I just picked up my copy of "From Rebel to Ruler" based on Tyler's note that the CCP is perhaps the world's most important organization (institution?) - and I know so little about it, actually.
I hope more people read: "The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution" by Richard W. Wrangham
I doubt that I'll read J. Rauch, because he supports lying about Trump in particular, and now about Trump supporters - probably is strongly biased against any pro-life Republican. Even if he is correct that pursuit of the truth is a key to reduce global elite problems.
I am planning to get The Mind Club next month, after I enjoy some holiday murder mysteries.
Recent Tyler Cowen post: "There is a new and very interesting paper on [extremist YouTube videos]... I am traveling and have not had the chance to read this paper, but I do know the authors are very able."
Tyler knows his post will attract readers/commenters, and that it's always a good day for logrolling.
I typically don’t read books in the year they are published, but I did read John Boehner’s memoir (on Garett Jones’ rec) and was surprised how much I liked it. Illustrates a lot of public choice problems in a concrete way:
“At one point in the mid-1990s, I got fed up and decided to yank their chains anyway. I was on the Agriculture Committee and we were getting ready to put together the 1996 farm bill. I walked into my office while this was going on and found a sugar lobbyist hanging around, trying to stay close to the action. I felt like being a smart-ass so I made some wisecrack about the sugar industry raping the taxpayers. Without another word, I walked into my private office and shut the door.
I had no real plan to go after the sugar people. I was just screwing with the guy. My phone did not stop ringing for the next five weeks. The guy must have walked straight out of my office to the nearest phone booth (or maybe he had a cell phone even then—these guys were loaded) and called his office and announced: “Boehner, Ohio 8th—Code Red.”
I had no idea how many people in my district were connected to the sugar industry. People were calling all day, telling me they made pumps or plugs or boxes or some other such part used in sugar production and I was threatening their job. Mayors called to tell me about employers their towns depended on who would be hurt by a sugar downturn. It was the most organized effort I had ever seen.
Sorry, Arnold. Reading Rauch's latest column in Persuasion, your assessment of his obsession with Trump is obsolete. His new column is a reminder of how many fake intellectuals and reporters are working for the barbarians. Concerning the idea of pursuing the truth through social norms and organizations, you should remember that it's a very old idea which unfortunately has always failed to fulfill our best intentions thanks to people like Rauch, that is, servants to power. I was planning to read Rauch's book because I'm developing an alternative constitutional framework to limit the government's power but it seems he doesn't have anything serious to say about it.
Thanks for your list. One question. In the Amazon link to Burgis' Wanting, they claim "A groundbreaking exploration of why we want what we want and a toolkit for freeing ourselves from chasing unfulfilling desires." Now, like any economist, I always ask about what we are willing to pay to fulfill our desires. I haven't read the book, so my question is about what Burgis has to say about our demands.
Damn little beyond, "We want what our models want." I read it on Arnold's recommendation and was pretty disappointed. Most of it seemed to repackage old ideas in new language. I got the impression that if you thought about all the associations you have with the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses", you would have at least half of what is useful in Girard's "mimetic theory".
"Nothing new" is a common comment, but, for one thing, Murray wasn't trying or claiming to do that, instead just attempting to make the strongest, evidence-based case for the truth as clearly, concisely, and uncontroversially as it is possible to do, and for another, it's essentially impossible to say anything new and true on the topic, because it's (nearly) all been said before. There's an enormous surplus of prolix newness if one prefers lies.
That being said, there was still some 'new to me' stuff in there. Because it was so short, it was feasible for me to take a little extra time to read my anonymously-procured copy of Murray's book very carefully and check out his many notes (at least those I could find for free on the internet).
The new stuff was of the nature, "Actually, as extreme and shocking as these order of magnitude differences may seem, my methodology is, if anything, extremely conservative in terms of these being the floors of ranges where there is maximum confidence and no good faith basis for reasonable criticism of the data or methodology. Because of the pressures on someone like me making a case like this, I am effectively held to standards of perfection otherwise unknown in my field, and therefore these numbers come from the most rock-solid argument one could possibly make. However, if one were to permit other, slightly less airtight sources of evidence - which would nevertheless still be above the average level of care and rigor in mainstream social science scholarship - then some of these 10 to 1 ratios could be 50:1 or even higher, that is, yet another order of magnitude worse than respectable opinion claims."
I'm pretty well-versed in this stuff and used to 10:1 data, but even I was surprised to learn how far further north the range extends. But again, to learn that took work, which I think was by design. It's pretty obvious why Murray was already pushing against the edge of what can be mass published these days, and so why he would not feel it necessary to draw any attention to these matters as the data and sources he focuses on are already far more than sufficient to make his point definitively.
<i>Those of us who want to defend the American creed have been unwilling to say openly that races have significant group differences. Since we have been unwilling to say that, we have been defenseless against claims that racism is to blame for unequal outcomes. What else could it be?</i>
The other logical possibility is, to put it as technocratically as possible, differential human capital formation. On average, American blacks don't learn as much in school, don't develop as much of a future orientation, etc., etc. This is the view of Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Dierdre McCloskey, and even to some extent Freddie deBoer. At the moment, it is rather unpopular since it seems to "blame the victim"--which of course it largely does.
It may be the case that slavery saved the Virginia Colony back in the 1600s. It would be a terrible irony if its aftermath destroyed "the American creed" in the 2000s.
The truth is that IS some genetic component and some culture/ environment influence and lots of Free Will. I believe in a colorblind, judge everybody as an individual kind of society.
I just picked up my copy of "From Rebel to Ruler" based on Tyler's note that the CCP is perhaps the world's most important organization (institution?) - and I know so little about it, actually.
I hope more people read: "The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution" by Richard W. Wrangham
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40063330-the-goodness-paradox?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=b0OGdq98cx&rank=1
I doubt that I'll read J. Rauch, because he supports lying about Trump in particular, and now about Trump supporters - probably is strongly biased against any pro-life Republican. Even if he is correct that pursuit of the truth is a key to reduce global elite problems.
I am planning to get The Mind Club next month, after I enjoy some holiday murder mysteries.
Unlike you, Cowen doesn't actually read the books he reviews and puts on these lists.
Recent Tyler Cowen post: "There is a new and very interesting paper on [extremist YouTube videos]... I am traveling and have not had the chance to read this paper, but I do know the authors are very able."
Tyler knows his post will attract readers/commenters, and that it's always a good day for logrolling.
I typically don’t read books in the year they are published, but I did read John Boehner’s memoir (on Garett Jones’ rec) and was surprised how much I liked it. Illustrates a lot of public choice problems in a concrete way:
“At one point in the mid-1990s, I got fed up and decided to yank their chains anyway. I was on the Agriculture Committee and we were getting ready to put together the 1996 farm bill. I walked into my office while this was going on and found a sugar lobbyist hanging around, trying to stay close to the action. I felt like being a smart-ass so I made some wisecrack about the sugar industry raping the taxpayers. Without another word, I walked into my private office and shut the door.
I had no real plan to go after the sugar people. I was just screwing with the guy. My phone did not stop ringing for the next five weeks. The guy must have walked straight out of my office to the nearest phone booth (or maybe he had a cell phone even then—these guys were loaded) and called his office and announced: “Boehner, Ohio 8th—Code Red.”
I had no idea how many people in my district were connected to the sugar industry. People were calling all day, telling me they made pumps or plugs or boxes or some other such part used in sugar production and I was threatening their job. Mayors called to tell me about employers their towns depended on who would be hurt by a sugar downturn. It was the most organized effort I had ever seen.
And that’s why you don’t fuck with sugar."
Sorry, Arnold. Reading Rauch's latest column in Persuasion, your assessment of his obsession with Trump is obsolete. His new column is a reminder of how many fake intellectuals and reporters are working for the barbarians. Concerning the idea of pursuing the truth through social norms and organizations, you should remember that it's a very old idea which unfortunately has always failed to fulfill our best intentions thanks to people like Rauch, that is, servants to power. I was planning to read Rauch's book because I'm developing an alternative constitutional framework to limit the government's power but it seems he doesn't have anything serious to say about it.
"So someone will describe “the market” as if it were an evil robot, with a consumer or worker regarded as a helpless victim."
And others as a marvelous machine that showers unalloyed benefits on ungrateful beneficiaries.
I sure do miss neo-Liberalism. :)
Yes, and although I did not get into it, *I* think neoliberalism admits redistribution as legitimate, if not done "too" inefficiently.
Thanks for your list. One question. In the Amazon link to Burgis' Wanting, they claim "A groundbreaking exploration of why we want what we want and a toolkit for freeing ourselves from chasing unfulfilling desires." Now, like any economist, I always ask about what we are willing to pay to fulfill our desires. I haven't read the book, so my question is about what Burgis has to say about our demands.
Damn little beyond, "We want what our models want." I read it on Arnold's recommendation and was pretty disappointed. Most of it seemed to repackage old ideas in new language. I got the impression that if you thought about all the associations you have with the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses", you would have at least half of what is useful in Girard's "mimetic theory".
I feel you pain on Morton and Schapiro. I could have warned you to stay away from that one.
*Morson*
"Nothing new" is a common comment, but, for one thing, Murray wasn't trying or claiming to do that, instead just attempting to make the strongest, evidence-based case for the truth as clearly, concisely, and uncontroversially as it is possible to do, and for another, it's essentially impossible to say anything new and true on the topic, because it's (nearly) all been said before. There's an enormous surplus of prolix newness if one prefers lies.
That being said, there was still some 'new to me' stuff in there. Because it was so short, it was feasible for me to take a little extra time to read my anonymously-procured copy of Murray's book very carefully and check out his many notes (at least those I could find for free on the internet).
The new stuff was of the nature, "Actually, as extreme and shocking as these order of magnitude differences may seem, my methodology is, if anything, extremely conservative in terms of these being the floors of ranges where there is maximum confidence and no good faith basis for reasonable criticism of the data or methodology. Because of the pressures on someone like me making a case like this, I am effectively held to standards of perfection otherwise unknown in my field, and therefore these numbers come from the most rock-solid argument one could possibly make. However, if one were to permit other, slightly less airtight sources of evidence - which would nevertheless still be above the average level of care and rigor in mainstream social science scholarship - then some of these 10 to 1 ratios could be 50:1 or even higher, that is, yet another order of magnitude worse than respectable opinion claims."
I'm pretty well-versed in this stuff and used to 10:1 data, but even I was surprised to learn how far further north the range extends. But again, to learn that took work, which I think was by design. It's pretty obvious why Murray was already pushing against the edge of what can be mass published these days, and so why he would not feel it necessary to draw any attention to these matters as the data and sources he focuses on are already far more than sufficient to make his point definitively.
<i>Those of us who want to defend the American creed have been unwilling to say openly that races have significant group differences. Since we have been unwilling to say that, we have been defenseless against claims that racism is to blame for unequal outcomes. What else could it be?</i>
The other logical possibility is, to put it as technocratically as possible, differential human capital formation. On average, American blacks don't learn as much in school, don't develop as much of a future orientation, etc., etc. This is the view of Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Dierdre McCloskey, and even to some extent Freddie deBoer. At the moment, it is rather unpopular since it seems to "blame the victim"--which of course it largely does.
It may be the case that slavery saved the Virginia Colony back in the 1600s. It would be a terrible irony if its aftermath destroyed "the American creed" in the 2000s.
The truth is that IS some genetic component and some culture/ environment influence and lots of Free Will. I believe in a colorblind, judge everybody as an individual kind of society.
I'm biased in this. Could it be wrong?