Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7009)

Bloggingheads 09-01-2011 12:20 AM

Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 

jimM47 09-01-2011 01:18 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/384...9:57&out=50:20

The linked clip summed up this diavlog for me. Obviously I think it reflects well on Ms. McArdle and poorly on Mr. Fernholz, but I suspect many will hold precisely the opposite view.

Starwatcher162536 09-01-2011 01:48 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
It get a little old how much it is asserted that humility in what is knowable means we should do nothing. It's like there is some weighting function in conservatives that weights any harm done by the state 100 times more then any harm done by the market. I suppose you could reply with a rejoinder the same weighting function exists among the left but it weights harm done by private individuals more then the state. This is true I suppose, but that one is only 20 instead of a 100. :/

Hume's Bastard 09-01-2011 01:50 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
I think the diavlog went south well before that, at this point.

This is Example #1 of bad form, and it's a shame Fernholz slammed on the brakes because the two were having a real disagreement at that point.

whburgess 09-01-2011 02:12 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 223978)
It get a little old how much it is asserted that humility in what is knowable means we should do nothing. It's like there is some weighting function in conservatives that weights any harm done by the state 100 times more then any harm done by the market. I suppose you could reply with a rejoinder the same weighting function exists among the left but it weights harm done by private individuals more then the state. This is true I suppose, but that one is only 20 instead of a 100. :/

I just like people who want to make a trade much more then I do those who want to make a law. I trust them more too.

Hey, it could be because the guy who wants to make a trade is just a hell of a lot more humble.

jimM47 09-01-2011 03:15 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 223978)
It get a little old how much it is asserted that humility in what is knowable means we should do nothing. It's like there is some weighting function in conservatives that weights any harm done by the state 100 times more then any harm done by the market. I suppose you could reply with a rejoinder the same weighting function exists among the left but it weights harm done by private individuals more then the state. This is true I suppose, but that one is only 20 instead of a 100. :/

That's a conversation to have, perhaps, but it's not what the dispute was about. The issue is recognizing that outcomes are produced by the design of institutions, setting realistic expectations for those institutions, and making trade-offs in those institutions. Tim acts like by simply setting high expectations of an institution, you will get the outcomes you desire, and at no collateral cost.

I'm sure there are more and better things to be said in elaboration, but since it is late, I am just going to resort to argument by Game of Thrones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h94nCIYPgGs

Romanized 09-01-2011 03:31 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Tim's mad. Hope it's not because he got manhandled in his last appearance. Megan handled him like a petulant child. To think I felt sorry for him.

The naive insistance on the government's ability to part the oceans, or just "make it happen" hasn't been demonstrated here. Basically it's been proven false. It's ridiculous to use the bubble fueled 90's economy to demonstrate much of anything, especially this.

Tim never gets around to describing these well honed tools the Fed could use to end the recession or fix unemployment. He doesn't even acknowledge that monetary shenanigans can bring on the very thing he claims to be urgently concerned with. So the unemployment rate is 9.2%. Does your number scale stop there, or could unemployment skyrocket yet higher?

But as Tim would say, to hell with the raft of unemployed in five years. I want my 0.6% dip in unemployment now.

Sulla the Dictator 09-01-2011 03:47 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 223978)
It get a little old how much it is asserted that humility in what is knowable means we should do nothing. It's like there is some weighting function in conservatives that weights any harm done by the state 100 times more then any harm done by the market.

Which is correct. The reason is because the State operates in the name of all of us; the market is a collection of individuals cooperating without coercion. So if the state ruins my business because someone wants to "try something out", the effect is that we all ruined my business. More perversely, my taxes were used to ruin me. This is why crimes of the state are more heinous in anyone's estimation. It is worse for a politician or federal employee to steal from someone than a random thief to do the same act. It is an abuse of power we have entrusted in them.

No one has "entrusted" anything to a private actor. If a company chooses to dump radioactive waste in a child's playground (Which is how the left weighs things), it is that company which is the bad actor. It is the company which is ruining someone, or some business. And whats more, the company can be held accountable. The government cannot.

sugarkang 09-01-2011 05:19 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanized (Post 223987)
Tim's mad.

I'm trying not to read too much into it. He was pretty civil towards Kevin Williamson, even though Megan was a lot nicer in comparison. Maybe it's about lunch.

badhatharry 09-01-2011 11:21 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 223993)
I'm trying not to read too much into it. He was pretty civil towards Kevin Williamson, even though Megan was a lot nicer in comparison. Maybe it's about lunch.

Maybe Kevin made him mad and it was his resolve never to get trounced again.

PS are his glasses fashionable?

ginger baker 09-01-2011 11:23 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
please bring tim back without mcsuderman. and without attila the hun from NR.

badhatharry 09-01-2011 11:25 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 223978)
It get a little old how much it is asserted that humility in what is knowable means we should do nothing.

Hayek: (in spirit)

Quote:

I don't want to do nothing, there's plenty to do. The question I ponder is who plans for who? Do I plan for myself, or leave it to you? ...
Quote:

People aren’t chess men you move on a board at your whim, their dreams and desires ignored. With political incentives, discretion’s a joke. Those dials are twisting – just mirrors and smoke. We need stable rules and real market prices so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis. Give us a chance so we can discover the most valuable ways to serve one another
.

or...

People aren’t chess men you move on a board
at your whim, their dreams and desires ignored.
With political incentives, discretion’s a joke.
Those dials are twisting – just mirrors and smoke
We need stable rules and real market prices
so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis.
Give us a chance so we can discover
the most valuable ways to serve one another

badhatharry 09-01-2011 11:26 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ginger baker (Post 224033)
please bring tim back without mcsuderman. and without attila the hun from NR.

a lovefest with david corn?

sugarkang 09-01-2011 11:55 AM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 224032)
PS are his glasses fashionable?

Probably.

harkin 09-01-2011 01:12 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 224032)
Maybe Kevin made him mad and it was his resolve never to get trounced again.

At first Tim was (to me) just another lib spouting fairly weak talking points. But the way he seems to just admit that even he doesn't believe the meme and that look he gets as his dialogue partner explains reality is starting to grow on me. It reminds me of the same look I've seen so many times from liberals I've talked to. It's the risk one takes venturing out of the cw cocoon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 224032)
PS are his glasses fashionable?

Maybe on The Thunderbirds. I'm reminded of the line in a Woody Allen film (Love And Death mebbe) where he asks if he is really created in God's image, glasses and all. Diane Keaton replies: "not in those frames".

badhatharry 09-01-2011 01:55 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 224042)
At first Tim was (to me) just another lib spouting fairly weak talking points. But the way he seems to just admit that even he doesn't believe the meme and that look he gets as his dialogue partner explains reality is starting to grow on me. It reminds me of the same look I've seen so many times from liberals I've talked to. It's the risk one takes venturing out of the cw cocoon.

Actually the only part I watched was Jim's link and Tim seemed quite frustrated and was talking over Megan. It reminded me of what was said about the other diavlog where Kevin was reportedly doing the same.

BTW, were you on 395 last week?

Starwatcher162536 09-01-2011 02:23 PM

harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Do you ever do anything that's not just, you know, asserting victory? What could compel someone to do virtually nothing but this hundred(s) of times over the course of years is beyond me. It's not interesting. It's not conductive to learning something. It's not even conductive of sharpening one's rhetorical skills.

You're like a kid at a basketball court who is always bragging but never joins any of the games.

Starwatcher162536 09-01-2011 02:25 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
That post wasn't suppose to be a reply to anyone. It was accidental that it turned out being a reply to you. My response was to the diavlog as a whole.

badhatharry 09-01-2011 02:34 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 224050)
Do you ever do anything that's not just, you know, asserting victory? What could compel someone to do virtually nothing but this hundred(s) of times over the course of years is beyond me. It's not interesting. It's not conductive to learning something. It's not even conductive of sharpening one's rhetorical skills.

You're like a kid at a basketball court who is always bragging but never joins any of the games.

I think it's interesting. But you know me! Besides, it just may be that harkin actually has a life.

Starwatcher162536 09-01-2011 02:34 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
I'm not worried the state is not going to have funds to cover something it screws up. I am worried private individuals will make large profits utilizing risky practices that are siphoned off into personal bank accounts leading to dummy-corporations not having the funds to cover something when it gets screwed up. That seems to me most of the point of LLCs and their limited liability.

Starwatcher162536 09-01-2011 02:37 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Cause you know, pointless invective and hollow claims of "victory victory" are really indicative of just being a busy busy person.

sugarkang 09-01-2011 02:38 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 224054)
That seems to be most of the point of LLCs and their limited liability.

Most new businesses fail. It's supposed to be that way.

Starwatcher162536 09-01-2011 02:41 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
I don't even care if LLC's exist. It's just a response to Sulla assertion that the state is usually held less responsible for it's actions then random business'.

Sulla the Dictator 09-01-2011 02:46 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 224054)
I'm not worried the state is not going to have funds to cover something it screws up.

Are you worried that the state crafts laws which can limit its liability if it screws up? Are you concerned that the state picks winners and losers in the market, and those winners usually end up being the people who contributed more to their political campaigns?

Quote:

I am worried private individuals will make large profits utilizing risky practices that are siphoned off into personal bank accounts leading to dummy-corporations not having the funds to cover something when it gets screwed up. That seems to me most of the point of LLCs and their limited liability.
It would seem to me that only the most extreme type of "screw up" would be thwarted by limited liability. And any example that extreme can be prosecuted in criminal court.

badhatharry 09-01-2011 02:51 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 224055)
Cause you know, pointless invective and hollow claims of "victory victory" are really indicative of just being a busy busy person.

OK, let's examine this. It seems to me that harkin was making an observation about Tim's behavior during the diavlog. He was noticing (I think) that Tim was listening to Megan in a way that indicated that he might be having his mind changed and/or influenced and was a bit nonplussed. I appreciated this observation because I didn't listen to the diavlog. So far I have only listened to the link Jim provided which gave me an entirely different impression. I guess I didn't pick up on the invective you say harkin is displaying but as far as victory, I think it's fairly common to feel some of that when you think another person is seeing or at least considering your point of view.

But I do have a question. What is a cw cocoon?

And another one, do you never make quick snarky comments when you don't particulary agree with one of the diavloggers or other commenters?

I do have to say, I wish harkin would stick around more, but as I say...

Starwatcher162536 09-01-2011 02:57 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 224059)
Are you worried that the state crafts laws which can limit its liability if it screws up? Are you concerned that the state picks winners and losers in the market, and those winners usually end up being the people who contributed more to their political campaigns?

Which is why I tend to support macro level policies in lieu of micro level policies. For example; I'm for a carbon tax. I'm against subsidies to particular green technologies. For macro policies that affect everyone the mechanism between money and outcomes is severed because macro policies affect everyone and make it hard for interests to line up together when everyone is against everyone. For instance when policies are set that affect the relative strength of the dollor I'm generally not worried that the relative funding from importers/exporters is what decided it.

It's sort of a free rider problem for bribers. It only makes sense to try and bribe your way to some policy if you can get everyone to pinch in. A few big players will never recoup their interests if they go in alone. This free rider problem isn't as prevalent for micro policies.

osmium 09-01-2011 03:17 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 223993)
I'm trying not to read too much into it. He was pretty civil towards Kevin Williamson, even though Megan was a lot nicer in comparison. Maybe it's about lunch.

I thought Kevin Williamson came off as a dick, but maybe that was just me thinking that.

sugarkang 09-01-2011 03:28 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 224062)
I thought Kevin Williamson came off as a dick, but maybe that was just me thinking that.

I think most commenters thought he was at least smug despite having better arguments. I wonder if those two things cancel each other out.

miceelf 09-01-2011 03:55 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 224065)
I think most commenters thought he was at least smug despite having better arguments. I wonder if those two things cancel each other out.

I think the smug judgment was nearly universal. I think that the "better arguments" piece is almost completely dependent on what commenters thought before the diavlog. Those who already agreed with Williamson would have been inclined to see the wisdom of his arguments. Those who didn't already agree with him would have been inclined to see the folly of said arguments.

SJH71 09-01-2011 03:59 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Around 45:00 Tim starts switching his argument every time he opens his mouth. Megan refutes one statement, he instantly forgets what he was saying and moves onto a different argument, which she then refutes, and again he acts as though he had not said what he just said. This was not an equal match.

harkin 09-01-2011 04:43 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SJH71
Around 45:00 Tim starts switching his argument every time he opens his mouth. Megan refutes one statement, he instantly forgets what he was saying and moves onto a different argument, which she then refutes, and again he acts as though he had not said what he just said. This was not an equal match.

It's his normal pattern and I'm starting to like it (as I stated above) because it showcases a larger truth. It's right up there with the Ezra Klein tactic of being totally refuted and countering with his variation on 'that's what I was just saying' and changing subjects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 224050)
Do you ever do anything that's not just, you know, asserting victory? What could compel someone to do virtually nothing but this hundred(s) of times over the course of years is beyond me. It's not interesting. It's not conductive to learning something. It's not even conductive of sharpening one's rhetorical skills.

You're like a kid at a basketball court who is always bragging but never joins any of the games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 224050)
That post wasn't suppose to be a reply to anyone. It was accidental that it turned out being a reply to you. My response was to the diavlog as a whole.

I was going to write a reply but the second post was so extrordinarily weird (esp after the title of the first post) that I think they make a nice matching set and I will let them speak for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 224050)
Cause you know, pointless invective and hollow claims of "victory victory" are really indicative of just being a busy busy person.

One request: please wait for me to actually write "victory victory" before you claim I said it. I have to add that if I thought someone was really doing what you accuse me of the last thing I would be interested in doing would be responding to them. The fact that you were so interested in what I said that you delayed answering Sulla's very thoughtful post speaks volumes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry
I think it's interesting. But you know me! Besides, it just may be that harkin actually has a life.

I do have a life and BhTV is one of the sites where I try to check in at least once a day (when I'm somewhere I can access the net) to see what's being discussed and toss in my two cents if I feel the need. I said long ago that my comments were not for the Clique, they showed long ago they were not interested in sticking to a point where their arguments failed. Look at the response to Apple's recent criticism of Muslims taking underage brides, he was immediately accused of being a closet pedophile. No need to explore reality when you can hurl ad hominem.

I write what I write for the lurkers here so they can at least hear an alternative point of view which hopefully will break through the cw (conventional wisdom) cocoon that most are subjected to from the msm (and message boards stacked with liberals).

Remember a couple years ago when the cw was that the Tea Party was a flash-in-the-pan group of angry, racist know-nothings whose only mission was to keep America white and destroy the first black president? The 2010 elections and the debt ceiling talks (along with Obama's dismal performance and facts about public union salaries/benefits coming to light) helped expose the lie.

How about the Wisconsin protests against Scott Walker and the cw that corporate tool fascists were attempting an assault on the civil rights of union members? The unions were so exposed for their selfish thuggery that they hardly mentioned collective bargaining in their later unsuccessful recall drives. The facts are winning out (and oh yeah btw teacher's jobs are being saved and school districts are looking at balanced budgets). The people who claim the mantle of truthiness have been exposed as the weasels in the woodpile.

How about Obama's stimulus and his drive for green jobs where the cw was that Keynesian infusion of borrowed money to foster overpriced non-productive labor was just what the economy needed? That's now been exposed as taxpayer money being used to shore up public unions through the 2010 elections and paying off favors to political cronies. Obama's green jobs plan has failed so miserably that even the Huffington Post is criticizing it.

Part of that cw destruction was people like me making independent thinkers consider reality.

I'm not shouting 'victory', but those small gains against an entrenched statist machine are nothing to sniff at. What they are also are learning opportunities for anyone willing to absorb what was written and not just react with hate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry
BTW, were you on 395 last week?

Only the few miles from the intersection of 270 (we came from Bodie/Aurora/Flying M Ranch via dirt roads) and then again from Topaz Lake to Hwy 89. All the rest was glorious dirt (and water in the Sweetwater Range)....so much fun. Hoping to get back out there before the snow flies.

sugarkang 09-01-2011 05:07 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 224086)
cw (conventional wisdom)

I have been wondering what that stood for.

miceelf 09-01-2011 06:00 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 224086)
Remember a couple years ago when the cw was that the Tea Party was a flash-in-the-pan group of angry, racist know-nothings whose only mission was to keep America white and destroy the first black president? The 2010 elections and the debt ceiling talks (along with Obama's dismal performance and facts about public union salaries/benefits coming to light) helped expose the lie.

Heh. Whether the so-called cw was true or not, the 2010 elections and the debt ceiling talks would have done nothing to disprove it. Certainly, the tea partiers demonstrated truly historic levels of recklessness and irrationality. Whatever motivated that (racism or partisanship or just plain psychopathology), it certainly shouldn't have reassured anyone who was paying attention that they were behaving in good faith.

miceelf 09-01-2011 06:03 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 224088)
I have been wondering what that stood for.

I kind of assumed that harkin simply hated teenage vampires and hot Asian female spies. Not to mention Tyra Banks.

graz 09-01-2011 06:42 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 224032)
Maybe Kevin made him mad and it was his resolve never to get trounced again.

PS are his glasses fashionable?

Nice gratuitous slap at Tim's appearance. Don't fret though, you're covered by the wingnut welfare policy. AFAIK.

Hal Morris 09-01-2011 07:47 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

CW = Conventional Wisdom.
Ah, so it's one of those things for people with a bit of a martyr complex or maybe I should say martyr schtick who always imagine they're fighting the overwhelming forces of ignorant orthodoxy -- like "MSM" or "PC".

Like Columbus proclaiming to the ignorant world that the earth is round. Oh, we love those moments -- "They laughed when I sat down at the piano".

Funny, that used to be a liberal vice/pose, but then the right has acquired all the vices of 60s "Underground newspaper" writers, without giving up any of their original vices in exchange.

Sulla the Dictator 09-01-2011 08:57 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hal Morris (Post 224156)
Ah, so it's one of those things for people with a bit of a martyr complex or maybe I should say martyr schtick who always imagine they're fighting the overwhelming forces of ignorant orthodoxy -- like "MSM" or "PC".

Like Columbus proclaiming to the ignorant world that the earth is round. Oh, we love those moments -- "They laughed when I sat down at the piano".

Funny, that used to be a liberal vice/pose, but then the right has acquired all the vices of 60s "Underground newspaper" writers, without giving up any of their original vices in exchange.

"Used to be" is an interesting way to describe it. Sounds like past tense. One wonders then about the liberals who pretend that any dissent on matters related to addressing climate change, or questions about its prime contributor, are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, funded by a cabal of the "Powers That Be". Or liberals who pretend they're Civil Rights activists when passing a gargantuan health care program that few people like.

The only difference between the modern left and these guys is that these guys look like they're having more fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuTM_MmUlnY

miceelf 09-01-2011 09:25 PM

Re: harkin, Harkin, ... HARKIN!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 224182)
"The only difference between the modern left and these guys is that these guys look like they're having more fun:

Glenn Beck weeps a lot while talking about how Obama is doing his level best to destroy white people and Christians. I suppose some might consider him to be having fun, but it's not what people usually do when they're enjoying themselves.

Parallax 09-01-2011 09:40 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Megan's statement that the current Fed inaction is anything but politics is disingenuous and (even worse) utterly unconvincing.

Richard Fisher who was one of the 3 dissenters in the last FOMC decision only has bachelors degree in economics. Now according Megan, not only he is fit to take monetary policy decisions, but his dissent shows subtle assessments of future inflation expectations. However when it comes to Kenneth Rogoff who is an economics proffessor at Harvard she brushes Rogoff's call for a 6% inflation with a 'but his field is not exactly monetary theory'. And that is journalism in US.

Beside bankers there is another class of people who hate inflation and that is those who save a lot and don't have much debt. Everyone who reads Megan's blog knows that she does not have that much debt (beside the residential mortgage she and her husband both pay) and that in fact she hates debt. If I recall correctly she even had a post where she described not using credit cards anymore and paying cash for everything. So her not liking a little more inflation when she and her husband are both gainfully employed with low debt is quite understandable as a case of holding self serving beliefs.

Fed's current policy of sitting on their hands is irresponsible, indefensible and unforgivable.

PS-1: Of course one should not forget the political incompetence of the Obama administration in not filling the FOMC with dovish members.

PS-2: Megan also repeated the nonsense about people not buying treasuries. That does not even deserve a response. If someone argued that the sun sets in west after you have shown them ana actual sunset with a compass what would you think? Either they are trolling you or they have serious problems with perceiving reality for which the professional jargon I believe is ideologue.

Diane1976 09-01-2011 10:55 PM

Re: Booze and Money (Tim Fernholz & Megan McArdle)
 
Re the first section: Lots of people don't want bars in their neighbourhoods. Hopefully, they should be able to manage that in some less complicated way. I don't understand why these people don't seem to get that. The neighbours in a neighbourhood have certain rights which these people don't seem to respect.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.