Steve Sailer questions the idea of finding people too rich to bribe. I tend to agree and sum it up with a classic Mr. Burns quotation:
Homer: Mr. Burns, you’re the richest man in the world. You own everything!
Mr. Burns: Ah yes, but I’d give it all up for just a little bit more.
The fundamental problem here isn’t finding incorruptible people; that’s practically impossible. Instead, what they should aim to do is minimize the ability of the government to engage in acts of thievery and reduce its control. This makes it less valuable to bribe government officials, which means fewer government officials will receive bribes.
Steve Sailer has been posting a lot lately about wage suppression, especially in software development and tech recruiters. The special agreement hiring policy doesn’t quite say what Sailer’s saying, though—the collusion involves managers, not engineers.
On the other side of things, where I think Sailer’s argument is much stronger, we’re getting our annual “We’ve got to increase immigration or else the US will end!” warnings.
I’ve been hanging on to a few for a while, but they’re pretty solid.
- Obamacare is the law of the land, which means we have to follow it…except when it harms Democrats’ chances of election. I don’t necessarily mind this; I just want the exceptions to be permanent, across the board exceptions. In other words, President Obama and I both agree that the law should be repealed; we’re just bickering about how long to repeal Obamacare.
- But hey, at least the law isn’t causing jobs to go away; President Obama knows because his Chicagoland tactics are making sure of it.
- Harry Reid says that a third of Americans are liars. Well, “almost all” of a third of the population…including Julie Boonstra.
- When you calculate how much this mockery of legislation costs, remember all of those failed state exchanges. Billions of dollars spent on non-functional websites; that sounds par for the federal government course.
- Obamacare “signups” were over 4 million a month ago. The problem is that this isn’t a number of how many people actually purchased a policy, how many people actually paid for a policy, and how many people who paid for a policy weren’t insured before Obamacare caused them to lose their insurance. In other words, that number is meaningless.
- Remember when the Onion mocked government? Unless this is deep cover sarcasm, the Onion has fallen a long way.
It appears that there’s been a 17-year pause in global warming, meaning that current temperature measurements are outside the IPCC climate models’ 95% confidence bound. In fact, as Judith Curry’s paper notes, based on data that we’ve collected, only 2% of climate model simulations would potentially fit the data. This is all despite CO2 levels increasing, meaning that, as Raymond notes, people with an ideological stake in the matter will now need to put together a kludge which tries to explain these results without losing their money-making “ultimate threat to humanity” spin.
In other news, if CO2 were related to global warming, one way to end it would be to get rid of environmentalist movements.
The Obama administration, in the course of defending ARRA, try to argue that they aren’t falling for Frederic Bastiat’s broken window fallacy. The problem is, they don’t understand the parable. They’re essentially saying to people, “Hey, we know what you really want, and trust us: it’s better than what you would have wasted your money on.” They wrap their spending preferences in fancy terms and try to pretend that it will be better than what people would have spent their money on had they the opportunity.
That is the fallacy here, and exactly what the Obama administration has done with ARRA.
Ken Salazar, no longer in a position where he might actually have some sort of responsibility, says that the Keystone pipeline is a good idea.
Not too long ago, I pointed out a study which argued that single parenthood was a strong indicator of long-term stagnation.
Steve Sailer has also looked at this study and has found serious problems with it. He focuses especially on a chart showing parts of the country with children who move from the bottom quintile to the top.
The chart, at a glance, is pretty absurd: West Virginia is an economic growth center, whereas Charlotte, the Triangle, and Atlanta are nowheresvilles. This explains why people have flocked to West Virginia and away from the new south.
Sailer’s note is that it seems like Raj Chetty, et al, do not really take cost of living into account. As Sailer notes, a child of two New York City residents who earn a modest amount moves to Charlotte. This person may make less than his parents but nevertheless has a higher standard of living, in that he can afford a house, car, and other accoutrements his parents would never be able to touch. Also, Sailer points out that the graph itself is a pretty good map of the percentage of black residents in an area.