China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait.
So I was just saying to a friend the other day that the idea of someone heavily invested in gold could be a little unnerving because they gain an interest in societal instability. I kinda doubt Stewart's causal story - I suspect that Beck is paranoid, so he buys gold, not that he's paranoid because he's invested in gold and wants to increase demand for it. But, as they say, "isn't it interesting?"
People like this drive me nuts. I understand why he's worried, but his high-horse attitude is ridiculous. He wants to keep extracting monopoly profits from his books and is apparently willing to retard technological advance to make sure he can do that. I'm prejudiced towards the opinion that most authors worth reading would have written regardless of copyright laws. Dan Brown (assuming generously for a moment that he is worth reading) may not have become a millionaire, but it is far from obvious that he would have made nothing. But leaving that aside, boycotting technology won't make it go away. It will only make you adapt badly to it.
Full Post
This is a really great series from Jacob Bronowski that I ran across the other day. It's basically a condensed cultural and scientific history of mankind, from the earliest evidence we have to the modern day. It's really interesting stuff, and great especially when you're doing something and want something going sort of in the background (otherwise it's probably too long to have time to sit through).
I take Sarah Palin seriously, I take America seriously, I take her ideas seriously. Do you NOT take her seriously? Should I have picked up a four hundred page book and assumed it was error riddled fluff, but that is o.k. because it was just for the folks? How condescending is that? People are not well served when it is assumed any old dumb thing will do for us if it strokes our egos and tells us what we believe. That is the real snobbery.
My grandfather never got to go to high school, but he wanted his political heroes (men like Bob Taft and Eisenhower) to give it to him straight and to get it right. He wanted men of substance. He read his paper and his King James Bible every day and he would have had no time for books like “Going Rogue” that take his hard earned money, but don’t bother with the most basic fact check . . .
Good post from Greg Mankiw that I agree with and wish we could talk about this more.
The fundamental question is, Should Americans embrace a more robust social safety net at the cost of much higher marginal tax rates, reduced work incentives, and a smaller economic pie?
From a strictly economic perspective, there is no right answer to this question. Arthur Okun said long ago that the big tradeoff in economic policy is between equality and efficiency. The pending healthcare reform bill moves us along that tradeoff . . .
Put simply, the healthcare reform bill would make the United States more like western Europe. That may mean more security about healthcare, but it also means that future generations of Americans will likely spend more time enjoying leisure.
In the letter dated Thursday, the association argues that steep discounting on 10 hardcover titles by authors including John Grisham, Stephen King and Barbara Kingsolver “is damaging to the book industry and harmful to consumers.”
Posts
