The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
A Succinct Summation
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Yes, it’s like my Finance professor’s point that drove Open Borders economist Bryan Caplan temporarily insane with rage because he couldn’t think of an intelligent response and he knew it. I wrote in 2005:

Let me describe citizenism using a business analogy. When I was getting an MBA many years ago, I was the favorite of an acerbic old Corporate Finance professor because I could be counted on to blurt out in class all the stupid misconceptions to which students are prone.

One day he asked: “If you were running a publicly traded company, would it be acceptable for you to create new stock and sell it for less than it was worth?”

“Sure,” I confidently announced. “Our duty is to maximize our stockholders’ wealth, and while selling the stock for less than its worth would harm our current shareholders, it would benefit our new shareholders who buy the underpriced stock, so it all comes out in the wash. Right?”

“Wrong!” He thundered. “Your obligation is to your current stockholders, not to somebody who might buy the stock in the future.”

 
Hide 109 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Universal pre-K is hoping that the kids turn out ok, even if the two or three generations before them didn’t. Take care of those who contribute. Is this a close analogy?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Buffalo Joe

    Well your analogy is sort of like; I sent my first child to school and he/she completed four years of school and is now in fifth grade, following this one program that all of a sudden the school district found was not effective and didn't help or teach the children anything, so from this new day forward the school district will start a new program for the new children starting in first grade that will make them better while leaving the other older children missing out on the new and improved program starting from young.
    It's sort of like what is being said except that in Sailer's analogy they would be bringing in a whole new set of people to displace the original stockholders who are left pennyless.
    but it's close.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    , @Louis Renault
    @Buffalo Joe

    Schools exist to provide employment for loyal democratic voters with degrees in SJWness. They do not exist to provide positive educational results for students. See Baltimore City School achivement after the fine leadership efforst of the chief human capital officer, one of the founders of BLM, DeRay McKesson. It worked great for him, and now there will be plenty of badly educated kids needing remedial education which will require: Teachers! It's just like a self-licking ice cream cone, but this one pays you at the same time. Unless you're a student, or the parent of one.

    , @Polistra
    @Buffalo Joe

    Virginia PTA, NAACP official says 'let them die,' about parents opposed to Critical Race Theory

    A video showed Michelle Leete, a federal employee who is also Vice President of Training at the Virginia state PTA, Vice President of Communications for the Fairfax County PTA and First Vice President of the Fairfax County NAACP demonizing parents with an opposing viewpoint.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/virgina-pta-naacp-official-says-let-them-die-about-anti-critical-race-theory-parents


    "So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk. Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for a world they deserve. Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people."

    "Let them die," Leete concluded. The crowd gathered for the event cheered after the statement.
     

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @anon, @Muggles

  2. “Whom” stands? Really?

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @dee nile

    As Lenin wisely once said: "Make no mistake: Whom stands in the way will soon be referred to as 'Who?'"

    Upon hearing those words, the Bolshevik was enlightened.

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra

    , @Anonymous
    @dee nile

    Weird indeed. "Sid" is a smart guy, he surely knows the difference.

    What is he up to these days, anyway?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @dee nile


    “Whom” stands? Really?
     
    Horton hears a Whom.


    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDE1MTEwMTQt[email protected]._V1_.jpg


    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/53c808a8e4b02c6d14a855a5/1415209894657-B61L1YHS7JRYO2LVMRCL/horton.jpg?format=1500w
  3. Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.

    He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I’m not married to him.

    • Replies: @Michael Meo
    @Triteleia Laxa

    But you can agree, even though you might be reluctant to marry him, that his post does not even remotely seem to be "insane with rage"; which was how S. Sailer described it -- quite unfairly.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gabe Ruth

  4. Prior to Trump, the Republican Party intended to do exactly the same thing. They just weren’t as competent or as honest about it. (After Trump, the Republican Party doesn’t represent anything other than the poorly-articulated grievances of Trump and also those of its voters, in that order of importance.)

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Thomas

    Hey, just got a text, if I donate before midnight I get a "free" Trump flag, you want a "free" Trump flag?

    Replies: @Thomas

    , @Flip
    @Thomas

    Jeb! Bush would have legalized every illegal the minute he got into office.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Thomas


    Prior to Trump, the Republican Party intended to do exactly the same thing. They just weren’t as competent or as honest about it. (After Trump, the Republican Party doesn’t represent anything other than the poorly-articulated grievances of Trump and also those of its voters, in that order of importance.)
     
    The Republican Party is a mess. Terrible at representing its actual voters, especially around the immigration issue.

    But disagree on "honest". These beltway Republicans are often quite honest. "What we need is a guest worker program". (Cue Derbyshire's snark.) I.e. they openly want cheap labor ... just don't want their kids becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.

    In contrast, the Democrats are never honest about immigration. They've been effectively a flat out open borders party for a couple decades now. I.e. they have no interest in enforcing our borders and oppose all Republican efforts to do so. But they never run on that. It's all lies: "Of course, no one supports "Open Borders" ...." and pieties: "Legal immigration ..." "A fair and just ..."

    And where the Republicans are headed now? Who knows?

    Trump is such a ball of unrelenting, undisciplined ego. But he's moved the party toward nationalism and got the sane (nationalist) section of the base riled up and made them considerably less tolerant of the beltway cucks. So who knows where it's all headed.

    Replies: @Thomas

  5. @Thomas
    Prior to Trump, the Republican Party intended to do exactly the same thing. They just weren't as competent or as honest about it. (After Trump, the Republican Party doesn't represent anything other than the poorly-articulated grievances of Trump and also those of its voters, in that order of importance.)

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Flip, @AnotherDad

    Hey, just got a text, if I donate before midnight I get a “free” Trump flag, you want a “free” Trump flag?

    • Replies: @Thomas
    @J.Ross

    Don't forget to leave that monthly donation box checked so they can dun you over and over.

  6. Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.

    Highlights include.

    There was no effort, and I mean none, by America’s institutions to stop Donald Trump. The analysis that Russia made was simply completely missing. Most of America’s institutions backed Trump. Pundits made careers out of attacking those of us who warned of the dangers of Trump ascending to the Presidency — and those of us in public life who did warn of it paid a steep professional price, losing our columns, book deals, and so on.

    The only one who saw it and said it openly was Hillary Clinton. And guess what? Elites and institutions attacked her like crazy for it. Think what you like about Hillary — but she was dead right, and she was the only one, more or less, in a position of power, to say so openly. The only one — that’s how massive, epic, incredible, spectacular, America’s failure was and is.

    Let me end with one final note, then. This leak doesn’t just confirm the worst suspicions about Trump. It also lends credence to the idea that the deniers are Russia’s men, too. Who else, at this point, would really defend any of this? When it’s obvious? When there’s now literal hard documentary evidence? Only someone, really, being paid to. Being paid well to.

    That makes the deniers — I don’t know, hypocrites? Liars? Propagandists?

    But it’s different for you. They’re probably being paid to deny it. You? You’re not being paid handsomely to deny the fact that Trump was Russia’s man, America’s first Manchurian Candidate of a President, one installed as a puppet to rip America apart and make it implode.

    What does that make you, if you don’t believe the obvious, overwhelming, damning evidence by now?

    Somewhere between a fool, a mark, and a sucker, my friend. Maybe all three.

    https://eand.co/russia-made-trump-president-and-its-the-worst-scandal-in-american-history-f6e144431070

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @AKAHorace

    Sheet ... Winston is really steaming ahead here, channelling Ehrenburg. Good job. Julia can be proud. Kinda sad that they cannot legally shag due to lockdowns.

    , @Adrian E.
    @AKAHorace

    It is certainly interesting that many people are ready to believe CIA and cold warriors‘ conspiracy claims about Russia even though there is still exactly zero evidence. Many are even in denial about the obvious fact that there is no verifiable evidence.

    Ir is absurd that people are still misled so easily after many previous Russiagate claims have been debunked. But obviously, there are important forces that have a very strong interest in escalating the new cold war, and so they use strong propaganda tactics and don’t care that it is ridiculous if someone believes them after so many previous Russiagate conspiracy claims had been disproved.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @Muggles
    @AKAHorace

    Of course the Russians "elected" Trump. What? No evidence for it?

    Well, Hillary lost! Proof positive.

    Only the evil Russkies could pull that off...

    , @black sea
    @AKAHorace

    The most glaringly flawed premise of this article is that Hillary Clinton could reveal the truth about anything.

    , @Kibernetika
    @AKAHorace

    Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.


    Is that site a kind of therapeutic newsletter for mental patients?

  7. How do you have a majority that is made up of minority groups who disagree with one another a lot of the time, and in some cases actively despise each other? This may be why the Democrats are having a s**t h hemorrhage over the size of Trump’s Hispanic vote in the Rio Grande Valley.

    • Replies: @PaceLaw
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    Absolutely spot on! The Libs/Democrats always try to make it appear that there will be this majority/minority group of seething, angry minorities who are just trying to get after whitey. In reality, there will be an overwhelming majority of minorities (Asians & Latinos) who will try their damndest to be white-adjacent and to live as far away from the angry blacks that they see in every day life. After all, who immigrates to this country just to be berated and victimized by a relatively small (13% of the population) ethnic group? We are seeing this already in how Latinos are switching voter affiliation over to the Republican Party.

  8. @Thomas
    Prior to Trump, the Republican Party intended to do exactly the same thing. They just weren't as competent or as honest about it. (After Trump, the Republican Party doesn't represent anything other than the poorly-articulated grievances of Trump and also those of its voters, in that order of importance.)

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Flip, @AnotherDad

    Jeb! Bush would have legalized every illegal the minute he got into office.

    • Agree: Polistra, VivaLaMigra
  9. • LOL: Morton's toes
    • Replies: @El Dato
    @JohnnyWalker123

    For a Dem that must be like being raped by God Himself.

    , @Technite78
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Rarely does a photo so accurately illustrate why our nation is in sharp decline.

    , @AnotherDad
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Technite beat me to it.

    But that a look at that photo--take it all in. From the grinning pig face on back. That's a plane full of silly, empty-headed parasite people who have no business governing the productive half of America.

    Republican government only works when responsible productive men--who make the society function--remain in charge. Then it's the best possible--and most morally justified--system of government.

    But when government is run by silly women, goobers and parasites, it's an unhinged, willful, destructive force. A toddler on steroids. You'd be better off with a medieval king--who at least wants to pass on his looting charter to his son--than that.

  10. @J.Ross
    @Thomas

    Hey, just got a text, if I donate before midnight I get a "free" Trump flag, you want a "free" Trump flag?

    Replies: @Thomas

    Don’t forget to leave that monthly donation box checked so they can dun you over and over.

  11. Anonymous[246] • Disclaimer says:

    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.

    • LOL: El Dato
    • Replies: @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.
     
    That's quite pithy (though harsher than i'd put it), but ... i tend to agree.

    IDK what's going on in the smoke filled rooms of Dem strategists, but i really thinks it's a desire to alleviate suffering of the immigrants coupled with a belief that it won't hurt the US and with the belief that "We're a land of immigrants", which, as much as some people here whinge about it' we really have been to a significant degree for much of our history. (1) (2)

    And as has been pointed out several times this year, the majority of Biden voters are white. I haven't done the math or tried to reason it out too far, but i wouldn't be surprised if the bruhaha about immigration isn't losing the Dems more net black and white votes than they are gaining from Latinos. Would Trump even have won if he didn't have the illegal immigration issue to flog ?

    --
    1) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

    2) before or as you guys lynch me, this statement that we have had a lot of immigrants over the years doesn't mean that "diversity is our strength" or that we should move from "melting pot" to "patchwork quilt" model or even that we should CONTINUE allowing high immigration or ANY illegal immigration or that we (and the world) don't have to deal with the upcoming population explosion in Africa.

    Replies: @Goddard, @J.Ross

    , @Giant Duck
    @Anonymous

    What about saying both are for Israel? Also stupid?

    , @silviosilver
    @Anonymous

    As a political statement, that would make it a rather smart thing to say then (irrespective of how true it is).

  12. The key for progressives is to get the current invaders their franchise before they figure out that the Ruling Class’s plan is to massively devalue their new franchise with the next generation of invaders.

  13. Triteleia Laxa wrote:

    [Caplan] Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.

    [TL] He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I’m not married to him.

    Caplan was making the (admittedly trivial) point that we all have certain negative obligation towards all innocent human beings — not to murder them, rape them, steal from them, etc.

    The issue is whether allowing non-citizens into the country involves that sort of negative obligation (i.e., is it wrong to keep them out?) or is it taking on a positive obligation (such as the specific positive obligations we have towards our own kids, our spouses, etc.).

    The factual answer, in the world we actually live in, is that letting vast numbers of non-citizens into the country involves allowing them certain positive privileges: access to the roads, parks, and public schools all of us paid for; access to the welfare system; and ultimately the right to vote and impose taxes on us for them or their offspring.

    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, have you conceded the debate we recently had on this very issue? You stopped responding—maybe you missed my reply.

    To recap, you are:

    Pro-freedom to not associate at the personal level
    Pro-freedom to not associate at the business level

    But, anti-freedom to not associate at the national level

    You still haven’t logically justified your inconsistent positions.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-1618-project-2/#comment-4767620 (#167, etc.)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @James Speaks
    @PhysicistDave

    Someday, as resource depletion drastically limits our choices, lifestyles and lives, we will think back on this time when we had the option of providing for others.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @PhysicistDave

    I'm not sure I care about your distinction, even though it is neat and rational. I'm approaching from the direction of "just how much love and compassion am I supposed to have?"

    Take any ordinary person. They tend to love their family and close friends. This then fades to a dim light at the national level, just about allowing them to meaningfully tie themselves in economic and social partnership with their compatriots.

    Caplan now posits that there's little reason not to extend this to every random person on the globe. I get the thesis, "We are all part of creation", but it is just a lie. I don't have the consciousness to care any more than merely performatively for the random billions around the world. Some talking head pretending that they do, by inventing "moral" abstractions, is plain deluded.

    Lying to yourself has consequences. Our societies lying to themselves will have consequences. Such lies encourage us to build things and form structures that we don't want, can't commit to, and will be drained by.

    Moralisers assume the role of God, but our light is not infinite. Going and drowning our societies in darkness will cause us to lose ourselves as surely as it will fail to help others.

    It isn't wrong for the ordinary US citizen to say "f*ck Caplan and his morals, I want to keep my nice things, because I like them." Anyone who says otherwise is just being a jerk.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave

    , @rebel yell
    @PhysicistDave

    It's immoral to ground our moral thinking in universal moral principles. You should ground your moral thinking in reality. Of course you will value your own child's life above the lives of others, and will value family above tribe, tribe above nation, and nation above universal abstract humanity.
    Given our particular loyalties, can we still resolve our conflicts reasonably? You'll get more justice in a world of reasonable competitors than you will in a world of sanctimonious crusaders cut off from reality.

    Replies: @anonymous

    , @AnotherDad
    @PhysicistDave


    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.
     
    Dave it doesn't require this sort of detailed calculus.

    Foreigners have no more right to plop themselves down in your nation, then they do in your house. My response to Klein and Caplan, etc. etc. is "Fine, the world will be more equal if the world's poor get to live in your house ... let's start with that." "But you don't have the right to make me--and my posterity--give up our stuff."


    No these open borders zealots are not in the least "good people". They are nasty totalitarian scum who hate the ability and desire of some people to have nice stuff.

    Scratch all this "libertarian" open borderism and there is zero liberty involved.

    Dig into it: What they actually posit is some sort of over-arching deus ex machina "entity" that stops, some people X, from refusing to allow person/people Y to come into their community or for them to refuse to associate with Y. In other words, what they actually demand is a bullying state to deny the people the right to their community and free association and force them associate with some interlopers. This certainly isn't self-government and certainly isn't liberty, it is tyranny. What the establishment press now laughably calls "democracy"--making sure people of a nation are not allowed to govern themselves in their own interest.

    It is also painfully obviously a middle-man minority ideology. The right of the middle-man to plop themselves down in your community--and you, your community can't object or refuse. Can't exercise the most basic right of all--saying "no!" It's rapist ethics, parasite morality.

    And who imposes it? The super-state.

    If there is a moral case for a state--anything beyond the reality: "power flows from the barrel of a gun"--it is the right of a community , a people, to collectively organize and act in their own interest. (Defend themselves; impose internal order--settle internal disputes--by enforcing the community's norms; etc.) I.e. the only case for government that is not simply an extractive tyranny is a community of people collectively defending their own interests.

    Open borders ideologues seek precisely to have the state stop the people from governing themselves and force them to behave and associate as those ideologues want. Tyranny. Specifically a genocidal tyranny designed not just to loot the people, but to destroy the people themselves.
  14. Anti-citizenism is low-grade treason, but Pelosi et al call patriotism terrorism.

    • Agree: Muggles
  15. It’s a fine comment as far as it goes, but a NATION is not a corporation.

    HBD pundits think in terms of their self-interest at the moment. Charles Murray is the same way. So is Greg Cochran.

    They’d keep low IQ immigrants out because they’re a burden to them personally. But they’d also push policies that harm you if that was beneficial to them. Notice the most passionate policy they’ve pushed is the Covid lockdown. This did unnecessary harm to tens of millions of (mostly White) fellow citizens. But apparently most HBD pundits are immunocompromised, so they went into a hysterical meltdown over a kinda bad flu.

    In this corporate-citizen view, some citizens definitely have preferred stock. And it’s not based on race or natural nation.

  16. Hmmm. What struck me about his argument when I looked at it is that he doesn’t address the question of where the right of a peaceful employer to employ a peaceful foreign employee, allegedly comparable to the right not to be battered I the street by a stranger, comes from. He just assumes that Steve is obliged to recognize such a right. Of course, Steve only has such a duty if you assume that nations are illegitimate in the first place. Hence, he argues in a circle, assuming what he is trying to prove.

    The other thing that struck me is that he assumes that the only benefit to the citizen in preventing his own replacement by a foreigner is getting a better job. The possibility that there is no other liveable job that allows the citizen to have a meaningful future, including a family, he pretends not to notice. Thus, his position boils down to this: American citizens have an obligation to put the interest in freedom of contract above their own genetic and cultural continuity. This is a bizarre claim, and the inability of the open borders crows to defend it is their Achilles Heel.

    Of course, that doesn’t matter when they have the megaphone and we don’t.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  17. @dee nile
    "Whom" stands? Really?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    As Lenin wisely once said: “Make no mistake: Whom stands in the way will soon be referred to as ‘Who?’”

    Upon hearing those words, the Bolshevik was enlightened.

    • LOL: Right_On
    • Replies: @VivaLaMigra
    @El Dato

    How could Lenin have made that English-language grammatical mistake if he had been speaking Russian? Are there equivalent nominative and objective relative pronouns for "who" and "whom" in that language, and are those the words he actually used? On a related note, I'm always flabbergasted by ostensibly "educated" or "literate" people who can't grasp the difference between "who" and "whom." To these idiots, I guess there's no difference between "he" and "him" or "she" and "her," either.

  18. @PhysicistDave
    Triteleia Laxa wrote:


    [Caplan] Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.

     

    [TL] He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I’m not married to him.
     
    Caplan was making the (admittedly trivial) point that we all have certain negative obligation towards all innocent human beings -- not to murder them, rape them, steal from them, etc.

    The issue is whether allowing non-citizens into the country involves that sort of negative obligation (i.e., is it wrong to keep them out?) or is it taking on a positive obligation (such as the specific positive obligations we have towards our own kids, our spouses, etc.).

    The factual answer, in the world we actually live in, is that letting vast numbers of non-citizens into the country involves allowing them certain positive privileges: access to the roads, parks, and public schools all of us paid for; access to the welfare system; and ultimately the right to vote and impose taxes on us for them or their offspring.

    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @James Speaks, @Triteleia Laxa, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    Dave, have you conceded the debate we recently had on this very issue? You stopped responding—maybe you missed my reply.

    To recap, you are:

    Pro-freedom to not associate at the personal level
    Pro-freedom to not associate at the business level

    But, anti-freedom to not associate at the national level

    You still haven’t logically justified your inconsistent positions.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-1618-project-2/#comment-4767620 (#167, etc.)

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican asked me:


    Dave, have you conceded the debate we recently had on this very issue? You stopped responding—maybe you missed my reply.
     
    No, I simply had other things to do. No debate can go on, forever, you know. The fact that I allowed you the last word on that thread does not mean I conceded your points. It simply means that I had more important things in life to do.

    Also, I very much doubt that anyone was still following your and my little debate.

    Finally, you did concede in your last post in that thread:

    Now it’s true that a pure pro-freedom of association law would allow racially integrated and segregated venues, at the owners’ whims...
     
    That was, after all, the only point I was making and you conceded it.

    I know that you have in mind some impure idea of freedom of association that leads to different results, but that does not interest me, or, I suspect, anyone else.

    Jim Crow is inconsistent with freedom of association (okay "pure" freedom of association), which was my point.

    As to your issue of "national freedom of association," you and I agree that, given the realities under which we live, unlimited immigration will involve a denial of freedom of association to existing citizens.

    What Caplan (and occasionally our friend Corvinus) argues is that one can imagine an ideal world in which immigrants only associate with people who want to associate with them. Yes, you can imagine such a world. And in such a world, unlimited immigration would not violate freedom of association.

    But, in the real world, where we have "public" property (roads, parks, public schools, etc.), a welfare system, and democratic voting, that condition does not obtain. In the world as it actually exists, unlimited immigration does indeed violate freedom of association.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  19. “… the Democrats feel obliged to represent a majority that is yet-to-be” misses the point.

    Why do they “feel obliged”?

    It’s because rank-and-file white Democrats have been taught to feel guilt and shame over the accomplishments of their ancestors, and Democrats of all races have been taught to hate whites. Democrats in leadership positions are being well-compensated for what they are doing.

    Honestly, its all misdirection. What is now called “The United States” is mostly empty land, and somebody is going to make a fortune resettling a half-billion people here.

    The connection to today’s race issues is that these new people will be pretty much all PoCs.

    See how it works?

  20. anon[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    Universal pre-K is hoping that the kids turn out ok, even if the two or three generations before them didn't. Take care of those who contribute. Is this a close analogy?

    Replies: @anon, @Louis Renault, @Polistra

    Well your analogy is sort of like; I sent my first child to school and he/she completed four years of school and is now in fifth grade, following this one program that all of a sudden the school district found was not effective and didn’t help or teach the children anything, so from this new day forward the school district will start a new program for the new children starting in first grade that will make them better while leaving the other older children missing out on the new and improved program starting from young.
    It’s sort of like what is being said except that in Sailer’s analogy they would be bringing in a whole new set of people to displace the original stockholders who are left pennyless.
    but it’s close.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @anon

    OneFourThree, one problem with Public School education is that they fear testing to measure achievement.You really never know how any block of students is doing because of social promotion. Ok, start again with universal PreK but we won't how effective it is for years. In the meantime parents who failed to get a free education aren't going to inprove the chances of their PreK kids because they didn't value education. In case you missed it, I pointed out that in six Baltimore HSs not one student was proficient in Math or English. Would PreK have helped them? We're good, stay safe.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon

  21. You could argue that it would be acceptable if the access to and utility of the capital raised outstripped the discrepancy of the under valuation.

    • Disagree: Abolish_public_education
  22. @AKAHorace
    Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.

    Highlights include.

    There was no effort, and I mean none, by America’s institutions to stop Donald Trump. The analysis that Russia made was simply completely missing. Most of America’s institutions backed Trump. Pundits made careers out of attacking those of us who warned of the dangers of Trump ascending to the Presidency — and those of us in public life who did warn of it paid a steep professional price, losing our columns, book deals, and so on.
     

    The only one who saw it and said it openly was Hillary Clinton. And guess what? Elites and institutions attacked her like crazy for it. Think what you like about Hillary — but she was dead right, and she was the only one, more or less, in a position of power, to say so openly. The only one — that’s how massive, epic, incredible, spectacular, America’s failure was and is.

     


    Let me end with one final note, then. This leak doesn’t just confirm the worst suspicions about Trump. It also lends credence to the idea that the deniers are Russia’s men, too. Who else, at this point, would really defend any of this? When it’s obvious? When there’s now literal hard documentary evidence? Only someone, really, being paid to. Being paid well to.

    That makes the deniers — I don’t know, hypocrites? Liars? Propagandists?

    But it’s different for you. They’re probably being paid to deny it. You? You’re not being paid handsomely to deny the fact that Trump was Russia’s man, America’s first Manchurian Candidate of a President, one installed as a puppet to rip America apart and make it implode.

    What does that make you, if you don’t believe the obvious, overwhelming, damning evidence by now?

    Somewhere between a fool, a mark, and a sucker, my friend. Maybe all three.

     

    https://eand.co/russia-made-trump-president-and-its-the-worst-scandal-in-american-history-f6e144431070

    Replies: @El Dato, @Adrian E., @Muggles, @black sea, @Kibernetika

    Sheet … Winston is really steaming ahead here, channelling Ehrenburg. Good job. Julia can be proud. Kinda sad that they cannot legally shag due to lockdowns.

  23. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1416468436721356802

    Replies: @El Dato, @Technite78, @AnotherDad

    For a Dem that must be like being raped by God Himself.

  24. @Anonymous
    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.

    Replies: @vhrm, @Giant Duck, @silviosilver

    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.

    That’s quite pithy (though harsher than i’d put it), but … i tend to agree.

    IDK what’s going on in the smoke filled rooms of Dem strategists, but i really thinks it’s a desire to alleviate suffering of the immigrants coupled with a belief that it won’t hurt the US and with the belief that “We’re a land of immigrants”, which, as much as some people here whinge about it’ we really have been to a significant degree for much of our history. (1) (2)

    And as has been pointed out several times this year, the majority of Biden voters are white. I haven’t done the math or tried to reason it out too far, but i wouldn’t be surprised if the bruhaha about immigration isn’t losing the Dems more net black and white votes than they are gaining from Latinos. Would Trump even have won if he didn’t have the illegal immigration issue to flog ?


    1) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

    2) before or as you guys lynch me, this statement that we have had a lot of immigrants over the years doesn’t mean that “diversity is our strength” or that we should move from “melting pot” to “patchwork quilt” model or even that we should CONTINUE allowing high immigration or ANY illegal immigration or that we (and the world) don’t have to deal with the upcoming population explosion in Africa.

    • Replies: @Goddard
    @vhrm


    IDK what’s going on in the smoke filled rooms of Dem strategists, but i really thinks it’s a desire to alleviate suffering of the immigrants coupled with a belief that it won’t hurt the US ...
     
    Dems have made clear their antipathy toward “Deplorables” as Hillary called us, “Bitter Clingers,” as the silver-tongue’d Obama put it. The supposed sincerity you grant to the Open Borders crowd is at best the sincerity of a hysterical woman. The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @J.Ross
    @vhrm

    Then explain both Obama and Biden suddenly caring about invasion when it's Cubans.
    The new voter theory explains this. Cubans are likely Republicans, and thus counteract the dissolution of one people and electing of another.

    Replies: @vhrm

  25. @AKAHorace
    Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.

    Highlights include.

    There was no effort, and I mean none, by America’s institutions to stop Donald Trump. The analysis that Russia made was simply completely missing. Most of America’s institutions backed Trump. Pundits made careers out of attacking those of us who warned of the dangers of Trump ascending to the Presidency — and those of us in public life who did warn of it paid a steep professional price, losing our columns, book deals, and so on.
     

    The only one who saw it and said it openly was Hillary Clinton. And guess what? Elites and institutions attacked her like crazy for it. Think what you like about Hillary — but she was dead right, and she was the only one, more or less, in a position of power, to say so openly. The only one — that’s how massive, epic, incredible, spectacular, America’s failure was and is.

     


    Let me end with one final note, then. This leak doesn’t just confirm the worst suspicions about Trump. It also lends credence to the idea that the deniers are Russia’s men, too. Who else, at this point, would really defend any of this? When it’s obvious? When there’s now literal hard documentary evidence? Only someone, really, being paid to. Being paid well to.

    That makes the deniers — I don’t know, hypocrites? Liars? Propagandists?

    But it’s different for you. They’re probably being paid to deny it. You? You’re not being paid handsomely to deny the fact that Trump was Russia’s man, America’s first Manchurian Candidate of a President, one installed as a puppet to rip America apart and make it implode.

    What does that make you, if you don’t believe the obvious, overwhelming, damning evidence by now?

    Somewhere between a fool, a mark, and a sucker, my friend. Maybe all three.

     

    https://eand.co/russia-made-trump-president-and-its-the-worst-scandal-in-american-history-f6e144431070

    Replies: @El Dato, @Adrian E., @Muggles, @black sea, @Kibernetika

    It is certainly interesting that many people are ready to believe CIA and cold warriors‘ conspiracy claims about Russia even though there is still exactly zero evidence. Many are even in denial about the obvious fact that there is no verifiable evidence.

    Ir is absurd that people are still misled so easily after many previous Russiagate claims have been debunked. But obviously, there are important forces that have a very strong interest in escalating the new cold war, and so they use strong propaganda tactics and don’t care that it is ridiculous if someone believes them after so many previous Russiagate conspiracy claims had been disproved.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Adrian E.


    It is certainly interesting that many people are ready to believe CIA and cold warriors‘ conspiracy claims about Russia even though there is still exactly zero evidence.
     
    They're the same kind of people who, in the 1950s, would have been defending people who spied for the Soviet Union and dismissing Senator McCarthy as paranoid conspiracy theorist.
  26. the majority of Biden voters are white.

    Well yeah, since they’re literally paper.

  27. @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.
     
    That's quite pithy (though harsher than i'd put it), but ... i tend to agree.

    IDK what's going on in the smoke filled rooms of Dem strategists, but i really thinks it's a desire to alleviate suffering of the immigrants coupled with a belief that it won't hurt the US and with the belief that "We're a land of immigrants", which, as much as some people here whinge about it' we really have been to a significant degree for much of our history. (1) (2)

    And as has been pointed out several times this year, the majority of Biden voters are white. I haven't done the math or tried to reason it out too far, but i wouldn't be surprised if the bruhaha about immigration isn't losing the Dems more net black and white votes than they are gaining from Latinos. Would Trump even have won if he didn't have the illegal immigration issue to flog ?

    --
    1) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

    2) before or as you guys lynch me, this statement that we have had a lot of immigrants over the years doesn't mean that "diversity is our strength" or that we should move from "melting pot" to "patchwork quilt" model or even that we should CONTINUE allowing high immigration or ANY illegal immigration or that we (and the world) don't have to deal with the upcoming population explosion in Africa.

    Replies: @Goddard, @J.Ross

    IDK what’s going on in the smoke filled rooms of Dem strategists, but i really thinks it’s a desire to alleviate suffering of the immigrants coupled with a belief that it won’t hurt the US …

    Dems have made clear their antipathy toward “Deplorables” as Hillary called us, “Bitter Clingers,” as the silver-tongue’d Obama put it. The supposed sincerity you grant to the Open Borders crowd is at best the sincerity of a hysterical woman. The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Goddard


    The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).
     
    Setting aside your gratuitous insult of women, this is basically right. There is something to PhysicistDave's analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I'm walking along and I see someone drowning. There's a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.

    Rather, the question is this. If we have an affirmative duty to help at least sometimes, then the question becomes what is the scope of that duty? And here I think you are correct, whether (and how) there is a duty to help depends on the magnitude of the sacrifice being demanded of the helper weighed against the benefit to the helped person. Under no circumstances is our racial existence a sacrifice that Caplan or anyone else has a right to demand of us.

    Of course, caveats can't make this argument, but I think one's right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Goddard, @David, @PhysicistDave

  28. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    How do you have a majority that is made up of minority groups who disagree with one another a lot of the time, and in some cases actively despise each other? This may be why the Democrats are having a s**t h hemorrhage over the size of Trump's Hispanic vote in the Rio Grande Valley.

    Replies: @PaceLaw

    Absolutely spot on! The Libs/Democrats always try to make it appear that there will be this majority/minority group of seething, angry minorities who are just trying to get after whitey. In reality, there will be an overwhelming majority of minorities (Asians & Latinos) who will try their damndest to be white-adjacent and to live as far away from the angry blacks that they see in every day life. After all, who immigrates to this country just to be berated and victimized by a relatively small (13% of the population) ethnic group? We are seeing this already in how Latinos are switching voter affiliation over to the Republican Party.

  29. @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.
     
    That's quite pithy (though harsher than i'd put it), but ... i tend to agree.

    IDK what's going on in the smoke filled rooms of Dem strategists, but i really thinks it's a desire to alleviate suffering of the immigrants coupled with a belief that it won't hurt the US and with the belief that "We're a land of immigrants", which, as much as some people here whinge about it' we really have been to a significant degree for much of our history. (1) (2)

    And as has been pointed out several times this year, the majority of Biden voters are white. I haven't done the math or tried to reason it out too far, but i wouldn't be surprised if the bruhaha about immigration isn't losing the Dems more net black and white votes than they are gaining from Latinos. Would Trump even have won if he didn't have the illegal immigration issue to flog ?

    --
    1) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

    2) before or as you guys lynch me, this statement that we have had a lot of immigrants over the years doesn't mean that "diversity is our strength" or that we should move from "melting pot" to "patchwork quilt" model or even that we should CONTINUE allowing high immigration or ANY illegal immigration or that we (and the world) don't have to deal with the upcoming population explosion in Africa.

    Replies: @Goddard, @J.Ross

    Then explain both Obama and Biden suddenly caring about invasion when it’s Cubans.
    The new voter theory explains this. Cubans are likely Republicans, and thus counteract the dissolution of one people and electing of another.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @J.Ross

    You may have a point there but one explanation, just like with AOC, is that they don't want to criticize the Cuban government.

    I.e. they don't want to admit that Cuba and it's government are a place that people legitimately want to flee from.

    It was certainly part of Obama's normalizing of relations.

    A second thing to point out is that, back in 2014:


    The impact of younger Cubans is reflected in those figures. Over half (56%) of Cubans ages 18 to 49 identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party compared with 39% of those 50 years and older.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/24/after-decades-of-gop-support-cubans-shifting-toward-the-democratic-party/
     
    So from a "population replacement" point of view the Cubans are good for the Dems too in the long run. Yes, in 2020 things swung back to the Reps some, but the American born children of the Cubans will still lean left it looks like.
  30. Caplan seems to be a little spectrum-ish, like a lot of smart quants.

    He doesn’t understand that there’s a difference between bombing another country and leaving it alone while it self-destructs, for whatever reason.

    Who invaded the US and forced the two sides to kiss and make up during our Civil War?

  31. @Anonymous
    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.

    Replies: @vhrm, @Giant Duck, @silviosilver

    What about saying both are for Israel? Also stupid?

  32. O/T. 80 years ago today, July 17, 1941, people realized, at some level, that you can cheat death for only so long. Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak was broken. The streak had united the country. (Nice. But too late for us now.) The famous Les Brown song contained some good lines; “We want you on our side” is the most timeless – – and most relevant, as conservatives seek a champion who is both joltin’ and yet almost never strikes out. Thank you.

  33. @Goddard
    @vhrm


    IDK what’s going on in the smoke filled rooms of Dem strategists, but i really thinks it’s a desire to alleviate suffering of the immigrants coupled with a belief that it won’t hurt the US ...
     
    Dems have made clear their antipathy toward “Deplorables” as Hillary called us, “Bitter Clingers,” as the silver-tongue’d Obama put it. The supposed sincerity you grant to the Open Borders crowd is at best the sincerity of a hysterical woman. The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).

    Replies: @Rosie

    The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).

    Setting aside your gratuitous insult of women, this is basically right. There is something to PhysicistDave’s analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I’m walking along and I see someone drowning. There’s a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.

    Rather, the question is this. If we have an affirmative duty to help at least sometimes, then the question becomes what is the scope of that duty? And here I think you are correct, whether (and how) there is a duty to help depends on the magnitude of the sacrifice being demanded of the helper weighed against the benefit to the helped person. Under no circumstances is our racial existence a sacrifice that Caplan or anyone else has a right to demand of us.

    Of course, caveats can’t make this argument, but I think one’s right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @Rosie

    iSteve related to us his initiative in tossing a life ring to a woman who either jumped from the bridge or fell into the Chicago River when fellow rush-hour pedestrians were weighing those ethics questions, mouths agape.

    , @Goddard
    @Rosie


    [O]ne’s right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.
     
    China would not dream of harming its people’s hard-won rising standard of living out of some sentimental altruistic impulse to help the world’s poor. Japan butchered half of Asia in World War II yet so far has resisted the calls to dilute its workforce and its race through mass immigration. The diluters of Americanness are not humanitarians but imperialists bent on Dissolving the People and Electing Another.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @David
    @Rosie

    If you live in Agua Fria, Honduras, and your child is kidnapped or simply disappears, you are 100% on your own. No police will investigate. No neighbors will launch a wide-ranging search. And Hondurans don't become Rosies when the cross the US border, or five generations later.

    No American should have occasion to know a Honduran is drowning.

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote about me:


    There is something to PhysicistDave’s analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I’m walking along and I see someone drowning. There’s a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.
     
    As I assume you know, in most US jurisdictions, there is no legal oblogiation to help in such situations.

    Is there a moral obligation to help? Yes, obviously. The reason is that this is not a matter of (impossibly) trying to save everyone on the planet but rather of trying to save one person when you yourself are in a unique position to help.

    And that is of course one of the underlying reasons we need to give primary concern to our own kids, our neighbors, etc. Our next-door neighbor, a great old lady in her mid-nineties, passed away right before Christmas. In her final years, my wife and I checked in on her, stayed in touch with her kids concerning her condition, etc., simply because she was our next-door neighbor and we were in the best position to help out.

    Did we actually like her as a person? Yes, we did. Among other things, up to her very last week, she could talk more sensibly about political and social affairs than most people half her age.

    But even aside from our personal fondness, she was our neighbor.

    I have been one of the most outspoken civ-nats among the commenters here: I have consistently maintained that we should have special concern for our countrymen simply because they are our countrymen. I've argued that we should raise a hue and cry about innocent Black victims of violent crime, again, because they are our countrymen.

    And this makes sense even according to a coldly utilitarain calculus. The French should pay more attention to the ills of France than we do simply because they are there, they know more than we do about what is going on, and they have a better chance to do something about it.

    But still, both Americans and Frenchmen do have clear negative obligations to all human beings everywhere -- not to murder, not to rape, etc. And aboidng by such negative obligations is easy to do.

    Positive obligations must be much more local, and nearly everyone accepts that obvious reality, at least in practice if not in theory.

    Replies: @Rosie

  34. @Buffalo Joe
    Universal pre-K is hoping that the kids turn out ok, even if the two or three generations before them didn't. Take care of those who contribute. Is this a close analogy?

    Replies: @anon, @Louis Renault, @Polistra

    Schools exist to provide employment for loyal democratic voters with degrees in SJWness. They do not exist to provide positive educational results for students. See Baltimore City School achivement after the fine leadership efforst of the chief human capital officer, one of the founders of BLM, DeRay McKesson. It worked great for him, and now there will be plenty of badly educated kids needing remedial education which will require: Teachers! It’s just like a self-licking ice cream cone, but this one pays you at the same time. Unless you’re a student, or the parent of one.

    • Agree: Buffalo Joe
  35. @anon
    @Buffalo Joe

    Well your analogy is sort of like; I sent my first child to school and he/she completed four years of school and is now in fifth grade, following this one program that all of a sudden the school district found was not effective and didn't help or teach the children anything, so from this new day forward the school district will start a new program for the new children starting in first grade that will make them better while leaving the other older children missing out on the new and improved program starting from young.
    It's sort of like what is being said except that in Sailer's analogy they would be bringing in a whole new set of people to displace the original stockholders who are left pennyless.
    but it's close.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    OneFourThree, one problem with Public School education is that they fear testing to measure achievement.You really never know how any block of students is doing because of social promotion. Ok, start again with universal PreK but we won’t how effective it is for years. In the meantime parents who failed to get a free education aren’t going to inprove the chances of their PreK kids because they didn’t value education. In case you missed it, I pointed out that in six Baltimore HSs not one student was proficient in Math or English. Would PreK have helped them? We’re good, stay safe.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Buffalo Joe

    One group champions the magical dirt theory, then when that fails the other champions the magical math and education theory, then when that fails they just wonder what went wrong when they did everything right.
    Magical dirt Magical math what's the difference?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Anon
    @Buffalo Joe

    Does that mean that Head Start will finally be defunded? It is to laugh 😂.

  36. @Buffalo Joe
    Universal pre-K is hoping that the kids turn out ok, even if the two or three generations before them didn't. Take care of those who contribute. Is this a close analogy?

    Replies: @anon, @Louis Renault, @Polistra

    Virginia PTA, NAACP official says ‘let them die,’ about parents opposed to Critical Race Theory

    A video showed Michelle Leete, a federal employee who is also Vice President of Training at the Virginia state PTA, Vice President of Communications for the Fairfax County PTA and First Vice President of the Fairfax County NAACP demonizing parents with an opposing viewpoint.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/virgina-pta-naacp-official-says-let-them-die-about-anti-critical-race-theory-parents

    [MORE]

    “So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk. Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for a world they deserve. Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people.”

    “Let them die,” Leete concluded. The crowd gathered for the event cheered after the statement.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Polistra

    Poli, how sad and no one will condem her commet.

    , @anon
    @Polistra

    Virginia PTA-NAACP ossifer sez:


    ...anti-live-and-let live people.”
     

    “Let them die,”
     
    This is exterminationist language. The language of hate and genocide.

    It is the new normal for liberal fans of equity.
    , @Muggles
    @Polistra


    “Let them die,” Leete concluded. The crowd gathered for the event cheered after the statement.
     
    Re: the deranged PTA bureaucrat's recent remarks.

    At least we now know where she stands on the moral theory of having a "positive duty" to help someone else in need.

    Who knew the VA PTA mavens were such Ayn Rand fans?
  37. @J.Ross
    @vhrm

    Then explain both Obama and Biden suddenly caring about invasion when it's Cubans.
    The new voter theory explains this. Cubans are likely Republicans, and thus counteract the dissolution of one people and electing of another.

    Replies: @vhrm

    You may have a point there but one explanation, just like with AOC, is that they don’t want to criticize the Cuban government.

    I.e. they don’t want to admit that Cuba and it’s government are a place that people legitimately want to flee from.

    It was certainly part of Obama’s normalizing of relations.

    A second thing to point out is that, back in 2014:

    The impact of younger Cubans is reflected in those figures. Over half (56%) of Cubans ages 18 to 49 identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party compared with 39% of those 50 years and older.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/24/after-decades-of-gop-support-cubans-shifting-toward-the-democratic-party/

    So from a “population replacement” point of view the Cubans are good for the Dems too in the long run. Yes, in 2020 things swung back to the Reps some, but the American born children of the Cubans will still lean left it looks like.

  38. and feel little sympathy for what and whom stands in the way of that.

    sid can’t speak english and therefore is beneath quoting.

    can mein steve speak english? mein steve his own self has made this pile of preciousness before…like bill clinton’s “between you and i”.

    sad.

    “who” is the SUBJECT of the relative clause “who stands in the way of that.”

    not “whom”.

    is sid chinese or jewish or just retarded?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @anon

    The simple way to decide between who and whom is to substitute he and him in the clause. Him stands in the way? No native speaker would say that.

  39. @Polistra
    @Buffalo Joe

    Virginia PTA, NAACP official says 'let them die,' about parents opposed to Critical Race Theory

    A video showed Michelle Leete, a federal employee who is also Vice President of Training at the Virginia state PTA, Vice President of Communications for the Fairfax County PTA and First Vice President of the Fairfax County NAACP demonizing parents with an opposing viewpoint.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/virgina-pta-naacp-official-says-let-them-die-about-anti-critical-race-theory-parents


    "So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk. Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for a world they deserve. Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people."

    "Let them die," Leete concluded. The crowd gathered for the event cheered after the statement.
     

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @anon, @Muggles

    Poli, how sad and no one will condem her commet.

  40. @PhysicistDave
    Triteleia Laxa wrote:


    [Caplan] Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.

     

    [TL] He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I’m not married to him.
     
    Caplan was making the (admittedly trivial) point that we all have certain negative obligation towards all innocent human beings -- not to murder them, rape them, steal from them, etc.

    The issue is whether allowing non-citizens into the country involves that sort of negative obligation (i.e., is it wrong to keep them out?) or is it taking on a positive obligation (such as the specific positive obligations we have towards our own kids, our spouses, etc.).

    The factual answer, in the world we actually live in, is that letting vast numbers of non-citizens into the country involves allowing them certain positive privileges: access to the roads, parks, and public schools all of us paid for; access to the welfare system; and ultimately the right to vote and impose taxes on us for them or their offspring.

    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @James Speaks, @Triteleia Laxa, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    Someday, as resource depletion drastically limits our choices, lifestyles and lives, we will think back on this time when we had the option of providing for others.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @James Speaks


    Someday, as resource depletion drastically limits our choices, lifestyles and lives, we will think back on this time when we had the option of providing for others.
     
    In my state (Utah) home prices are up 30% in just the last year.

    In several counties in the Salt Lake area new housing is trending decisively towards condos and townhomes. Single family homes are becoming out of reach for younger families.

    Lake Powell, the largest reservoir west of the Rockies, is about 80 feet below last year’s level, which itself was already low.

    Mountain trails, lakes, ski resorts, national parks are all packed to the limits.

    This is the future the elites have given us: overpriced, overcrowded, and miserable.

    Replies: @James Speaks

  41. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1416468436721356802

    Replies: @El Dato, @Technite78, @AnotherDad

    Rarely does a photo so accurately illustrate why our nation is in sharp decline.

    • Agree: Clyde, AnotherDad
  42. @Rosie
    @Goddard


    The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).
     
    Setting aside your gratuitous insult of women, this is basically right. There is something to PhysicistDave's analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I'm walking along and I see someone drowning. There's a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.

    Rather, the question is this. If we have an affirmative duty to help at least sometimes, then the question becomes what is the scope of that duty? And here I think you are correct, whether (and how) there is a duty to help depends on the magnitude of the sacrifice being demanded of the helper weighed against the benefit to the helped person. Under no circumstances is our racial existence a sacrifice that Caplan or anyone else has a right to demand of us.

    Of course, caveats can't make this argument, but I think one's right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Goddard, @David, @PhysicistDave

    iSteve related to us his initiative in tossing a life ring to a woman who either jumped from the bridge or fell into the Chicago River when fellow rush-hour pedestrians were weighing those ethics questions, mouths agape.

  43. @Polistra
    @Buffalo Joe

    Virginia PTA, NAACP official says 'let them die,' about parents opposed to Critical Race Theory

    A video showed Michelle Leete, a federal employee who is also Vice President of Training at the Virginia state PTA, Vice President of Communications for the Fairfax County PTA and First Vice President of the Fairfax County NAACP demonizing parents with an opposing viewpoint.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/virgina-pta-naacp-official-says-let-them-die-about-anti-critical-race-theory-parents


    "So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk. Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for a world they deserve. Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people."

    "Let them die," Leete concluded. The crowd gathered for the event cheered after the statement.
     

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @anon, @Muggles

    Virginia PTA-NAACP ossifer sez:

    …anti-live-and-let live people.”

    “Let them die,”

    This is exterminationist language. The language of hate and genocide.

    It is the new normal for liberal fans of equity.

    • Agree: Polistra, Adam Smith
  44. @AKAHorace
    Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.

    Highlights include.

    There was no effort, and I mean none, by America’s institutions to stop Donald Trump. The analysis that Russia made was simply completely missing. Most of America’s institutions backed Trump. Pundits made careers out of attacking those of us who warned of the dangers of Trump ascending to the Presidency — and those of us in public life who did warn of it paid a steep professional price, losing our columns, book deals, and so on.
     

    The only one who saw it and said it openly was Hillary Clinton. And guess what? Elites and institutions attacked her like crazy for it. Think what you like about Hillary — but she was dead right, and she was the only one, more or less, in a position of power, to say so openly. The only one — that’s how massive, epic, incredible, spectacular, America’s failure was and is.

     


    Let me end with one final note, then. This leak doesn’t just confirm the worst suspicions about Trump. It also lends credence to the idea that the deniers are Russia’s men, too. Who else, at this point, would really defend any of this? When it’s obvious? When there’s now literal hard documentary evidence? Only someone, really, being paid to. Being paid well to.

    That makes the deniers — I don’t know, hypocrites? Liars? Propagandists?

    But it’s different for you. They’re probably being paid to deny it. You? You’re not being paid handsomely to deny the fact that Trump was Russia’s man, America’s first Manchurian Candidate of a President, one installed as a puppet to rip America apart and make it implode.

    What does that make you, if you don’t believe the obvious, overwhelming, damning evidence by now?

    Somewhere between a fool, a mark, and a sucker, my friend. Maybe all three.

     

    https://eand.co/russia-made-trump-president-and-its-the-worst-scandal-in-american-history-f6e144431070

    Replies: @El Dato, @Adrian E., @Muggles, @black sea, @Kibernetika

    Of course the Russians “elected” Trump. What? No evidence for it?

    Well, Hillary lost! Proof positive.

    Only the evil Russkies could pull that off…

  45. @Polistra
    @Buffalo Joe

    Virginia PTA, NAACP official says 'let them die,' about parents opposed to Critical Race Theory

    A video showed Michelle Leete, a federal employee who is also Vice President of Training at the Virginia state PTA, Vice President of Communications for the Fairfax County PTA and First Vice President of the Fairfax County NAACP demonizing parents with an opposing viewpoint.

    https://thepostmillennial.com/virgina-pta-naacp-official-says-let-them-die-about-anti-critical-race-theory-parents


    "So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk. Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for a world they deserve. Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people."

    "Let them die," Leete concluded. The crowd gathered for the event cheered after the statement.
     

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @anon, @Muggles

    “Let them die,” Leete concluded. The crowd gathered for the event cheered after the statement.

    Re: the deranged PTA bureaucrat’s recent remarks.

    At least we now know where she stands on the moral theory of having a “positive duty” to help someone else in need.

    Who knew the VA PTA mavens were such Ayn Rand fans?

  46. @Rosie
    @Goddard


    The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).
     
    Setting aside your gratuitous insult of women, this is basically right. There is something to PhysicistDave's analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I'm walking along and I see someone drowning. There's a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.

    Rather, the question is this. If we have an affirmative duty to help at least sometimes, then the question becomes what is the scope of that duty? And here I think you are correct, whether (and how) there is a duty to help depends on the magnitude of the sacrifice being demanded of the helper weighed against the benefit to the helped person. Under no circumstances is our racial existence a sacrifice that Caplan or anyone else has a right to demand of us.

    Of course, caveats can't make this argument, but I think one's right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Goddard, @David, @PhysicistDave

    [O]ne’s right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.

    China would not dream of harming its people’s hard-won rising standard of living out of some sentimental altruistic impulse to help the world’s poor. Japan butchered half of Asia in World War II yet so far has resisted the calls to dilute its workforce and its race through mass immigration. The diluters of Americanness are not humanitarians but imperialists bent on Dissolving the People and Electing Another.

    • Agree: Polistra
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Goddard


    The diluters of Americanness are not humanitarians but imperialists bent on Dissolving the People and Electing Another.
     
    I know that, and you know that, but unfortunately, the people being dissolved do not, and they are easily duped by (literal) sophistry such as Caplan's.
  47. @PhysicistDave
    Triteleia Laxa wrote:


    [Caplan] Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.

     

    [TL] He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I’m not married to him.
     
    Caplan was making the (admittedly trivial) point that we all have certain negative obligation towards all innocent human beings -- not to murder them, rape them, steal from them, etc.

    The issue is whether allowing non-citizens into the country involves that sort of negative obligation (i.e., is it wrong to keep them out?) or is it taking on a positive obligation (such as the specific positive obligations we have towards our own kids, our spouses, etc.).

    The factual answer, in the world we actually live in, is that letting vast numbers of non-citizens into the country involves allowing them certain positive privileges: access to the roads, parks, and public schools all of us paid for; access to the welfare system; and ultimately the right to vote and impose taxes on us for them or their offspring.

    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @James Speaks, @Triteleia Laxa, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    I’m not sure I care about your distinction, even though it is neat and rational. I’m approaching from the direction of “just how much love and compassion am I supposed to have?”

    Take any ordinary person. They tend to love their family and close friends. This then fades to a dim light at the national level, just about allowing them to meaningfully tie themselves in economic and social partnership with their compatriots.

    Caplan now posits that there’s little reason not to extend this to every random person on the globe. I get the thesis, “We are all part of creation”, but it is just a lie. I don’t have the consciousness to care any more than merely performatively for the random billions around the world. Some talking head pretending that they do, by inventing “moral” abstractions, is plain deluded.

    Lying to yourself has consequences. Our societies lying to themselves will have consequences. Such lies encourage us to build things and form structures that we don’t want, can’t commit to, and will be drained by.

    Moralisers assume the role of God, but our light is not infinite. Going and drowning our societies in darkness will cause us to lose ourselves as surely as it will fail to help others.

    It isn’t wrong for the ordinary US citizen to say “f*ck Caplan and his morals, I want to keep my nice things, because I like them.” Anyone who says otherwise is just being a jerk.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Moralisers assume the role of God, but our light is not infinite. Going and drowning our societies in darkness will cause us to lose ourselves as surely as it will fail to help others.

    It isn’t wrong for the ordinary US citizen to say “f*ck Caplan and his morals, I want to keep my nice things, because I like them.” Anyone who says otherwise is just being a jerk.
     
    Well said. And terrific comment, end-to-end.


    BTW, i'm an easy going get-along-with-everyone kind of guy. Have friends and get along with people of all your major ethnic/racial groups. No sweat.

    But you don't build anything, create anything, organize anything with "lets all get together and solve the world's problems". That's just goober thought. Absolutely insane even if it wasn't a recipe for utter tyranny. You can--sometimes--build with like minded people with whom you share values and norms to achieve some limited agreed upon goals. The "we are the world" people are a cancer. Your "drowning our societies in darkness" is spot on.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:


    I’m not sure I care about your distinction, even though it is neat and rational. I’m approaching from the direction of “just how much love and compassion am I supposed to have?”
     
    Well, I am pretty sure you do care about that distinction! At least, if you don't I hope you do not live in my neighborhood.

    If you have a next-door neighbor, of whom you are mildly fond, and the guy rapes a Nigerian tourist whom you have never met, I am pretty sure you would condemn the rapist, even though you kinda like him and even though you do not know the Nigerian from Adam.

    You do not have to love the rest of the human race to embrace your negative obligations to the rest of the human race. The whole point of the obligations being "negative" is that you do not have to actually do anything. You just have to refrain from doing certain things, things like murder, rape, theft, etc. You can do that. Rather easily.

    But it is impossible to have serious positive obligations to the rest of the human race -- just too many humans to show real love to them all.

    I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: "To Economize on Love") decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith's moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!

    So, yes, I have understood for a very, very long time that you cannot really love all of humanity.

    But you can leave them alone.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  48. @Buffalo Joe
    @anon

    OneFourThree, one problem with Public School education is that they fear testing to measure achievement.You really never know how any block of students is doing because of social promotion. Ok, start again with universal PreK but we won't how effective it is for years. In the meantime parents who failed to get a free education aren't going to inprove the chances of their PreK kids because they didn't value education. In case you missed it, I pointed out that in six Baltimore HSs not one student was proficient in Math or English. Would PreK have helped them? We're good, stay safe.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon

    One group champions the magical dirt theory, then when that fails the other champions the magical math and education theory, then when that fails they just wonder what went wrong when they did everything right.
    Magical dirt Magical math what’s the difference?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @anon

    One group champions the magical dirt theory, then when that fails the other champions the magical math and education theory

    What works for blacks is the Magic Hurt Theory.

    They think, "Every time we done hurt whitey, they be apologizing, blaming theyselves, and giving us more free stuff."

    And the blacks are right.

  49. The scenario is interesting. Here’s my thought:

    Some boring boilerplate:

    All human interaction is governed by membership in some overlapping circles. Each circle has a set of mutually-agreed upon rules. If you want to be a member of circle, you must mutually agree that you are a member in the circle, and you must agree to abide by the rules set out by the circle.

    Different circles have different rules. Nobody should expect a rule from one circle to apply to a transaction between members who are not in the same circle. If you fail to adhere to the circle rules, you may be kicked out. A transaction is governed by the lowest, least restrictive circle common to both parties. There is a universal circle that contains everyone. It has one rule: might makes right.

    Back to the scenario:

    The company, shareholders and the public are in different circles. The company and the public are in a circle (say, a circle of civilized people) that prohibits poisoning each other, or any physical harm at all. But this circle includes nothing regarding earning money; you are not obligated to seek to increase the value of a random person. However, the circle that includes the company and the shareholders does include a rule that the company maximizes the value for current shareholders. If the company increases the value of not-yet-shareholders, it is violating the rules of the circle against the current shareholders, and is thus ‘immoral.’

    A society does best when it creates good rules for the ‘citizen/resident’ circle, such as banning monopolies and organized crime. The maximizing of shareholder value, in general, is not a bad rule for society, and so there is nothing immoral about a company focused on it.

    In a way, this is a libertarian way to view things, as it’s based on mutual agreement. But in reality there are many more circles, and many more transactions that fall outside of high-trust circles, than libertarians want to admit.

    • Agree: Michael Meo
  50. @Buffalo Joe
    @anon

    OneFourThree, one problem with Public School education is that they fear testing to measure achievement.You really never know how any block of students is doing because of social promotion. Ok, start again with universal PreK but we won't how effective it is for years. In the meantime parents who failed to get a free education aren't going to inprove the chances of their PreK kids because they didn't value education. In case you missed it, I pointed out that in six Baltimore HSs not one student was proficient in Math or English. Would PreK have helped them? We're good, stay safe.

    Replies: @anon, @Anon

    Does that mean that Head Start will finally be defunded? It is to laugh 😂.

  51. @anon
    and feel little sympathy for what and whom stands in the way of that.

    sid can't speak english and therefore is beneath quoting.

    can mein steve speak english? mein steve his own self has made this pile of preciousness before...like bill clinton's "between you and i".

    sad.

    "who" is the SUBJECT of the relative clause "who stands in the way of that."

    not "whom".

    is sid chinese or jewish or just retarded?

    Replies: @Anon

    The simple way to decide between who and whom is to substitute he and him in the clause. Him stands in the way? No native speaker would say that.

  52. @Goddard
    @Rosie


    [O]ne’s right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.
     
    China would not dream of harming its people’s hard-won rising standard of living out of some sentimental altruistic impulse to help the world’s poor. Japan butchered half of Asia in World War II yet so far has resisted the calls to dilute its workforce and its race through mass immigration. The diluters of Americanness are not humanitarians but imperialists bent on Dissolving the People and Electing Another.

    Replies: @Rosie

    The diluters of Americanness are not humanitarians but imperialists bent on Dissolving the People and Electing Another.

    I know that, and you know that, but unfortunately, the people being dissolved do not, and they are easily duped by (literal) sophistry such as Caplan’s.

  53. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:
    @dee nile
    "Whom" stands? Really?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    Weird indeed. “Sid” is a smart guy, he surely knows the difference.

    What is he up to these days, anyway?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    Weird indeed. “Sid” is a smart guy, he surely knows the difference.

    What is he up to these days, anyway?
     
    Stem education.



    https://static.pbslearningmedia.org/media/alfresco/u/pr/The%20Jim%20Henson%20Company/Sid%20the%20Science%20Kid%20Let%20There%20Be%20Light_47861fd4-683a-4924-b490-3d53055309af/210-1_large.png
  54. This analogy doesn’t take racial solidarity into account. If it did, it would favour the admittance of whites who have no country of their own any more (South Africans, possibly), regardless of whether they depressed the standard of living of existing citizens. Non-white countries often have no hesitation in distinguishing immigrants who are co-ethnics of the host population from those who are not.

    This is where things get complicated. You could argue that, after your country, your next highest loyalty is to people of your own race. But when you think of it, you can see you owe more allegiance to white foreigners than to nonwhite fellow citizens who don’t like you and think entirely in terms of what’s good for their own race. This is the inherent problem of diverse and multiracial societies. They’re composed of some races who are universalist and others who are ethnocentric. Let’s at least not make it any worse.

  55. Meanwhile in Invade/Invite news:

  56. @Adrian E.
    @AKAHorace

    It is certainly interesting that many people are ready to believe CIA and cold warriors‘ conspiracy claims about Russia even though there is still exactly zero evidence. Many are even in denial about the obvious fact that there is no verifiable evidence.

    Ir is absurd that people are still misled so easily after many previous Russiagate claims have been debunked. But obviously, there are important forces that have a very strong interest in escalating the new cold war, and so they use strong propaganda tactics and don’t care that it is ridiculous if someone believes them after so many previous Russiagate conspiracy claims had been disproved.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    It is certainly interesting that many people are ready to believe CIA and cold warriors‘ conspiracy claims about Russia even though there is still exactly zero evidence.

    They’re the same kind of people who, in the 1950s, would have been defending people who spied for the Soviet Union and dismissing Senator McCarthy as paranoid conspiracy theorist.

  57. But don’t throw in the tow’l,
    ‘Cuz there’s a place right down the block…
    Where you can drink your misery away…
    At Flaming Moe’s…. (Let’s all go to Flaming Moe’s…)
    When liquor in a mug (Let’s all go to Flaming Moe’s…)
    Can warm you like a hug. (Flaming Moe’s…)
    And happiness is just a Flaming Moe away…
    Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away…

  58. @dee nile
    "Whom" stands? Really?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    “Whom” stands? Really?

    Horton hears a Whom.

    • LOL: El Dato
  59. @Anonymous
    @dee nile

    Weird indeed. "Sid" is a smart guy, he surely knows the difference.

    What is he up to these days, anyway?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Weird indeed. “Sid” is a smart guy, he surely knows the difference.

    What is he up to these days, anyway?

    Stem education.

  60. I remember telling a Wharton prof that his formulae for determining the interest rate for and valuation for bonds were defective because they ignored the erosion of the purchasing power of the principle, and he looked at me and asked if I was a mathematician; when I responded “no,” he said “So you’re a clear thinker.”

    To your point, it is perfectly acceptable to issue equity at below market prices; this is the basis for a large part of executive compensation. They just dress it up to look legit. Corporate finance meets the real world.

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @The Alarmist

    You're confused.

    The interest rate incorporates the best estimate of erosion of purchasing power (i.e. the real rate + inflation), although inflation is not necessarily > 0.

    Issuance of new shares, at below market prices, can be very unfriendly to existing shareholders. That many corporations are willing to do so, e.g. stock options, does not make it right.

    A firm should only issue new shares at an "above market" price. A significant owner can live with dilution if it comes with a jump in the value of his equity.

    Imagine three firms, A-C. Each generate 10% ROI (e.g. >> T-Bill).

    Firm A has 1,000 total shares @ $1 par value. One year later, each share is worth $1,100/1,000sh= $1.10. Fair is fair.

    Firm B has 500/1,000 shares @ $1/50¢. Later, each share is worth
    $1,100/1,500sh = 73¢. Obviously, the $1/sh owners got screwed (from the start).

    Firm C has A's initial capitalization, only at t=0 it issues options for 150 shares @95¢. $1,243/1,150sh = $1.08. C will at least have to repurchase $162 worth of stock in order to prevent dilution.

    If A then wants to issue, say, 150 new shares, it should only do so at a premium, i.e. to compensate its owners for their diminished control (13% dilution). For private equity, as a matter of personal taste, I'd want at least $2.20 each.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

  61. Anonymous[325] • Disclaimer says:

    The political situation in the US isn’t all that complicated when you realize the Democrats feel obliged to represent a majority that is yet-to-be, and feel little sympathy for what and whom stands in the way of that.

    No, it’s really about the Democrats representing a certain minority that already rules this country. And the GOP isn’t all that different. Trump never mentioned whiteness, and the GOP was happy to see Trump lose so that things can return to business with globalism.

    Also, even if whites lose majority status, there won’t be a new majority. The notion of ‘non-white majority’ is misconceived as the various non-white groups have little in common. Also, if they vote Democrat than GOP, it has less to do with anti-white hatred than the fact that they want more immigration for their own folks. For aspiring non-whites, they go with Democrats because all the powerful and privileged institutions are run by Democrats. They associate Republicans with losers who drive trucks than lawyers, doctors, and big tech geeks who run the cities and college towns.

    At any rate, no party cares about any majority in the US. GOP doesn’t care for the white majority, and Democrats act as they do because the Jewish minority provides over 60% of the funds to the Party. It’s about the ruling minority, not the coming new majority. Of course, Jews want a future without majorities. A fractured population that is easier to manipulate.

    Majorities are always problematic for minority rule. South Africa has a solid black majority, and so whites, Indians, and Jews tremble in fear.

    While parts of the US is like South Africa, the future of the US is non-majoritarian, which the Jewish minority believes to be ideal for their long-term rule.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Anonymous

    Until "Literally Hitler" gets elected. Or someone who REALLY believes in equality and equity.

  62. @PhysicistDave
    Triteleia Laxa wrote:


    [Caplan] Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.

     

    [TL] He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I’m not married to him.
     
    Caplan was making the (admittedly trivial) point that we all have certain negative obligation towards all innocent human beings -- not to murder them, rape them, steal from them, etc.

    The issue is whether allowing non-citizens into the country involves that sort of negative obligation (i.e., is it wrong to keep them out?) or is it taking on a positive obligation (such as the specific positive obligations we have towards our own kids, our spouses, etc.).

    The factual answer, in the world we actually live in, is that letting vast numbers of non-citizens into the country involves allowing them certain positive privileges: access to the roads, parks, and public schools all of us paid for; access to the welfare system; and ultimately the right to vote and impose taxes on us for them or their offspring.

    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @James Speaks, @Triteleia Laxa, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    It’s immoral to ground our moral thinking in universal moral principles. You should ground your moral thinking in reality. Of course you will value your own child’s life above the lives of others, and will value family above tribe, tribe above nation, and nation above universal abstract humanity.
    Given our particular loyalties, can we still resolve our conflicts reasonably? You’ll get more justice in a world of reasonable competitors than you will in a world of sanctimonious crusaders cut off from reality.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @rebel yell


    You should ground your moral thinking in reality. Of course you will value your own child’s life above the lives of others, and will value family above tribe, tribe above nation, and nation above universal abstract humanity.
     
    The question is, is that immoral?
  63. @PhysicistDave
    Triteleia Laxa wrote:


    [Caplan] Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.

     

    [TL] He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I’m not married to him.
     
    Caplan was making the (admittedly trivial) point that we all have certain negative obligation towards all innocent human beings -- not to murder them, rape them, steal from them, etc.

    The issue is whether allowing non-citizens into the country involves that sort of negative obligation (i.e., is it wrong to keep them out?) or is it taking on a positive obligation (such as the specific positive obligations we have towards our own kids, our spouses, etc.).

    The factual answer, in the world we actually live in, is that letting vast numbers of non-citizens into the country involves allowing them certain positive privileges: access to the roads, parks, and public schools all of us paid for; access to the welfare system; and ultimately the right to vote and impose taxes on us for them or their offspring.

    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @James Speaks, @Triteleia Laxa, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    Keeping clear on the negative obligations we have to all innocent human beings vs. the positive obligations that we have to some human beings (but that we cannot possibly extend to all human beings) really clarifies the issues.

    Dave it doesn’t require this sort of detailed calculus.

    Foreigners have no more right to plop themselves down in your nation, then they do in your house. My response to Klein and Caplan, etc. etc. is “Fine, the world will be more equal if the world’s poor get to live in your house … let’s start with that.” “But you don’t have the right to make me–and my posterity–give up our stuff.”

    No these open borders zealots are not in the least “good people”. They are nasty totalitarian scum who hate the ability and desire of some people to have nice stuff.

    Scratch all this “libertarian” open borderism and there is zero liberty involved.

    Dig into it: What they actually posit is some sort of over-arching deus ex machina “entity” that stops, some people X, from refusing to allow person/people Y to come into their community or for them to refuse to associate with Y. In other words, what they actually demand is a bullying state to deny the people the right to their community and free association and force them associate with some interlopers. This certainly isn’t self-government and certainly isn’t liberty, it is tyranny. What the establishment press now laughably calls “democracy”–making sure people of a nation are not allowed to govern themselves in their own interest.

    It is also painfully obviously a middle-man minority ideology. The right of the middle-man to plop themselves down in your community–and you, your community can’t object or refuse. Can’t exercise the most basic right of all–saying “no!” It’s rapist ethics, parasite morality.

    And who imposes it? The super-state.

    If there is a moral case for a state–anything beyond the reality: “power flows from the barrel of a gun”–it is the right of a community , a people, to collectively organize and act in their own interest. (Defend themselves; impose internal order–settle internal disputes–by enforcing the community’s norms; etc.) I.e. the only case for government that is not simply an extractive tyranny is a community of people collectively defending their own interests.

    Open borders ideologues seek precisely to have the state stop the people from governing themselves and force them to behave and associate as those ideologues want. Tyranny. Specifically a genocidal tyranny designed not just to loot the people, but to destroy the people themselves.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  64. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1416468436721356802

    Replies: @El Dato, @Technite78, @AnotherDad

    Technite beat me to it.

    But that a look at that photo–take it all in. From the grinning pig face on back. That’s a plane full of silly, empty-headed parasite people who have no business governing the productive half of America.

    Republican government only works when responsible productive men–who make the society function–remain in charge. Then it’s the best possible–and most morally justified–system of government.

    But when government is run by silly women, goobers and parasites, it’s an unhinged, willful, destructive force. A toddler on steroids. You’d be better off with a medieval king–who at least wants to pass on his looting charter to his son–than that.

  65. @Thomas
    Prior to Trump, the Republican Party intended to do exactly the same thing. They just weren't as competent or as honest about it. (After Trump, the Republican Party doesn't represent anything other than the poorly-articulated grievances of Trump and also those of its voters, in that order of importance.)

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Flip, @AnotherDad

    Prior to Trump, the Republican Party intended to do exactly the same thing. They just weren’t as competent or as honest about it. (After Trump, the Republican Party doesn’t represent anything other than the poorly-articulated grievances of Trump and also those of its voters, in that order of importance.)

    The Republican Party is a mess. Terrible at representing its actual voters, especially around the immigration issue.

    But disagree on “honest”. These beltway Republicans are often quite honest. “What we need is a guest worker program”. (Cue Derbyshire’s snark.) I.e. they openly want cheap labor … just don’t want their kids becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.

    In contrast, the Democrats are never honest about immigration. They’ve been effectively a flat out open borders party for a couple decades now. I.e. they have no interest in enforcing our borders and oppose all Republican efforts to do so. But they never run on that. It’s all lies: “Of course, no one supports “Open Borders” ….” and pieties: “Legal immigration …” “A fair and just …”

    And where the Republicans are headed now? Who knows?

    Trump is such a ball of unrelenting, undisciplined ego. But he’s moved the party toward nationalism and got the sane (nationalist) section of the base riled up and made them considerably less tolerant of the beltway cucks. So who knows where it’s all headed.

    • Agree: vhrm
    • Replies: @Thomas
    @AnotherDad


    But disagree on “honest”. These beltway Republicans are often quite honest. “What we need is a guest worker program”. (Cue Derbyshire’s snark.) I.e. they openly want cheap labor … just don’t want their kids becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.
     
    The Bushes represented the left tail of the Republican Party on immigration. They certainly were for the same open borders that the Democrats support. "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande," illegal immigration is an "act of love," etc. Of course, the personal was the political for them, with Jeb!'s marrying Mexican.

    And where the Republicans are headed now? Who knows?

    Trump is such a ball of unrelenting, undisciplined ego. But he’s moved the party toward nationalism and got the sane (nationalist) section of the base riled up and made them considerably less tolerant of the beltway cucks. So who knows where it’s all headed.
     

    I'll credit Trump with at least this much: he managed to turn the Republican Party from one of the jaws of the vise crushing White America into, at worst, just a net-zero, dead-end distraction for White America, or at least White Boomer America. That's not a good outcome, but it's better than what it was before.

    Unfortunately, Trump cannot and will not ever accomplish any more than this. Even if he does become the only President since Grover Cleveland to serve nonconsecutive terms (which isn't impossible, especially if Kamala Harris, one of the least-skilled politicians ever to reach national office, is the 2024 Democratic nominee), his first term demonstrated very clearly that his personal abilities and temperament were far short of what a President needs to be successful in office. Second terms in office are rarely if ever more successful than first terms. And with Biden's interregnum undoing everything Trump did in his first term, stuffing the federal government with apparatchiks, and generally doing everything possible to screw the public-private corpocracy even tighter on the public, a nonconsecutive second term for Trump would be even less productive than most second terms.

    But what else is Trump going to do? He's banned off any Internet platform that he or one of his cronies doesn't own. He's too controversial to partner with anybody who has the kind of money that might get his real estate or media businesses back on track. It's either try to find a way back to the White House (or at least keep that hope, and thus his own relevance, alive), or else spend the rest of his life golfing, crashing events at Mar a Lago, and dodging prosecutors and creditors.

  66. @Anonymous
    The political situation in the US isn't all that complicated when you realize the Democrats feel obliged to represent a majority that is yet-to-be, and feel little sympathy for what and whom stands in the way of that.

    No, it's really about the Democrats representing a certain minority that already rules this country. And the GOP isn't all that different. Trump never mentioned whiteness, and the GOP was happy to see Trump lose so that things can return to business with globalism.

    Also, even if whites lose majority status, there won't be a new majority. The notion of 'non-white majority' is misconceived as the various non-white groups have little in common. Also, if they vote Democrat than GOP, it has less to do with anti-white hatred than the fact that they want more immigration for their own folks. For aspiring non-whites, they go with Democrats because all the powerful and privileged institutions are run by Democrats. They associate Republicans with losers who drive trucks than lawyers, doctors, and big tech geeks who run the cities and college towns.

    At any rate, no party cares about any majority in the US. GOP doesn't care for the white majority, and Democrats act as they do because the Jewish minority provides over 60% of the funds to the Party. It's about the ruling minority, not the coming new majority. Of course, Jews want a future without majorities. A fractured population that is easier to manipulate.

    Majorities are always problematic for minority rule. South Africa has a solid black majority, and so whites, Indians, and Jews tremble in fear.

    While parts of the US is like South Africa, the future of the US is non-majoritarian, which the Jewish minority believes to be ideal for their long-term rule.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    Until “Literally Hitler” gets elected. Or someone who REALLY believes in equality and equity.

  67. @AKAHorace
    Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.

    Highlights include.

    There was no effort, and I mean none, by America’s institutions to stop Donald Trump. The analysis that Russia made was simply completely missing. Most of America’s institutions backed Trump. Pundits made careers out of attacking those of us who warned of the dangers of Trump ascending to the Presidency — and those of us in public life who did warn of it paid a steep professional price, losing our columns, book deals, and so on.
     

    The only one who saw it and said it openly was Hillary Clinton. And guess what? Elites and institutions attacked her like crazy for it. Think what you like about Hillary — but she was dead right, and she was the only one, more or less, in a position of power, to say so openly. The only one — that’s how massive, epic, incredible, spectacular, America’s failure was and is.

     


    Let me end with one final note, then. This leak doesn’t just confirm the worst suspicions about Trump. It also lends credence to the idea that the deniers are Russia’s men, too. Who else, at this point, would really defend any of this? When it’s obvious? When there’s now literal hard documentary evidence? Only someone, really, being paid to. Being paid well to.

    That makes the deniers — I don’t know, hypocrites? Liars? Propagandists?

    But it’s different for you. They’re probably being paid to deny it. You? You’re not being paid handsomely to deny the fact that Trump was Russia’s man, America’s first Manchurian Candidate of a President, one installed as a puppet to rip America apart and make it implode.

    What does that make you, if you don’t believe the obvious, overwhelming, damning evidence by now?

    Somewhere between a fool, a mark, and a sucker, my friend. Maybe all three.

     

    https://eand.co/russia-made-trump-president-and-its-the-worst-scandal-in-american-history-f6e144431070

    Replies: @El Dato, @Adrian E., @Muggles, @black sea, @Kibernetika

    The most glaringly flawed premise of this article is that Hillary Clinton could reveal the truth about anything.

  68. @Triteleia Laxa
    @PhysicistDave

    I'm not sure I care about your distinction, even though it is neat and rational. I'm approaching from the direction of "just how much love and compassion am I supposed to have?"

    Take any ordinary person. They tend to love their family and close friends. This then fades to a dim light at the national level, just about allowing them to meaningfully tie themselves in economic and social partnership with their compatriots.

    Caplan now posits that there's little reason not to extend this to every random person on the globe. I get the thesis, "We are all part of creation", but it is just a lie. I don't have the consciousness to care any more than merely performatively for the random billions around the world. Some talking head pretending that they do, by inventing "moral" abstractions, is plain deluded.

    Lying to yourself has consequences. Our societies lying to themselves will have consequences. Such lies encourage us to build things and form structures that we don't want, can't commit to, and will be drained by.

    Moralisers assume the role of God, but our light is not infinite. Going and drowning our societies in darkness will cause us to lose ourselves as surely as it will fail to help others.

    It isn't wrong for the ordinary US citizen to say "f*ck Caplan and his morals, I want to keep my nice things, because I like them." Anyone who says otherwise is just being a jerk.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave

    Moralisers assume the role of God, but our light is not infinite. Going and drowning our societies in darkness will cause us to lose ourselves as surely as it will fail to help others.

    It isn’t wrong for the ordinary US citizen to say “f*ck Caplan and his morals, I want to keep my nice things, because I like them.” Anyone who says otherwise is just being a jerk.

    Well said. And terrific comment, end-to-end.

    BTW, i’m an easy going get-along-with-everyone kind of guy. Have friends and get along with people of all your major ethnic/racial groups. No sweat.

    But you don’t build anything, create anything, organize anything with “lets all get together and solve the world’s problems”. That’s just goober thought. Absolutely insane even if it wasn’t a recipe for utter tyranny. You can–sometimes–build with like minded people with whom you share values and norms to achieve some limited agreed upon goals. The “we are the world” people are a cancer. Your “drowning our societies in darkness” is spot on.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @AnotherDad

    Another Dad:

    You might find it interesting to read my paper that I mentioned above ("To Economize on Love") as well as my reply to TL where I explained why the distinction between positive and negative obligations is obvious and absolutely crucial (and quite common-sensical).

  69. @Anonymous
    Saying Democrats want open borders for future voters is as stupid as saying Middle East wars are for oil.

    Replies: @vhrm, @Giant Duck, @silviosilver

    As a political statement, that would make it a rather smart thing to say then (irrespective of how true it is).

  70. PTT says: • Website

    PTT butts into the conversation that Bryan Caplan himself butted into:
    https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/a_question_for_4.html

    PTT: Oh, Prof. Caplan — this migrant worker from Central America would like to squat in your living room. Expect him this evening.

    BC: Not sure I’m fully on board with that, it’s my private property…

    PTT: Haven’t you loudly advocated for the right of every man to live wherever he wishes?

    BC: You’re taking me way too literally, kid. Property rights come first.

    PTT: So how would this apply to, say, a gated community?

    BC: If they collectively own their gated property then, I guess, same as the living room.

    PTT: And what is the substantive difference between that and a country, whose citizens collectively own the land inside the borders?

    BC: You are a monster and I refuse to continue this conversation!

  71. Anonymous[455] • Disclaimer says:

    John Maynard Keynes when critiquing official UK government economic policy during the depression of the 1920s and 30s, in which the justification for profoundly deflationary policies was always ‘we are looking at the long run, this is the best policy for the long run’, famously quipped “In the long run we are all dead”.

    One of the profoundest, wisest and meaningful quotes about economics ever made.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Anonymous


    One of the profoundest, wisest and meaningful quotes about economics ever made.
     
    It is neither profound, wise, nor meaningful.

    Resistance to high time preference is a big part of what has made European societies so good.
    , @anon
    @Anonymous

    Keynes
    “In the long run we are all dead”.

    Anonymous
    One of the profoundest, wisest and meaningful quotes about economics ever made.

    Nah, just the offhand remark of a homosexual-turned-bisexual economist who never had any children.

    In the long run Keynes is still dead.

  72. Steve, I’m afraid I couldn’t make it through all the comments under Bryan Caplan’s juvenile linked article . (What a pity he felt compelled to publish before the clever boy had grown up).

    Not only is/was Caplan deficient in his limited view of human nature, the whole thread is apparently innocent of the nmmost elementary point that can be raised about open borders – after the basic one that it would only be imposed on existing citizens by the rich who want cheap labour and politicians who want cheap loyal voters. Nowhere is the case for temporary visas made and laws that allow no citizenship rights for most immigrants and their children.

  73. Open Borders economist Bryan Caplan

    The genre of Unconventional Wisdom of Economics has really had a downturn in the last decade or so.

  74. @El Dato
    @dee nile

    As Lenin wisely once said: "Make no mistake: Whom stands in the way will soon be referred to as 'Who?'"

    Upon hearing those words, the Bolshevik was enlightened.

    Replies: @VivaLaMigra

    How could Lenin have made that English-language grammatical mistake if he had been speaking Russian? Are there equivalent nominative and objective relative pronouns for “who” and “whom” in that language, and are those the words he actually used? On a related note, I’m always flabbergasted by ostensibly “educated” or “literate” people who can’t grasp the difference between “who” and “whom.” To these idiots, I guess there’s no difference between “he” and “him” or “she” and “her,” either.

  75. @Rosie
    @Goddard


    The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).
     
    Setting aside your gratuitous insult of women, this is basically right. There is something to PhysicistDave's analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I'm walking along and I see someone drowning. There's a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.

    Rather, the question is this. If we have an affirmative duty to help at least sometimes, then the question becomes what is the scope of that duty? And here I think you are correct, whether (and how) there is a duty to help depends on the magnitude of the sacrifice being demanded of the helper weighed against the benefit to the helped person. Under no circumstances is our racial existence a sacrifice that Caplan or anyone else has a right to demand of us.

    Of course, caveats can't make this argument, but I think one's right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Goddard, @David, @PhysicistDave

    If you live in Agua Fria, Honduras, and your child is kidnapped or simply disappears, you are 100% on your own. No police will investigate. No neighbors will launch a wide-ranging search. And Hondurans don’t become Rosies when the cross the US border, or five generations later.

    No American should have occasion to know a Honduran is drowning.

  76. anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebel yell
    @PhysicistDave

    It's immoral to ground our moral thinking in universal moral principles. You should ground your moral thinking in reality. Of course you will value your own child's life above the lives of others, and will value family above tribe, tribe above nation, and nation above universal abstract humanity.
    Given our particular loyalties, can we still resolve our conflicts reasonably? You'll get more justice in a world of reasonable competitors than you will in a world of sanctimonious crusaders cut off from reality.

    Replies: @anonymous

    You should ground your moral thinking in reality. Of course you will value your own child’s life above the lives of others, and will value family above tribe, tribe above nation, and nation above universal abstract humanity.

    The question is, is that immoral?

  77. anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    John Maynard Keynes when critiquing official UK government economic policy during the depression of the 1920s and 30s, in which the justification for profoundly deflationary policies was always 'we are looking at the long run, this is the best policy for the long run', famously quipped "In the long run we are all dead".

    One of the profoundest, wisest and meaningful quotes about economics ever made.

    Replies: @anonymous, @anon

    One of the profoundest, wisest and meaningful quotes about economics ever made.

    It is neither profound, wise, nor meaningful.

    Resistance to high time preference is a big part of what has made European societies so good.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  78. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    @Buffalo Joe

    One group champions the magical dirt theory, then when that fails the other champions the magical math and education theory, then when that fails they just wonder what went wrong when they did everything right.
    Magical dirt Magical math what's the difference?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    One group champions the magical dirt theory, then when that fails the other champions the magical math and education theory

    What works for blacks is the Magic Hurt Theory.

    They think, “Every time we done hurt whitey, they be apologizing, blaming theyselves, and giving us more free stuff.”

    And the blacks are right.

  79. @Triteleia Laxa

    Of course I acknowledge fundamental moral obligations to all humans. But we still have a little moral latitude to favor fellow citizens.
     
    He says he might have a useful conversation with someone who says this.

    Glad I'm not married to him.

    Replies: @Michael Meo

    But you can agree, even though you might be reluctant to marry him, that his post does not even remotely seem to be “insane with rage”; which was how S. Sailer described it — quite unfairly.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Michael Meo

    Caplan did go off ranting about poison, murdering children, kidnap and moral monsters. He may have put those words into the mouth of another, and it may have been tangentially related to the topic, but it is a bit insane and rageful when you think about it.

    , @Gabe Ruth
    @Michael Meo

    That's just Mr. Caplan's normal condition, so on the contrary it was generous of Steve to describe it as temporary and give him an excuse for slandering millions of people.

  80. @AnotherDad
    @Thomas


    Prior to Trump, the Republican Party intended to do exactly the same thing. They just weren’t as competent or as honest about it. (After Trump, the Republican Party doesn’t represent anything other than the poorly-articulated grievances of Trump and also those of its voters, in that order of importance.)
     
    The Republican Party is a mess. Terrible at representing its actual voters, especially around the immigration issue.

    But disagree on "honest". These beltway Republicans are often quite honest. "What we need is a guest worker program". (Cue Derbyshire's snark.) I.e. they openly want cheap labor ... just don't want their kids becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.

    In contrast, the Democrats are never honest about immigration. They've been effectively a flat out open borders party for a couple decades now. I.e. they have no interest in enforcing our borders and oppose all Republican efforts to do so. But they never run on that. It's all lies: "Of course, no one supports "Open Borders" ...." and pieties: "Legal immigration ..." "A fair and just ..."

    And where the Republicans are headed now? Who knows?

    Trump is such a ball of unrelenting, undisciplined ego. But he's moved the party toward nationalism and got the sane (nationalist) section of the base riled up and made them considerably less tolerant of the beltway cucks. So who knows where it's all headed.

    Replies: @Thomas

    But disagree on “honest”. These beltway Republicans are often quite honest. “What we need is a guest worker program”. (Cue Derbyshire’s snark.) I.e. they openly want cheap labor … just don’t want their kids becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.

    The Bushes represented the left tail of the Republican Party on immigration. They certainly were for the same open borders that the Democrats support. “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande,” illegal immigration is an “act of love,” etc. Of course, the personal was the political for them, with Jeb!’s marrying Mexican.

    And where the Republicans are headed now? Who knows?

    Trump is such a ball of unrelenting, undisciplined ego. But he’s moved the party toward nationalism and got the sane (nationalist) section of the base riled up and made them considerably less tolerant of the beltway cucks. So who knows where it’s all headed.

    I’ll credit Trump with at least this much: he managed to turn the Republican Party from one of the jaws of the vise crushing White America into, at worst, just a net-zero, dead-end distraction for White America, or at least White Boomer America. That’s not a good outcome, but it’s better than what it was before.

    Unfortunately, Trump cannot and will not ever accomplish any more than this. Even if he does become the only President since Grover Cleveland to serve nonconsecutive terms (which isn’t impossible, especially if Kamala Harris, one of the least-skilled politicians ever to reach national office, is the 2024 Democratic nominee), his first term demonstrated very clearly that his personal abilities and temperament were far short of what a President needs to be successful in office. Second terms in office are rarely if ever more successful than first terms. And with Biden’s interregnum undoing everything Trump did in his first term, stuffing the federal government with apparatchiks, and generally doing everything possible to screw the public-private corpocracy even tighter on the public, a nonconsecutive second term for Trump would be even less productive than most second terms.

    But what else is Trump going to do? He’s banned off any Internet platform that he or one of his cronies doesn’t own. He’s too controversial to partner with anybody who has the kind of money that might get his real estate or media businesses back on track. It’s either try to find a way back to the White House (or at least keep that hope, and thus his own relevance, alive), or else spend the rest of his life golfing, crashing events at Mar a Lago, and dodging prosecutors and creditors.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  81. the Democrats feel obliged to represent a majority that is yet-to-be, and feel little sympathy for what and whom stands in the way of that.

    That’s Roko’s Basilisk applied to politics and demographics.

  82. @The Alarmist
    I remember telling a Wharton prof that his formulae for determining the interest rate for and valuation for bonds were defective because they ignored the erosion of the purchasing power of the principle, and he looked at me and asked if I was a mathematician; when I responded “no,” he said “So you’re a clear thinker.”

    To your point, it is perfectly acceptable to issue equity at below market prices; this is the basis for a large part of executive compensation. They just dress it up to look legit. Corporate finance meets the real world.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

    You’re confused.

    The interest rate incorporates the best estimate of erosion of purchasing power (i.e. the real rate + inflation), although inflation is not necessarily > 0.

    Issuance of new shares, at below market prices, can be very unfriendly to existing shareholders. That many corporations are willing to do so, e.g. stock options, does not make it right.

    A firm should only issue new shares at an “above market” price. A significant owner can live with dilution if it comes with a jump in the value of his equity.

    [MORE]

    Imagine three firms, A-C. Each generate 10% ROI (e.g. >> T-Bill).

    Firm A has 1,000 total shares @ $1 par value. One year later, each share is worth $1,100/1,000sh= $1.10. Fair is fair.

    Firm B has 500/1,000 shares @ $1/50¢. Later, each share is worth
    $1,100/1,500sh = 73¢. Obviously, the $1/sh owners got screwed (from the start).

    Firm C has A’s initial capitalization, only at t=0 it issues options for 150 shares @95¢. $1,243/1,150sh = $1.08. C will at least have to repurchase $162 worth of stock in order to prevent dilution.

    If A then wants to issue, say, 150 new shares, it should only do so at a premium, i.e. to compensate its owners for their diminished control (13% dilution). For private equity, as a matter of personal taste, I’d want at least $2.20 each.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Abolish_public_education

    Note that my discussion with this guy was right at the end of the ‘80s, so no doubt bond pricing theory mived on somewhat from then, but not much.

    The inflation component of the bond yield only serves to protect the purchasing power of the “coupon.” Even a zero coupon issue generally suffers erosion of the initial principle.

    I don’t question that share issuance below MV hurts shareholders; my point is that it is nevertheless widely used as a form of executive compensation, and one that shareholders agree to at that. It is disguised by so-called performance targets, vesting requirements, and holding periods, but most exec equity comp is issuance below MV. Dilution is the solution to pollution.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

  83. @Anonymous
    John Maynard Keynes when critiquing official UK government economic policy during the depression of the 1920s and 30s, in which the justification for profoundly deflationary policies was always 'we are looking at the long run, this is the best policy for the long run', famously quipped "In the long run we are all dead".

    One of the profoundest, wisest and meaningful quotes about economics ever made.

    Replies: @anonymous, @anon

    Keynes
    “In the long run we are all dead”.

    Anonymous
    One of the profoundest, wisest and meaningful quotes about economics ever made.

    Nah, just the offhand remark of a homosexual-turned-bisexual economist who never had any children.

    In the long run Keynes is still dead.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  84. @James Speaks
    @PhysicistDave

    Someday, as resource depletion drastically limits our choices, lifestyles and lives, we will think back on this time when we had the option of providing for others.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    Someday, as resource depletion drastically limits our choices, lifestyles and lives, we will think back on this time when we had the option of providing for others.

    In my state (Utah) home prices are up 30% in just the last year.

    In several counties in the Salt Lake area new housing is trending decisively towards condos and townhomes. Single family homes are becoming out of reach for younger families.

    Lake Powell, the largest reservoir west of the Rockies, is about 80 feet below last year’s level, which itself was already low.

    Mountain trails, lakes, ski resorts, national parks are all packed to the limits.

    This is the future the elites have given us: overpriced, overcrowded, and miserable.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @Wilkey

    When the US military can't buy enough gas, diesel and JP5, when the US military overseas becomes vulnerable b/c logistics can't keep up, then that will be the beginning of the end.

    Military flop then US loses prestige then ;dollar flop then ;trucks stop runnin and then Jamal looks to Biff Baxter for his next meal, then Jamal looks at Biff Baxter as his next meal.

    It's all a house of cards, and too complex. We will regress to a less complex society. Those who can think may come out alright.

  85. @Wilkey
    @James Speaks


    Someday, as resource depletion drastically limits our choices, lifestyles and lives, we will think back on this time when we had the option of providing for others.
     
    In my state (Utah) home prices are up 30% in just the last year.

    In several counties in the Salt Lake area new housing is trending decisively towards condos and townhomes. Single family homes are becoming out of reach for younger families.

    Lake Powell, the largest reservoir west of the Rockies, is about 80 feet below last year’s level, which itself was already low.

    Mountain trails, lakes, ski resorts, national parks are all packed to the limits.

    This is the future the elites have given us: overpriced, overcrowded, and miserable.

    Replies: @James Speaks

    When the US military can’t buy enough gas, diesel and JP5, when the US military overseas becomes vulnerable b/c logistics can’t keep up, then that will be the beginning of the end.

    Military flop then US loses prestige then ;dollar flop then ;trucks stop runnin and then Jamal looks to Biff Baxter for his next meal, then Jamal looks at Biff Baxter as his next meal.

    It’s all a house of cards, and too complex. We will regress to a less complex society. Those who can think may come out alright.

  86. @AKAHorace
    Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.

    Highlights include.

    There was no effort, and I mean none, by America’s institutions to stop Donald Trump. The analysis that Russia made was simply completely missing. Most of America’s institutions backed Trump. Pundits made careers out of attacking those of us who warned of the dangers of Trump ascending to the Presidency — and those of us in public life who did warn of it paid a steep professional price, losing our columns, book deals, and so on.
     

    The only one who saw it and said it openly was Hillary Clinton. And guess what? Elites and institutions attacked her like crazy for it. Think what you like about Hillary — but she was dead right, and she was the only one, more or less, in a position of power, to say so openly. The only one — that’s how massive, epic, incredible, spectacular, America’s failure was and is.

     


    Let me end with one final note, then. This leak doesn’t just confirm the worst suspicions about Trump. It also lends credence to the idea that the deniers are Russia’s men, too. Who else, at this point, would really defend any of this? When it’s obvious? When there’s now literal hard documentary evidence? Only someone, really, being paid to. Being paid well to.

    That makes the deniers — I don’t know, hypocrites? Liars? Propagandists?

    But it’s different for you. They’re probably being paid to deny it. You? You’re not being paid handsomely to deny the fact that Trump was Russia’s man, America’s first Manchurian Candidate of a President, one installed as a puppet to rip America apart and make it implode.

    What does that make you, if you don’t believe the obvious, overwhelming, damning evidence by now?

    Somewhere between a fool, a mark, and a sucker, my friend. Maybe all three.

     

    https://eand.co/russia-made-trump-president-and-its-the-worst-scandal-in-american-history-f6e144431070

    Replies: @El Dato, @Adrian E., @Muggles, @black sea, @Kibernetika

    Tangentially related, from Medium.

    Shocking new evidence that Trump was a Russian spy.

    Is that site a kind of therapeutic newsletter for mental patients?

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
  87. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, have you conceded the debate we recently had on this very issue? You stopped responding—maybe you missed my reply.

    To recap, you are:

    Pro-freedom to not associate at the personal level
    Pro-freedom to not associate at the business level

    But, anti-freedom to not associate at the national level

    You still haven’t logically justified your inconsistent positions.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-1618-project-2/#comment-4767620 (#167, etc.)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Jenner Ickham Errican asked me:

    Dave, have you conceded the debate we recently had on this very issue? You stopped responding—maybe you missed my reply.

    No, I simply had other things to do. No debate can go on, forever, you know. The fact that I allowed you the last word on that thread does not mean I conceded your points. It simply means that I had more important things in life to do.

    Also, I very much doubt that anyone was still following your and my little debate.

    Finally, you did concede in your last post in that thread:

    Now it’s true that a pure pro-freedom of association law would allow racially integrated and segregated venues, at the owners’ whims…

    That was, after all, the only point I was making and you conceded it.

    I know that you have in mind some impure idea of freedom of association that leads to different results, but that does not interest me, or, I suspect, anyone else.

    Jim Crow is inconsistent with freedom of association (okay “pure” freedom of association), which was my point.

    As to your issue of “national freedom of association,” you and I agree that, given the realities under which we live, unlimited immigration will involve a denial of freedom of association to existing citizens.

    What Caplan (and occasionally our friend Corvinus) argues is that one can imagine an ideal world in which immigrants only associate with people who want to associate with them. Yes, you can imagine such a world. And in such a world, unlimited immigration would not violate freedom of association.

    But, in the real world, where we have “public” property (roads, parks, public schools, etc.), a welfare system, and democratic voting, that condition does not obtain. In the world as it actually exists, unlimited immigration does indeed violate freedom of association.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave


    That was, after all, the only point I was making and you conceded it.
     
    Wrong again. In the analogy we as citizens are owners with equal shares in our national ‘business’ and have established rules disallowing identified trespassers. A number of lawless shareholders (traitors) have decided to subvert/disregard the rules and thus are subject to termination/removal should a corporate reorganization (civil war) occur.

    unlimited immigration will involve a denial of freedom of association to existing citizens
     
    It’s not about reaching some threshold of “unlimited immigration”, it’s about some Americans’ treasonous intent to allow categorical trespassers, and to further change our demographics through dysgenic (i.e. ‘hostile roommate’) legal immigration. My point is that it will come to a point where patriotic citizens will be at war with ‘hostile roommate’ citizens like Caplan. Let’s get real world specific: Do you think all illegals/‘undocumented’/“dreamers” should be deported? Or not? What kind of shareholder/roommate are you?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  88. @Triteleia Laxa
    @PhysicistDave

    I'm not sure I care about your distinction, even though it is neat and rational. I'm approaching from the direction of "just how much love and compassion am I supposed to have?"

    Take any ordinary person. They tend to love their family and close friends. This then fades to a dim light at the national level, just about allowing them to meaningfully tie themselves in economic and social partnership with their compatriots.

    Caplan now posits that there's little reason not to extend this to every random person on the globe. I get the thesis, "We are all part of creation", but it is just a lie. I don't have the consciousness to care any more than merely performatively for the random billions around the world. Some talking head pretending that they do, by inventing "moral" abstractions, is plain deluded.

    Lying to yourself has consequences. Our societies lying to themselves will have consequences. Such lies encourage us to build things and form structures that we don't want, can't commit to, and will be drained by.

    Moralisers assume the role of God, but our light is not infinite. Going and drowning our societies in darkness will cause us to lose ourselves as surely as it will fail to help others.

    It isn't wrong for the ordinary US citizen to say "f*ck Caplan and his morals, I want to keep my nice things, because I like them." Anyone who says otherwise is just being a jerk.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:

    I’m not sure I care about your distinction, even though it is neat and rational. I’m approaching from the direction of “just how much love and compassion am I supposed to have?”

    Well, I am pretty sure you do care about that distinction! At least, if you don’t I hope you do not live in my neighborhood.

    If you have a next-door neighbor, of whom you are mildly fond, and the guy rapes a Nigerian tourist whom you have never met, I am pretty sure you would condemn the rapist, even though you kinda like him and even though you do not know the Nigerian from Adam.

    You do not have to love the rest of the human race to embrace your negative obligations to the rest of the human race. The whole point of the obligations being “negative” is that you do not have to actually do anything. You just have to refrain from doing certain things, things like murder, rape, theft, etc. You can do that. Rather easily.

    But it is impossible to have serious positive obligations to the rest of the human race — just too many humans to show real love to them all.

    I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: “To Economize on Love”) decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith’s moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!

    So, yes, I have understood for a very, very long time that you cannot really love all of humanity.

    But you can leave them alone.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @PhysicistDave


    Well, I am pretty sure you do care about that distinction! At least, if you don’t I hope you do not live in my neighborhood
     
    Your argument is a reasonable approximation of "truth", but I think of moral distinctions like training wheels. You may need them when you can't easily ride a bike, but they get in the way once you can.

    I appreciate that this is not the most egalitarian belief.

    I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: “To Economize on Love”) decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith’s moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!
     
    Nice. Looks fun. On one hand I am sad that such a paper needs to be written, a lot of people are suffering while labouring under unrealistic self-expectations, on the other hand, I am glad that humans are such creatures that this can be a common problem!

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  89. @AnotherDad
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Moralisers assume the role of God, but our light is not infinite. Going and drowning our societies in darkness will cause us to lose ourselves as surely as it will fail to help others.

    It isn’t wrong for the ordinary US citizen to say “f*ck Caplan and his morals, I want to keep my nice things, because I like them.” Anyone who says otherwise is just being a jerk.
     
    Well said. And terrific comment, end-to-end.


    BTW, i'm an easy going get-along-with-everyone kind of guy. Have friends and get along with people of all your major ethnic/racial groups. No sweat.

    But you don't build anything, create anything, organize anything with "lets all get together and solve the world's problems". That's just goober thought. Absolutely insane even if it wasn't a recipe for utter tyranny. You can--sometimes--build with like minded people with whom you share values and norms to achieve some limited agreed upon goals. The "we are the world" people are a cancer. Your "drowning our societies in darkness" is spot on.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Another Dad:

    You might find it interesting to read my paper that I mentioned above (“To Economize on Love”) as well as my reply to TL where I explained why the distinction between positive and negative obligations is obvious and absolutely crucial (and quite common-sensical).

  90. @PhysicistDave
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:


    I’m not sure I care about your distinction, even though it is neat and rational. I’m approaching from the direction of “just how much love and compassion am I supposed to have?”
     
    Well, I am pretty sure you do care about that distinction! At least, if you don't I hope you do not live in my neighborhood.

    If you have a next-door neighbor, of whom you are mildly fond, and the guy rapes a Nigerian tourist whom you have never met, I am pretty sure you would condemn the rapist, even though you kinda like him and even though you do not know the Nigerian from Adam.

    You do not have to love the rest of the human race to embrace your negative obligations to the rest of the human race. The whole point of the obligations being "negative" is that you do not have to actually do anything. You just have to refrain from doing certain things, things like murder, rape, theft, etc. You can do that. Rather easily.

    But it is impossible to have serious positive obligations to the rest of the human race -- just too many humans to show real love to them all.

    I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: "To Economize on Love") decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith's moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!

    So, yes, I have understood for a very, very long time that you cannot really love all of humanity.

    But you can leave them alone.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, I am pretty sure you do care about that distinction! At least, if you don’t I hope you do not live in my neighborhood

    Your argument is a reasonable approximation of “truth”, but I think of moral distinctions like training wheels. You may need them when you can’t easily ride a bike, but they get in the way once you can.

    I appreciate that this is not the most egalitarian belief.

    I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: “To Economize on Love”) decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith’s moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!

    Nice. Looks fun. On one hand I am sad that such a paper needs to be written, a lot of people are suffering while labouring under unrealistic self-expectations, on the other hand, I am glad that humans are such creatures that this can be a common problem!

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:



    [Dave] I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: “To Economize on Love”) decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith’s moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!
     
    [TL] Nice. Looks fun. On one hand I am sad that such a paper needs to be written, a lot of people are suffering while labouring under unrealistic self-expectations
     
    Thanks. If you read the paper, you'll see that it is essentially a discussion of a paper by the early twentieth-century British economist Dennnis Robertson.

    Robertson's point seems to be cited more frequently since I wrote my paper, so I'd like to think I helped bring his very important point to a broader audience.

    TL also wrote:

    Your argument is a reasonable approximation of “truth”, but I think of moral distinctions like training wheels. You may need them when you can’t easily ride a bike, but they get in the way once you can.
     
    Well... Aristotle would have said that a virtuous man naturally does what is right. C. S. Lewis made a similar point when he said he would rather play cards with someone who was theoretically a moral relativist but who had been ingrained by his upbringing to have moral behavior than with someone who beleived in morality in theory but had not been ingrained with moral habitis in practice.

    Perhaps that is what you mean.

    On the other hands, most people do get into some bad moral habits, and reasoning about those bad habits can help them overcome them, sometimes.

    To quote another Greek, Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  91. @Abolish_public_education
    @The Alarmist

    You're confused.

    The interest rate incorporates the best estimate of erosion of purchasing power (i.e. the real rate + inflation), although inflation is not necessarily > 0.

    Issuance of new shares, at below market prices, can be very unfriendly to existing shareholders. That many corporations are willing to do so, e.g. stock options, does not make it right.

    A firm should only issue new shares at an "above market" price. A significant owner can live with dilution if it comes with a jump in the value of his equity.

    Imagine three firms, A-C. Each generate 10% ROI (e.g. >> T-Bill).

    Firm A has 1,000 total shares @ $1 par value. One year later, each share is worth $1,100/1,000sh= $1.10. Fair is fair.

    Firm B has 500/1,000 shares @ $1/50¢. Later, each share is worth
    $1,100/1,500sh = 73¢. Obviously, the $1/sh owners got screwed (from the start).

    Firm C has A's initial capitalization, only at t=0 it issues options for 150 shares @95¢. $1,243/1,150sh = $1.08. C will at least have to repurchase $162 worth of stock in order to prevent dilution.

    If A then wants to issue, say, 150 new shares, it should only do so at a premium, i.e. to compensate its owners for their diminished control (13% dilution). For private equity, as a matter of personal taste, I'd want at least $2.20 each.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    Note that my discussion with this guy was right at the end of the ‘80s, so no doubt bond pricing theory mived on somewhat from then, but not much.

    The inflation component of the bond yield only serves to protect the purchasing power of the “coupon.” Even a zero coupon issue generally suffers erosion of the initial principle.

    I don’t question that share issuance below MV hurts shareholders; my point is that it is nevertheless widely used as a form of executive compensation, and one that shareholders agree to at that. It is disguised by so-called performance targets, vesting requirements, and holding periods, but most exec equity comp is issuance below MV. Dilution is the solution to pollution.

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @The Alarmist

    Zero-coupon. You mean like USTs that sell at a discount? As I recall, US Savings Bonds were sold like that, also.

    Sorry, but I’m a little rusty on bonds.

    Nevertheless, the return of principal, i.e. the last check, is no different than the interest payments, in the sense that it’s also a discounted cash flow. Again, the interest rate addresses whatever the uncertainty regarding future purchasing power.

    I must add that in a hard money (small government!) world, the rule would be deflation, not erosion. The returned capital would have greater purchasing power.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

  92. @Michael Meo
    @Triteleia Laxa

    But you can agree, even though you might be reluctant to marry him, that his post does not even remotely seem to be "insane with rage"; which was how S. Sailer described it -- quite unfairly.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gabe Ruth

    Caplan did go off ranting about poison, murdering children, kidnap and moral monsters. He may have put those words into the mouth of another, and it may have been tangentially related to the topic, but it is a bit insane and rageful when you think about it.

  93. @Triteleia Laxa
    @PhysicistDave


    Well, I am pretty sure you do care about that distinction! At least, if you don’t I hope you do not live in my neighborhood
     
    Your argument is a reasonable approximation of "truth", but I think of moral distinctions like training wheels. You may need them when you can't easily ride a bike, but they get in the way once you can.

    I appreciate that this is not the most egalitarian belief.

    I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: “To Economize on Love”) decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith’s moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!
     
    Nice. Looks fun. On one hand I am sad that such a paper needs to be written, a lot of people are suffering while labouring under unrealistic self-expectations, on the other hand, I am glad that humans are such creatures that this can be a common problem!

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:

    [Dave] I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: “To Economize on Love”) decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith’s moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!

    [TL] Nice. Looks fun. On one hand I am sad that such a paper needs to be written, a lot of people are suffering while labouring under unrealistic self-expectations

    Thanks. If you read the paper, you’ll see that it is essentially a discussion of a paper by the early twentieth-century British economist Dennnis Robertson.

    Robertson’s point seems to be cited more frequently since I wrote my paper, so I’d like to think I helped bring his very important point to a broader audience.

    TL also wrote:

    Your argument is a reasonable approximation of “truth”, but I think of moral distinctions like training wheels. You may need them when you can’t easily ride a bike, but they get in the way once you can.

    Well… Aristotle would have said that a virtuous man naturally does what is right. C. S. Lewis made a similar point when he said he would rather play cards with someone who was theoretically a moral relativist but who had been ingrained by his upbringing to have moral behavior than with someone who beleived in morality in theory but had not been ingrained with moral habitis in practice.

    Perhaps that is what you mean.

    On the other hands, most people do get into some bad moral habits, and reasoning about those bad habits can help them overcome them, sometimes.

    To quote another Greek, Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @PhysicistDave

    You're an extremely considered and reasonable person, do you ever wonder if that is so much easier because it is made clear by an inner light?

    Or is it all hard work, and the light is only the direction which you are working towards?

    Why is this stuff so easy for some and so hard for others? Is it as easy for you as you make it seem?

    Don't worry if these questions are dissonant. They just get to the root of something I am still trying to confirm, and are more about me than anyone else.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  94. @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican asked me:


    Dave, have you conceded the debate we recently had on this very issue? You stopped responding—maybe you missed my reply.
     
    No, I simply had other things to do. No debate can go on, forever, you know. The fact that I allowed you the last word on that thread does not mean I conceded your points. It simply means that I had more important things in life to do.

    Also, I very much doubt that anyone was still following your and my little debate.

    Finally, you did concede in your last post in that thread:

    Now it’s true that a pure pro-freedom of association law would allow racially integrated and segregated venues, at the owners’ whims...
     
    That was, after all, the only point I was making and you conceded it.

    I know that you have in mind some impure idea of freedom of association that leads to different results, but that does not interest me, or, I suspect, anyone else.

    Jim Crow is inconsistent with freedom of association (okay "pure" freedom of association), which was my point.

    As to your issue of "national freedom of association," you and I agree that, given the realities under which we live, unlimited immigration will involve a denial of freedom of association to existing citizens.

    What Caplan (and occasionally our friend Corvinus) argues is that one can imagine an ideal world in which immigrants only associate with people who want to associate with them. Yes, you can imagine such a world. And in such a world, unlimited immigration would not violate freedom of association.

    But, in the real world, where we have "public" property (roads, parks, public schools, etc.), a welfare system, and democratic voting, that condition does not obtain. In the world as it actually exists, unlimited immigration does indeed violate freedom of association.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    That was, after all, the only point I was making and you conceded it.

    Wrong again. In the analogy we as citizens are owners with equal shares in our national ‘business’ and have established rules disallowing identified trespassers. A number of lawless shareholders (traitors) have decided to subvert/disregard the rules and thus are subject to termination/removal should a corporate reorganization (civil war) occur.

    unlimited immigration will involve a denial of freedom of association to existing citizens

    It’s not about reaching some threshold of “unlimited immigration”, it’s about some Americans’ treasonous intent to allow categorical trespassers, and to further change our demographics through dysgenic (i.e. ‘hostile roommate’) legal immigration. My point is that it will come to a point where patriotic citizens will be at war with ‘hostile roommate’ citizens like Caplan. Let’s get real world specific: Do you think all illegals/‘undocumented’/“dreamers” should be deported? Or not? What kind of shareholder/roommate are you?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican wrote to me:


    In the analogy we as citizens are owners with equal shares in our national ‘business’ and have established rules disallowing identified trespassers.
     
    I was not talking about an "analogy." I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    You conceded that point.

    You seem to think I was talking about something else.

    If you think I was, perhaps you would quote what I actually said about that something else and then we can debate it.

    Otherwise... well, I am not quite sure who you think you are arguing against, but it seems not to be me.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @anon

  95. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave


    That was, after all, the only point I was making and you conceded it.
     
    Wrong again. In the analogy we as citizens are owners with equal shares in our national ‘business’ and have established rules disallowing identified trespassers. A number of lawless shareholders (traitors) have decided to subvert/disregard the rules and thus are subject to termination/removal should a corporate reorganization (civil war) occur.

    unlimited immigration will involve a denial of freedom of association to existing citizens
     
    It’s not about reaching some threshold of “unlimited immigration”, it’s about some Americans’ treasonous intent to allow categorical trespassers, and to further change our demographics through dysgenic (i.e. ‘hostile roommate’) legal immigration. My point is that it will come to a point where patriotic citizens will be at war with ‘hostile roommate’ citizens like Caplan. Let’s get real world specific: Do you think all illegals/‘undocumented’/“dreamers” should be deported? Or not? What kind of shareholder/roommate are you?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Jenner Ickham Errican wrote to me:

    In the analogy we as citizens are owners with equal shares in our national ‘business’ and have established rules disallowing identified trespassers.

    I was not talking about an “analogy.” I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    You conceded that point.

    You seem to think I was talking about something else.

    If you think I was, perhaps you would quote what I actually said about that something else and then we can debate it.

    Otherwise… well, I am not quite sure who you think you are arguing against, but it seems not to be me.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave


    I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    You conceded that point.
     

    No. I addressed it as a red herring offered by you: I specifically cited the Jim Crow laws that allowed businesses to discriminate (which you said you were legally okay with).

    To recap, scaling up:

    You are okay with freedom to not associate at the personal level.
    You are okay with freedom to not associate at the business level (i.e. “Jim Crow style segregation” as pertains to businesses being allowed (not required) under law to discriminate).

    However, you are oddly not okay with freedom to not associate at the national level—mind you this would not preclude other countries’ citizens from associating with each other in their respective sovereign territories—just like some businesses under Jim Crow could decide to serve both Blacks and Whites. You brought up silly irrelevancies like “unlimited immigration” and malem in se as if those should be the only considerations in enforcing laws against trespassers.

    The ‘discriminatory’ entities being analogized: Individual, Business, Nation. Perhaps, like Caplan, you really dislike the concept of a sovereign nation so you’re feigning ignorance. You still have yet to explain how a nation is unlike a business in a right to be free, for whatever reason, not to associate.

    I also noticed that you ignored my direct question if you think illegal aliens should be deported. Why are you afraid to answer?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @anon
    @PhysicistDave


    I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.
     
    On the contrary. Jim Crow was citizens exercising freedom of association.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  96. @Rosie
    @Goddard


    The “desire to alleviate suffering” gives too much (US residency) for too little (the “suffering” can be alleviated at home) at the expense of too many (the current US citizens whose citizenship is being devalued and whose job opportunities are being stolen).
     
    Setting aside your gratuitous insult of women, this is basically right. There is something to PhysicistDave's analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I'm walking along and I see someone drowning. There's a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.

    Rather, the question is this. If we have an affirmative duty to help at least sometimes, then the question becomes what is the scope of that duty? And here I think you are correct, whether (and how) there is a duty to help depends on the magnitude of the sacrifice being demanded of the helper weighed against the benefit to the helped person. Under no circumstances is our racial existence a sacrifice that Caplan or anyone else has a right to demand of us.

    Of course, caveats can't make this argument, but I think one's right to a middle-class standard of living, free of competition from the desperate, is likewise to great a sacrifice to demand of the citizenry.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Goddard, @David, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote about me:

    There is something to PhysicistDave’s analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I’m walking along and I see someone drowning. There’s a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.

    As I assume you know, in most US jurisdictions, there is no legal oblogiation to help in such situations.

    Is there a moral obligation to help? Yes, obviously. The reason is that this is not a matter of (impossibly) trying to save everyone on the planet but rather of trying to save one person when you yourself are in a unique position to help.

    And that is of course one of the underlying reasons we need to give primary concern to our own kids, our neighbors, etc. Our next-door neighbor, a great old lady in her mid-nineties, passed away right before Christmas. In her final years, my wife and I checked in on her, stayed in touch with her kids concerning her condition, etc., simply because she was our next-door neighbor and we were in the best position to help out.

    Did we actually like her as a person? Yes, we did. Among other things, up to her very last week, she could talk more sensibly about political and social affairs than most people half her age.

    But even aside from our personal fondness, she was our neighbor.

    I have been one of the most outspoken civ-nats among the commenters here: I have consistently maintained that we should have special concern for our countrymen simply because they are our countrymen. I’ve argued that we should raise a hue and cry about innocent Black victims of violent crime, again, because they are our countrymen.

    And this makes sense even according to a coldly utilitarain calculus. The French should pay more attention to the ills of France than we do simply because they are there, they know more than we do about what is going on, and they have a better chance to do something about it.

    But still, both Americans and Frenchmen do have clear negative obligations to all human beings everywhere — not to murder, not to rape, etc. And aboidng by such negative obligations is easy to do.

    Positive obligations must be much more local, and nearly everyone accepts that obvious reality, at least in practice if not in theory.

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    I don't disagree with anything you said here, though I would probably extend "positive obligations" out further than you do, again provided that the magnitude of the sacrifice is not out of order considering the circumstances of the case. I also put genetic proximity above spatial proximity. I certainly appreciate your example concerning your neighbor, but I would argue that Whites have a duty to accept, say, White South African refugees while we do not have a duty to accept Honduran refugees, geographic proximity and utilitarian considerations notwithstanding.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  97. @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican wrote to me:


    In the analogy we as citizens are owners with equal shares in our national ‘business’ and have established rules disallowing identified trespassers.
     
    I was not talking about an "analogy." I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    You conceded that point.

    You seem to think I was talking about something else.

    If you think I was, perhaps you would quote what I actually said about that something else and then we can debate it.

    Otherwise... well, I am not quite sure who you think you are arguing against, but it seems not to be me.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @anon

    I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    You conceded that point.

    No. I addressed it as a red herring offered by you: I specifically cited the Jim Crow laws that allowed businesses to discriminate (which you said you were legally okay with).

    To recap, scaling up:

    You are okay with freedom to not associate at the personal level.
    You are okay with freedom to not associate at the business level (i.e. “Jim Crow style segregation” as pertains to businesses being allowed (not required) under law to discriminate).

    However, you are oddly not okay with freedom to not associate at the national level—mind you this would not preclude other countries’ citizens from associating with each other in their respective sovereign territories—just like some businesses under Jim Crow could decide to serve both Blacks and Whites. You brought up silly irrelevancies like “unlimited immigration” and malem in se as if those should be the only considerations in enforcing laws against trespassers.

    The ‘discriminatory’ entities being analogized: Individual, Business, Nation. Perhaps, like Caplan, you really dislike the concept of a sovereign nation so you’re feigning ignorance. You still have yet to explain how a nation is unlike a business in a right to be free, for whatever reason, not to associate.

    I also noticed that you ignored my direct question if you think illegal aliens should be deported. Why are you afraid to answer?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican:

    You have not quoted anything that I actually said that you want to debate.

    You are trying to start a debate with me by framing it in a way I do not happen to agree with.

    No one is obligated to debate some subject with you that you happen to choose just because you wish to start a fight!

    Sorry, my friend, but whatever it is you are trying to debate just does not interest me.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  98. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave


    I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    You conceded that point.
     

    No. I addressed it as a red herring offered by you: I specifically cited the Jim Crow laws that allowed businesses to discriminate (which you said you were legally okay with).

    To recap, scaling up:

    You are okay with freedom to not associate at the personal level.
    You are okay with freedom to not associate at the business level (i.e. “Jim Crow style segregation” as pertains to businesses being allowed (not required) under law to discriminate).

    However, you are oddly not okay with freedom to not associate at the national level—mind you this would not preclude other countries’ citizens from associating with each other in their respective sovereign territories—just like some businesses under Jim Crow could decide to serve both Blacks and Whites. You brought up silly irrelevancies like “unlimited immigration” and malem in se as if those should be the only considerations in enforcing laws against trespassers.

    The ‘discriminatory’ entities being analogized: Individual, Business, Nation. Perhaps, like Caplan, you really dislike the concept of a sovereign nation so you’re feigning ignorance. You still have yet to explain how a nation is unlike a business in a right to be free, for whatever reason, not to associate.

    I also noticed that you ignored my direct question if you think illegal aliens should be deported. Why are you afraid to answer?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Jenner Ickham Errican:

    You have not quoted anything that I actually said that you want to debate.

    You are trying to start a debate with me by framing it in a way I do not happen to agree with.

    No one is obligated to debate some subject with you that you happen to choose just because you wish to start a fight!

    Sorry, my friend, but whatever it is you are trying to debate just does not interest me.

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave


    Sorry, my friend, but whatever it is you are trying to debate just does not interest me.
     
    Hmmm. Maybe another time, oh evasive one! :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V02oBy4-H8U

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  99. @PhysicistDave
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:



    [Dave] I actually wrote a paper on the need to economize on love (hence the title: “To Economize on Love”) decades ago: my paper has been cited in a book on Adam Smith’s moral theory as well as, to my great surprise, in the International Handbook of Urban Policy!
     
    [TL] Nice. Looks fun. On one hand I am sad that such a paper needs to be written, a lot of people are suffering while labouring under unrealistic self-expectations
     
    Thanks. If you read the paper, you'll see that it is essentially a discussion of a paper by the early twentieth-century British economist Dennnis Robertson.

    Robertson's point seems to be cited more frequently since I wrote my paper, so I'd like to think I helped bring his very important point to a broader audience.

    TL also wrote:

    Your argument is a reasonable approximation of “truth”, but I think of moral distinctions like training wheels. You may need them when you can’t easily ride a bike, but they get in the way once you can.
     
    Well... Aristotle would have said that a virtuous man naturally does what is right. C. S. Lewis made a similar point when he said he would rather play cards with someone who was theoretically a moral relativist but who had been ingrained by his upbringing to have moral behavior than with someone who beleived in morality in theory but had not been ingrained with moral habitis in practice.

    Perhaps that is what you mean.

    On the other hands, most people do get into some bad moral habits, and reasoning about those bad habits can help them overcome them, sometimes.

    To quote another Greek, Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    You’re an extremely considered and reasonable person, do you ever wonder if that is so much easier because it is made clear by an inner light?

    Or is it all hard work, and the light is only the direction which you are working towards?

    Why is this stuff so easy for some and so hard for others? Is it as easy for you as you make it seem?

    Don’t worry if these questions are dissonant. They just get to the root of something I am still trying to confirm, and are more about me than anyone else.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:


    You’re an extremely considered and reasonable person, do you ever wonder if that is so much easier because it is made clear by an inner light?
     
    Hmmm. Thank you... I think.

    I can assure you that not everyone here finds me to be considered and reasonable. I try to reflect the attitudes and demeanor of those who engage me.

    You raised some issues that seemed to me to be fair and interesting, so I do hope I responded in kind.

    TL also wrote:

    Don’t worry if these questions are dissonant. They just get to the root of something I am still trying to confirm, and are more about me than anyone else.
     
    Hey, that's cool. I am a son of the Enlightenment (Voltaire, Paine, Locke, Newton, Hume, et al. -- not the New Age).

    Everyone has to do his best in his own way to arrive at the truth.

    Laissez nous parler.
  100. @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican:

    You have not quoted anything that I actually said that you want to debate.

    You are trying to start a debate with me by framing it in a way I do not happen to agree with.

    No one is obligated to debate some subject with you that you happen to choose just because you wish to start a fight!

    Sorry, my friend, but whatever it is you are trying to debate just does not interest me.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Sorry, my friend, but whatever it is you are trying to debate just does not interest me.

    Hmmm. Maybe another time, oh evasive one! 🙂

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican wrote to me:


    Hmmm. Maybe another time, oh evasive one!
     
    Oh, probably not.

    Though I think very few people who have engaged me here have found me to be "evasive." Rather emphatically the contrary, in fact.

    It's just that you bore me.

    But don't feel bad: not everyone can be as scintillating as our friend Corvinus!
  101. @PhysicistDave
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Jenner Ickham Errican wrote to me:


    In the analogy we as citizens are owners with equal shares in our national ‘business’ and have established rules disallowing identified trespassers.
     
    I was not talking about an "analogy." I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    You conceded that point.

    You seem to think I was talking about something else.

    If you think I was, perhaps you would quote what I actually said about that something else and then we can debate it.

    Otherwise... well, I am not quite sure who you think you are arguing against, but it seems not to be me.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @anon

    I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.

    On the contrary. Jim Crow was citizens exercising freedom of association.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @anon

    anon[216] wrote to me:


    On the contrary. Jim Crow was citizens exercising freedom of association.
     
    Jim Crow required Whites to avoid associating with Blacks in certain contexts -- e.g., sharing restrooms in certain establishments.

    I actually remember this: Jim Crow still was in effect where I grew up when I was a young child.

    I take it you are too young to know this.
  102. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @PhysicistDave


    Sorry, my friend, but whatever it is you are trying to debate just does not interest me.
     
    Hmmm. Maybe another time, oh evasive one! :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V02oBy4-H8U

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Jenner Ickham Errican wrote to me:

    Hmmm. Maybe another time, oh evasive one!

    Oh, probably not.

    Though I think very few people who have engaged me here have found me to be “evasive.” Rather emphatically the contrary, in fact.

    It’s just that you bore me.

    But don’t feel bad: not everyone can be as scintillating as our friend Corvinus!

    • Thanks: Jenner Ickham Errican
  103. @anon
    @PhysicistDave


    I was pointing out that Jim Crow violated freedom of association.
     
    On the contrary. Jim Crow was citizens exercising freedom of association.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    anon[216] wrote to me:

    On the contrary. Jim Crow was citizens exercising freedom of association.

    Jim Crow required Whites to avoid associating with Blacks in certain contexts — e.g., sharing restrooms in certain establishments.

    I actually remember this: Jim Crow still was in effect where I grew up when I was a young child.

    I take it you are too young to know this.

  104. @Triteleia Laxa
    @PhysicistDave

    You're an extremely considered and reasonable person, do you ever wonder if that is so much easier because it is made clear by an inner light?

    Or is it all hard work, and the light is only the direction which you are working towards?

    Why is this stuff so easy for some and so hard for others? Is it as easy for you as you make it seem?

    Don't worry if these questions are dissonant. They just get to the root of something I am still trying to confirm, and are more about me than anyone else.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Triteleia Laxa wrote to me:

    You’re an extremely considered and reasonable person, do you ever wonder if that is so much easier because it is made clear by an inner light?

    Hmmm. Thank you… I think.

    I can assure you that not everyone here finds me to be considered and reasonable. I try to reflect the attitudes and demeanor of those who engage me.

    You raised some issues that seemed to me to be fair and interesting, so I do hope I responded in kind.

    TL also wrote:

    Don’t worry if these questions are dissonant. They just get to the root of something I am still trying to confirm, and are more about me than anyone else.

    Hey, that’s cool. I am a son of the Enlightenment (Voltaire, Paine, Locke, Newton, Hume, et al. — not the New Age).

    Everyone has to do his best in his own way to arrive at the truth.

    Laissez nous parler.

  105. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote about me:


    There is something to PhysicistDave’s analysis focusing on negative and positive rights, but that is not a distinction that I find particularly helpful.

    Suppose I’m walking along and I see someone drowning. There’s a flotation device handy, but I decide not to toss it because the drowning person only has negative rights against me. I only have a duty not to harm, but no duty to help. This strikes most people, I think, as wrong, because tossing the life ring or whatever costs me nothing compared to the value of a life saved.
     
    As I assume you know, in most US jurisdictions, there is no legal oblogiation to help in such situations.

    Is there a moral obligation to help? Yes, obviously. The reason is that this is not a matter of (impossibly) trying to save everyone on the planet but rather of trying to save one person when you yourself are in a unique position to help.

    And that is of course one of the underlying reasons we need to give primary concern to our own kids, our neighbors, etc. Our next-door neighbor, a great old lady in her mid-nineties, passed away right before Christmas. In her final years, my wife and I checked in on her, stayed in touch with her kids concerning her condition, etc., simply because she was our next-door neighbor and we were in the best position to help out.

    Did we actually like her as a person? Yes, we did. Among other things, up to her very last week, she could talk more sensibly about political and social affairs than most people half her age.

    But even aside from our personal fondness, she was our neighbor.

    I have been one of the most outspoken civ-nats among the commenters here: I have consistently maintained that we should have special concern for our countrymen simply because they are our countrymen. I've argued that we should raise a hue and cry about innocent Black victims of violent crime, again, because they are our countrymen.

    And this makes sense even according to a coldly utilitarain calculus. The French should pay more attention to the ills of France than we do simply because they are there, they know more than we do about what is going on, and they have a better chance to do something about it.

    But still, both Americans and Frenchmen do have clear negative obligations to all human beings everywhere -- not to murder, not to rape, etc. And aboidng by such negative obligations is easy to do.

    Positive obligations must be much more local, and nearly everyone accepts that obvious reality, at least in practice if not in theory.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I don’t disagree with anything you said here, though I would probably extend “positive obligations” out further than you do, again provided that the magnitude of the sacrifice is not out of order considering the circumstances of the case. I also put genetic proximity above spatial proximity. I certainly appreciate your example concerning your neighbor, but I would argue that Whites have a duty to accept, say, White South African refugees while we do not have a duty to accept Honduran refugees, geographic proximity and utilitarian considerations notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    I certainly appreciate your example concerning your neighbor, but I would argue that Whites have a duty to accept, say, White South African refugees while we do not have a duty to accept Honduran refugees, geographic proximity and utilitarian considerations notwithstanding.
     
    Thanks, Rosie, for your reply.

    Interesting that you give that example.

    As it happens, we have neighbors two doors down who are white South African immigrants. They are more liberal politically than we, so we have (polite) political debates, but of course they have assimilated completely to American society. If not for their (rather charming) accents, they could pass as being Iowans who came out west to California.

    Two points of principle here:

    First, there is often more choice in how to carry out positive obligations vs, negative obligations. Even when the positive obligation is decisive -- e.g., the obligation of parents to care for their young children -- there usually is and must be room for judgment in terms of magnitude and methods.

    And second, we just cannot save the world. We have to pick and choose who to let into this country. Everyone knows that, of course, people from other countries in the Anglosphere can, on average, assimilate most readily to American society. And of course West Europeans assimilate more easily than most immigrants not from Europe: I know a doctor from Belgium who is a fine guy, a really positive addition to our country. Similarly, I worked with a German immigrant whose family fled westward from the Soviets when he was a child: as an adult engineer here in the States, Julius invented a component in microwave engineering known as the "Lange coupler."

    (As you might expect, Julius' familial experience inoculated him against the Left: politically, he was what Europeans call a "classical liberal," a libertarian conservative in American terminology.)

    Culture does matter, and it is not wrong to feel more positive obligations towards people who have similar cultures, values, interests, etc.

    It is also inevitable, just a part of human nature.

  106. @The Alarmist
    @Abolish_public_education

    Note that my discussion with this guy was right at the end of the ‘80s, so no doubt bond pricing theory mived on somewhat from then, but not much.

    The inflation component of the bond yield only serves to protect the purchasing power of the “coupon.” Even a zero coupon issue generally suffers erosion of the initial principle.

    I don’t question that share issuance below MV hurts shareholders; my point is that it is nevertheless widely used as a form of executive compensation, and one that shareholders agree to at that. It is disguised by so-called performance targets, vesting requirements, and holding periods, but most exec equity comp is issuance below MV. Dilution is the solution to pollution.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

    Zero-coupon. You mean like USTs that sell at a discount? As I recall, US Savings Bonds were sold like that, also.

    Sorry, but I’m a little rusty on bonds.

    Nevertheless, the return of principal, i.e. the last check, is no different than the interest payments, in the sense that it’s also a discounted cash flow. Again, the interest rate addresses whatever the uncertainty regarding future purchasing power.

    I must add that in a hard money (small government!) world, the rule would be deflation, not erosion. The returned capital would have greater purchasing power.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Abolish_public_education

    US TIPS and UK Index-Linked Gilts and similar inflation-“protected” issues provide some indexation of the principle, but for most issues in the markets your principle is unprotected, e.g. the $1000 you paid to buy the bond is repaid in debased $1000 years later, and the interest rate you received over all those years had an implied inflation premium that applies only to each coupon where it is paid and remains fixed to the implied rate at purchase unless you have an issue that peridically resets. On zero-coupon bonds, like the discount savings bond, the inflation premium only compensates for inflation effect on the implied coupon at the time of purchase. Having said all that, nowadays you can work all sorts of tricks with derivatives.

  107. @Abolish_public_education
    @The Alarmist

    Zero-coupon. You mean like USTs that sell at a discount? As I recall, US Savings Bonds were sold like that, also.

    Sorry, but I’m a little rusty on bonds.

    Nevertheless, the return of principal, i.e. the last check, is no different than the interest payments, in the sense that it’s also a discounted cash flow. Again, the interest rate addresses whatever the uncertainty regarding future purchasing power.

    I must add that in a hard money (small government!) world, the rule would be deflation, not erosion. The returned capital would have greater purchasing power.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    US TIPS and UK Index-Linked Gilts and similar inflation-“protected” issues provide some indexation of the principle, but for most issues in the markets your principle is unprotected, e.g. the $1000 you paid to buy the bond is repaid in debased $1000 years later, and the interest rate you received over all those years had an implied inflation premium that applies only to each coupon where it is paid and remains fixed to the implied rate at purchase unless you have an issue that peridically resets. On zero-coupon bonds, like the discount savings bond, the inflation premium only compensates for inflation effect on the implied coupon at the time of purchase. Having said all that, nowadays you can work all sorts of tricks with derivatives.

  108. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    I don't disagree with anything you said here, though I would probably extend "positive obligations" out further than you do, again provided that the magnitude of the sacrifice is not out of order considering the circumstances of the case. I also put genetic proximity above spatial proximity. I certainly appreciate your example concerning your neighbor, but I would argue that Whites have a duty to accept, say, White South African refugees while we do not have a duty to accept Honduran refugees, geographic proximity and utilitarian considerations notwithstanding.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote to me:

    I certainly appreciate your example concerning your neighbor, but I would argue that Whites have a duty to accept, say, White South African refugees while we do not have a duty to accept Honduran refugees, geographic proximity and utilitarian considerations notwithstanding.

    Thanks, Rosie, for your reply.

    Interesting that you give that example.

    As it happens, we have neighbors two doors down who are white South African immigrants. They are more liberal politically than we, so we have (polite) political debates, but of course they have assimilated completely to American society. If not for their (rather charming) accents, they could pass as being Iowans who came out west to California.

    Two points of principle here:

    First, there is often more choice in how to carry out positive obligations vs, negative obligations. Even when the positive obligation is decisive — e.g., the obligation of parents to care for their young children — there usually is and must be room for judgment in terms of magnitude and methods.

    And second, we just cannot save the world. We have to pick and choose who to let into this country. Everyone knows that, of course, people from other countries in the Anglosphere can, on average, assimilate most readily to American society. And of course West Europeans assimilate more easily than most immigrants not from Europe: I know a doctor from Belgium who is a fine guy, a really positive addition to our country. Similarly, I worked with a German immigrant whose family fled westward from the Soviets when he was a child: as an adult engineer here in the States, Julius invented a component in microwave engineering known as the “Lange coupler.”

    (As you might expect, Julius’ familial experience inoculated him against the Left: politically, he was what Europeans call a “classical liberal,” a libertarian conservative in American terminology.)

    Culture does matter, and it is not wrong to feel more positive obligations towards people who have similar cultures, values, interests, etc.

    It is also inevitable, just a part of human nature.

    • Thanks: Rosie
  109. @Michael Meo
    @Triteleia Laxa

    But you can agree, even though you might be reluctant to marry him, that his post does not even remotely seem to be "insane with rage"; which was how S. Sailer described it -- quite unfairly.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gabe Ruth

    That’s just Mr. Caplan’s normal condition, so on the contrary it was generous of Steve to describe it as temporary and give him an excuse for slandering millions of people.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Becker update V1.3.2