There is no "the market", there are only markets, which are useful things people engage in quite *naturally* absent coercion to do something else; so I reject utterly the notion that economics is the science of something so abstruse (unlike geology, are you kidding me?) that it is a new frontier in which common sense uniquely has no role. Most of his examples reflect little deep thinking, or even just deep reading, about any of that stuff. Can we at least agree that referencing "creative destruction" as if a novel concept is now past its sell-by date as a mic drop?
That said, I miss that guy because when I used to be able to view twitter, he often had linked cool animal stuff.
Fine article by Rachel Lu, but very unrealistic picture of 7 same aged toddlers, of about 15 months old.
“Go big or go home” about families is important, increasing the number of kids by those who have kids. It might be better as “go big or go be a wage slave” (for the rich). Not “go big or go to work” taking care of kids is huge work. A very smart decision is to live close to healthy, helpful grandparents, not mentioned in the quick review. Raising kids is really hard but also the most certain way to make the world better. Smart women should get married and have more kids.
I flatly don’t believe significant support for married women with kids has been tried, like a big first payment on a bigger car for the 3rd and 6th kids, 40-80% down payment on a new or used 6+ or 8+ car. Or a massive, no interest loan to buy a bigger house for each of 1, 4, 7, & 10 kids. “Massive” like # kids times prior year’s median before tax income (IRS), ~ $62k. So at 4 kids they get a govt loan of $248,000 for buying a bigger house, tho waiting for the next child it would go up to $310k. All such help only to those married with kids, because the others are too unstable.
This implicitly means higher taxes on the childless, and I’m increasingly ok with this, as well as more taxes on the rich, and on the rich corporations. Joining the (unbeatable?) big govt spenders, but more support to those making good decisions, for the future of society.
Re The Social Instinct: I know he's copping some unrelated flack at the moment, but I like Jonathan Haidt's heuricstic that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee. Depending on temperament and/or political affiliation it seems people tend to downplay one or the other, unfortunately.
Rachel Lu's mandate to convince people that raising children is good and honorable, reminds me a lot of my own claim that we need to convince people that their lines are worth continuing and the future is a better place with a little bit of them in it. People need a little more "supremacist" in them.
While I have respect for anyone who bears and responsibly rears their children, I pause my applause for the extra headcount families. At least in terms of them being something we all should aspire to become. "Given a choice, people frequently pass on difficult-but-optional life projects" obviously has broader application than child-bearing. (I've successfully dodged doing many hard things in life), but the large family model is more a curiosity than something to emulate.
Is someone suggesting I read another book to better understand how other parents are raising their kids poorly? And the people who need to read the book most are the other parents? If I read the book and try to persuade these other parents to parent better, I’ll likely run into a perfect rhetorical fortress and thus fail to persuade them, and worse probably feel I’ve wasted my time? Am I understanding this correctly? There must be something else going on here.
The cynic in me can't help but think that learned helplessness is a strategy likely to have a more immediate payoff than trying to change the world.
There is no "the market", there are only markets, which are useful things people engage in quite *naturally* absent coercion to do something else; so I reject utterly the notion that economics is the science of something so abstruse (unlike geology, are you kidding me?) that it is a new frontier in which common sense uniquely has no role. Most of his examples reflect little deep thinking, or even just deep reading, about any of that stuff. Can we at least agree that referencing "creative destruction" as if a novel concept is now past its sell-by date as a mic drop?
That said, I miss that guy because when I used to be able to view twitter, he often had linked cool animal stuff.
Fine article by Rachel Lu, but very unrealistic picture of 7 same aged toddlers, of about 15 months old.
“Go big or go home” about families is important, increasing the number of kids by those who have kids. It might be better as “go big or go be a wage slave” (for the rich). Not “go big or go to work” taking care of kids is huge work. A very smart decision is to live close to healthy, helpful grandparents, not mentioned in the quick review. Raising kids is really hard but also the most certain way to make the world better. Smart women should get married and have more kids.
I flatly don’t believe significant support for married women with kids has been tried, like a big first payment on a bigger car for the 3rd and 6th kids, 40-80% down payment on a new or used 6+ or 8+ car. Or a massive, no interest loan to buy a bigger house for each of 1, 4, 7, & 10 kids. “Massive” like # kids times prior year’s median before tax income (IRS), ~ $62k. So at 4 kids they get a govt loan of $248,000 for buying a bigger house, tho waiting for the next child it would go up to $310k. All such help only to those married with kids, because the others are too unstable.
This implicitly means higher taxes on the childless, and I’m increasingly ok with this, as well as more taxes on the rich, and on the rich corporations. Joining the (unbeatable?) big govt spenders, but more support to those making good decisions, for the future of society.
Re The Social Instinct: I know he's copping some unrelated flack at the moment, but I like Jonathan Haidt's heuricstic that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee. Depending on temperament and/or political affiliation it seems people tend to downplay one or the other, unfortunately.
Rachel Lu's mandate to convince people that raising children is good and honorable, reminds me a lot of my own claim that we need to convince people that their lines are worth continuing and the future is a better place with a little bit of them in it. People need a little more "supremacist" in them.
While I have respect for anyone who bears and responsibly rears their children, I pause my applause for the extra headcount families. At least in terms of them being something we all should aspire to become. "Given a choice, people frequently pass on difficult-but-optional life projects" obviously has broader application than child-bearing. (I've successfully dodged doing many hard things in life), but the large family model is more a curiosity than something to emulate.
Is someone suggesting I read another book to better understand how other parents are raising their kids poorly? And the people who need to read the book most are the other parents? If I read the book and try to persuade these other parents to parent better, I’ll likely run into a perfect rhetorical fortress and thus fail to persuade them, and worse probably feel I’ve wasted my time? Am I understanding this correctly? There must be something else going on here.