Murphy vs. Krugman
==> I think this is a case of Krugman stretching the facts more than I can recall him ever doing (in a case where he’s demonstrably wrong, I mean).
==> Tom and I take on Krugman’s whining about all the rage-filled right-wingers.
Potpourri
==> An old one I keep forgetting to post: Glenn Greenwald documents some amazing examples of media botching stories.
==> Tom finally gives me some respect.
==> Not sure if I posted this yet, but Tom and I talk about Krugman on Warren on the family & the State.
Potpourri
==> This guy Scott Alexander is very very clever and creative. And along those lines, check out this one.
==> Oh man I had to lay the smack-down.
==> I am included in this collection from FEE.
==> I really liked this Caitlin Johnstone article on narrative.
==> Perhaps I already linked to this, but if not: This Jacobin article from a Marxist (I think?) on MMT is the single best one I’ve seen.
The God of Social Media Demands Sacrifice, Not Mercy
This is about as gossipy as you are ever going to get me. Just to be clear, Sarwark’s latest shenanigans wouldn’t have made me do an episode. But it was being stuck in an airport reading what happened to Scott Alexander, the day after Sarwark’s shenanigans, that pushed me over the edge. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Why Rothbardian Institutions Would Become Nonviolent
Set aside 90 minutes and listen to this one, folks.
This Is Setting Off My BS-Pattern Detector
This is a really smart guy; my son and I read (a lot of) his book Our Mathematical Universe. But around 14:15 when he starts asking questions, instead of saying, “Nothing,” I can think of a different one-word answer that’s far more accurate.
I think the most obviously wrong step he takes, is to say that equations describing how matter behaves, are the same thing as matter itself. This would obviously be a bogus move anywhere else in science, so why allow it when trying to explain the origin of our physical reality?
(E.g. if you’re holding a map of France, that’s not the same as holding France. If you write out Newton’s laws describing the path of a baseball, that’s not the same thing as a baseball in flight.)
It’s Celebrity Criticism All the Way Down
As all right-thinking people recognize, it should be illegal to harshly criticize a celebrity. Now some libertarian theorists try to say, “Well, there’s no rights violation involved, so shouldn’t it be legal to harshly criticize a celebrity?” But that’s not a good argument. I’ll demonstrate with a humorous thought experiment to show the inner contradictions of such a view.
Suppose it were legal to harshly criticize a celebrity, even though most people agree that it’s still wrong to do so. For example, Kathy Griffin poses in a photo with a fake severed head of Trump, and says really nasty things about Melania Trump.
Now that sort of thing is legal, in this thought experiment. But then along comes James Woods, and says, “Wow! That’s really disrespectful and disgusting! She should be fired.”
Do you see the irony? James Woods is himself attacking a celebrity. And we can take it even further, with (say) Stephen Colbert telling James Woods to shut up.
So you can see how internally contradictory this all is, with celebrities viciously attacking each other, for the sin (which should be a crime) of attacking other celebrities!
And so, in addition to the obvious social damage from allowing people to hurl insults at celebrities, you’ve also got this logical problem. This is why it is right for the government to punish people for criticizing celebrities.
P.S. If you like this post, you will also appreciate Scott Sumner’s latest thoughts on blackmail.
Potpourri
==> My interview with Warren Mosler (Bob Murphy Show ep. 18) is up.
==> My critique of MMT is also up.
==> In the movie Dr. Strangelove, the president says it is the avowed position of the US government never to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Not so fast, says Tyler Cowen.
Recent Comments