well-educated daughters, who have dropped out of the official labor force. Together with their husbands they've decided that their families are better off with their "off the books" labors and homemakers and mothers, but GDP is lower.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11691315256618262530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51273488291571229982017-05-19T14:51:53.433-05:002017-05-19T14:51:53.433-05:00Stop Making Sense just the greatest.Stop Making Sense just the greatest.readeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699913625782012426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5776800840600530632017-05-19T14:50:43.751-05:002017-05-19T14:50:43.751-05:00"was their focus on issues of production and ..."was their focus on issues of production and distribution rather than innovation and invention. "<br /><br />Marx did include the issue of innovation - his theory was based on technological improvements in productivity reducing the need for labor. That's why he predicted a progressively expanding labor surplus. <br /><br />His theory left out that innovation would also create new products and services, absorbing the labor made redundant by higher productivity in established production processes. <br /><br />He also left out the social-welfare system that, mainly, took older workers out of the labor force through retirement, or mass education that took the young out of it likewise. <br /><br />There has, very plausibly, been an observed Marxian effect in US wages since the 1970's, a result of women and immigrants expanding the labor force, and a long term deterioration in the ability of this culture to come up with new products and services, or at least at a rate faster than the obsolescence of old ones. buwayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388691837737324814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52578723261203587642017-05-19T14:04:43.831-05:002017-05-19T14:04:43.831-05:00Marx' great error, from which many of his less...<i>Marx' great error, from which many of his lesser errors follow, was to suppose that objects derive their value from the labor consumed in their production. He conflated "value" and "cost".</i><br /><br />That was one of his big errors. Another one was that, like Malthus, he thought the competition between workers for jobs would drive wages down to the subsistence level, leaving capitalists (employers) to collect all the "surplus value". It never occurred to him that employers also had to compete for workers, and that this would drive wages up to the point where they matched the marginal product of labor. That is, if each additional unit of labor adds X dollars to a firm's saleable output and the price of labor is less than X dollars, it pays the employer to keep adding labor until it costs him X dollars to hire more. Some of this thinking was implicit in Adam Smith's 1776 <i>The Wealth of Nations</i>, but Marx didn't get it.<br /><br />The biggest error of Marx and most of the later economists, however, was their focus on issues of production and distribution rather than innovation and invention. We are much better off than our great-grandparents not because we individually work harder or are smarter, but because there have been so many advances in engineering, technology, business processes, and other areas. Noticing this is the Hayekian tradition in economics, and it is still mostly ignored by the economics profession today.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11691315256618262530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13222363177856466482017-05-19T13:51:38.821-05:002017-05-19T13:51:38.821-05:00The dems started literal treason when they started...The dems started literal treason when they started rewarding Iraqi terror attacks around 2004.<br /><br />Blow militarily insignificant stuff up and we'll get Bush out of Iraq for you, using your insignificant attacks as the reason.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17913888967870823882017-05-19T13:04:26.985-05:002017-05-19T13:04:26.985-05:00AReasonableMan said...
Ann Althouse said...
"... AReasonableMan said...<br />Ann Althouse said...<br />"Don't tell me what's not treason. Tell me the first thing that is.<br /><br />Nixon's break-in of the DNC headquarters was illegal but it was not treasonous. On the other hand, Nixon's attempt to undermine Johnson's peace talks with the Vietnamese could be viewed as treasonous. One action hurts the Dems but not the country directly whereas the other is an attack on what appears to have been the best interests of the country.<br /><br />A certain and often high level of partisan chaos is characteristic of democracies, to start to define this as treasonous strikes me as anti-democratic, which is possibly a little treasonous."<br /><br /><br />You don't say much, but when you do you don't say much.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24314966788382964702017-05-19T13:01:40.645-05:002017-05-19T13:01:40.645-05:00Sigh. People shouldn't get their underwear in ...Sigh. People shouldn't get their underwear in a bundle when the term "treason" gets attached to Trump, considering what was said about Obama. It's just a continuation of the hyperbole seen in our divided country. And we'll all have to wait and see what comes out of all the investigations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5503989556574296172017-05-19T12:56:44.257-05:002017-05-19T12:56:44.257-05:00"If one listened to them everything Obama did..."If one listened to them everything Obama did was "tyranny!"."<br /><br />It was. He oversaw a massive (albeit continuing from previous trends, he accelerated it) expansion of government encroachment on the US economy and civil liberties. buwayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388691837737324814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84672782251907336482017-05-19T12:51:55.482-05:002017-05-19T12:51:55.482-05:00I trust almost nothing from the Washington Examine...I trust almost nothing from the Washington Examiner. If one listened to them everything Obama did was "tyranny!".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20181348062530068532017-05-19T12:33:41.746-05:002017-05-19T12:33:41.746-05:00Could you please not give away answers to the NYTi...Could you please not give away answers to the NYTimes crossword?linseehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08294973922879607431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50936871568099360322017-05-19T12:26:26.211-05:002017-05-19T12:26:26.211-05:00Spoilers!Spoilers!HJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08655573162988638173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50493991407665918662017-05-19T12:08:53.002-05:002017-05-19T12:08:53.002-05:00I don't see much difference between the Dems c...I don't see much difference between the Dems current (unfortunate) behavior and what Repubs did to Obama for 8 years. The biggest point of difference is that Trump is making all kinds of unforced tactical errors that Obama didn't make, giving them tons of opportunities.OGWisemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07972490856647311709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59607218194529029272017-05-19T12:03:53.209-05:002017-05-19T12:03:53.209-05:00I don't think I've seen or heard anyone ca...I don't think I've seen or heard anyone calling treason on POTUS. If anyone is they must be outliers or the angrier part of the hoi polloi. Personally it seems too early to be talking about whether there is reason to impeach the president. Right now I don't think so.<br /><br />Trump is one scary nightmare to me, but what I want is to see what the investigations show. I'd also like him to start acting a little grown up, even presidential. That, however, seems too much to ask.Brookzenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07890096380912383067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81489307620241385082017-05-19T12:00:53.731-05:002017-05-19T12:00:53.731-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brookzenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07890096380912383067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52802688542775947912017-05-19T10:46:33.679-05:002017-05-19T10:46:33.679-05:00"I'm not getting on the treason train, bu..."I'm not getting on the treason train, but if I had to argue for the case for the prosecution, I would start with Trump's claim of an "absolute right" to disclose information to Russia. That's in the same category of Constitutional overreach as Nixon's claim that when the President does it, it's not illegal."<br /><br />But he does have an absolute right to disclose whatever he wants to whomever he wants. He has the ultimate classification and declassification authority, and any authority to do either for anyone in the government is delegated to them by him. His act of disclosing classified information to someone not cleared for it can be taken as partial declassification. <br /><br />Moreover, the classified information sharing here was done in an attempt to fight a common enemy. And who actually disclosed the important information about the sources of that intel to our real enemies (ISIS)? It wasn't Trump, and it wasn't the Russians. It was the MSM disclosing the information to the public, information that they received through illegal leaks aimed at harming Trump. There are your crimes - the leaking. The Russians had every incentive of keeping our sources of that intel from ISIS (as they did), as did Trump. And your treason - ISIS is an official enemy right now, while Russia is not. Who gave aid to our enemies here? Obviously, the NYT and the leakers who ultimately ended up intentionally disclosing information to our formally declared enemies about the identity of spies in their midsts. <br /><br />Oh, and what about Obama setting up classified information sharing with the Cubans? Cuba really is still an official enemy, and Obama's actions somewhat normalizing relations with them intentionally bypassed Congress. How can Trump be charged here, and not Obama, whose actions were so much more egregious? Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62764656739933999272017-05-19T10:46:18.224-05:002017-05-19T10:46:18.224-05:00The WSJ went down the tubes when they started writ...The WSJ went down the tubes when they started writing features for women.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80432764476235175702017-05-19T10:19:04.330-05:002017-05-19T10:19:04.330-05:00Left Bank of the Charles said...
I'm not getti...<i>Left Bank of the Charles said...<br />I'm not getting on the treason train, but if I had to argue for the case for the prosecution, I would start with Trump's claim of an "absolute right" to disclose information to Russia.</i><br /><br />Yet it is a fact that the President has the absolute right to declassify or classify any information at his discretion. Therefore, what you cite as an over-reach is a truism: it ain't illegal if the Chief Executive does it. If you disagree with this then please cite a legal or learned opinion that says the President does NOT have the right to declassify information. Mike (MJB Wolf)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00936808380090258703noreply@blogger.com