Economics

  • BigThink,  Economics,  family

    Deepthink of the moment

    From the ever interesting Jane Galt about child rearing and careers

    I’m not sure. If childrearing is a) necessary and b) as tedious as everyone assures me, then it strikes me that whatever feminine thrill women get out of doing it probably increases the happiness associated with the activity. And, based only on my own previous relationship experience, I’d imagine that socialization which reduces the number of areas that have to be negotiated probably, on net, makes marriages happier.

    That would go a long way to explaining why opposites attract, if in fact they do.

    Comments Off on Deepthink of the moment
  • BigThink,  Economics,  Personality

    RIP Milton Friedman

    Instapundit has a good collection of links on his life and legacy. He was the first to think of many, many things in economics that seem blindingly obvious now but were heretical at the time. One of the larger intellectual giants of the past 100 years, on a purely technical level, outside of the politics (which I agree with).

    Comments Off on RIP Milton Friedman
  • Biz,  Economics,  Immigration,  Robots,  Tech,  Torture

    Quick Monday rapid fire – fun addition

    • On the matter of remittances by immigrants to foreign countries

      Moreover, remittances are far more likely to make their way to people who actually need them. American aid tends to be received by governments, which in most third world countries are not especially honest. So the majority of American foreign aid never makes it to actual poor people in the developing world. In contrast, Latino immigrants are wiring money directly to their mothers. They know exactly who’s getting the money, and they’d hear about it if the government stole it from them. It probably even has foreign policy benefits, as the remitters are likely to have a generally positive impression of America and to transmit that impression along with their remittances.

      And the best part about all this is that it doesn’t cost us a dime! All we have to do is let them scrub our toilets and pick our strawberries. We get lower prices on the goods and services we buy and we get the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing we’re helping to alleviate Latin American poverty. It’s such an incredible win-win arrangement that I find it rather depressing that it’s considered controversial in American politics. Increased immigration is a cause that should unite liberals (with their concern for social justice) and conservatives (with their belief in hard work and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, that’s not how the issue has played out in the real world.

      Very well put.

    • Gun toting robots!
    • From the mouths of ad executives
    • An original knife holder
    • Easily the best use of Flash I’ve seen in months
    • Quotes from Jim Webb, the Marine veteran and aspiring Democratic Senator from Virginia. Though nothing beats him saying “I wouldn’t walk across the street to watch Jane Fonda slash her wrists.”
    • A FoxNews empolyee gets waterboarded, sadly it’s not their web designers (their site gets worse by the day, though, still no Lou Dobbs, happily)
    • Iron Man is about to be real!
    • This looks quite interesting
    Comments Off on Quick Monday rapid fire – fun addition
  • America,  Economics,  Google,  Military

    Two things

    Whilst listening to left wing radio today I heard two notable things, which struck me as totally wrong.

    • The claim that over 50% of all discretionary government spending is spent on the military. While true, the weaselly use of the “discretionary” modifier makes it meaningless. To declare that some percent of the budget “must” be spent on programs, when they have the full power to change any law making them spend it on said programs is downright silly.
    • The left wing (usually uttered by baby boomer types) screed that it is wrong not to show caskets of dead soldiers and marines as they arrive back in the states. This is usually followed by something like “if we could only see the human pain of this war, we wouldn’t be there at all.” Then it occurred to me that we all watched 9-11 happen and then three weeks later we were bombing Afghanistan, and 18 months later we invaded Iraq. The sight of dead Americans seems to make us more aggressive, not less.
    Comments Off on Two things
  • Cycling,  Economics,  Links,  Weirdness

    Still uploading

    Pesky large files. Anyway, here is some lovely reading material for you.

    Comments Off on Still uploading
  • Alt Energy,  Economics,  Health,  Links,  Weirdness

    Monday rapid fire

    Comments Off on Monday rapid fire
  • Economics,  Engineering,  Links,  Politics,  Quotes

    Saturday round up

    • Magnificent photography from Afghanistan
    • A guide to chopping foods
    • Race, Advertising and the Sony Playstation.
    • Big Brother mixes with the cast of Friends to create Dodgeball
    • An insightful post on Energy from the Winds of Change; it starts

      An optimist says the glass is half full, the pessimist says the glass is half empty and the engineer says the glass is the wrong size.

      Read the whole thing.

    • Some quite impressive numbers you’re not likely to hear about.

      In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium.

      I think Iraq is keeping the political class occupied, much like the Clinton scandals did in the late 90s, and saving us from grand new ideas.

    Comments Off on Saturday round up
  • Abortion,  BigThink,  Economics,  Immigration

    Abortion and immigration

    A long one.

    I predict that soon someone will make some correlation between legal abortion and increased illegal immigration, similar to Steven Levitt’s abortion-crime idea as told in his book Freakonomics.

    For those of you who haven’t read the book it spends a lot of time explaining his theory that abortions are disproportionately had by women who would otherwise bear criminal children (to put it bluntly). Those children are never born, which reduces the number of criminals, which reduces crime rates. He has a large amount of documentation and math to support this idea. Bear in mind that the 80-20 rule applies here, something like 20% of the women who get abortions have 80% of all abortions.

    A similar idea (unique to me so far) is that were there no abortion, there would be many more children who would grow up to be low-skilled, low wage workers. That creates an artificial void on the bottom of the income ladder, which the Mexicans and other illegals fill.


    I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and it’s all part of my emerging theory on open-source eugenics and artificial evolution, which I’ll explain more when I flesh it out.


    On a related note, the pro-choice argument and the usual nativist argument are essentially the same. There is ownership in a country, as there is in one’s body. It is up to the owner; the citizens of the country collectively or the individual woman to determine who can be there (to put it crassly). Every child is a wanted child, and every immigrant, is a legal immigrant.

    Or that’s what I think right now anyway. Thoughts anyone?