2. Human beings haven’t actually domesticated cats very much.
3. Camels defeat the camel nationalism of the Qatar blockade.
4. The economics of pan-handling, long, recommended (pdf).
5. How long was China communist?
6. In defense of Paul Zukovsky (do not speak ill of the dead).
“5. How long was China communist?”
I think the author has a point, but it’s a limited point. China is still ruled by the Communist party and the current crop may not be 100% central planners, but roughly 30% Chinese industry was still directly state controlled at the Federal level in 2008.
Claiming that Communism disappeared in China in 1982 seems an unsupportable stretch.
Plenty of societies we’d definitely call “capitalist” have existed with large percentages of the economy in state ownership, though.
Sure, but that makes my point. The author insists that anything less than 100% socialist is not true Communism. But few people think that the US has never been a capitalist country, even though it’s always had some government run businesses.
The relevant point is whether the Chinese have experience with markets. The Chinese do, the Soviets mostly didn’t. The name of the political party in charge really doesn’t matter.
Well, technically, according to Stalin we’ve never seen communism, only socialism. Someday, and the people Venezuela hope soon, the socialist methods of production will kick in, then nirvana.
I’ve often wondered why the start demarcation between socialism and capitalism with little discussion of the reality of the situation which is Interventionism. Not direct ownership by the state but control regardless of whose name is on the title. It seems apparent that the real argument is on the mix of socialism and capitalism as implemented through regulation or direct bureaucratic control, or control through guild socialism. Obviously, except for those at the universities seems, total state ownership does not work well over the long term.
“What Stalin calls socialism corresponds by and large to Marx’s concept of the “early phase” of communism. Stalin reserves the term communism exclusively for what Marx called the “higher phase” of communism. Socialism, in the sense in which Stalin has lately used the term, is moving towards communism, but is in itself not yet communism. Socialism will turn into communism as soon as the increase in wealth to be expected from the operation of the socialist methods of production has raised the lower standard of living of the Russian masses to the higher standard which the distinguished holders of important offices enjoy in present-day Russia.”
–von Mises, Ludwig (1947). Planned Chaos
“There is the Soviet pattern of all-round socialization of all enterprises and their outright bureaucratic management; there is the German pattern of Zwangswirtschaft, towards the complete adoption of which the Anglo-Saxon countries are manifestly tending; there is guild socialism, under the name of corporativism still very popular in some Catholic countries. There are many other varieties.”
–von Mises, Ludwig (1947). Planned Chaos (LvMI) .
I think the author should go to China and stand outside the Communist Party headquarters and declare that China is not communist and wait to see how long the so-called non-communist Chinese government takes to arrest him and throw him in jail for breaking various Chinese communist laws.
Arguably, the reason they don’t won’t people around saying the regime is not Commumist anymore is the same they don’t want people aeound say they exploit/control/terrorize their people: because it is true. The Soviets and the Chinese spent years accusing each other of not being really Communists and not really caeing about the people and freedom and internationalism. Anyway, there were economic changes in China, the Communist Party still have the last word on everything even if there are more freedom than there was under Mao. If the current system srill can be called Communism is largely a semantics issue. The point, I think, is China and Japan are the Evil Empires of our time.
as a thought experiment, suppose the ruling party in China was called the “Chinese Florist Party” instead of “Chinese Communist Party” and they had an aesthetics based around floral arrangements instead of Communist cults-of-personality. In every other respect they were the same and had the same people and policies. Do you think you could stand outside the headquarters of the Chinese Florist Party and declare “these aren’t real florists! you just like the way it looks!” and that they wouldn’t arrest you?
in other words, the problem is autocratic authoritarianism rather than how authentically communist the Chinese government is or isn’t.
They would agree with you and instruct you about how their system is “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. You can actually go to jail for propagating Stalinist or even Maoist ideals.
1. The most glaring omission is the failure to even hazard a guess at how much is being spent to (possibly) obtain these very marginal improvements.
“the failure to even hazard a guess at how much is being spent to (possibly) obtain these very marginal improvements.”
These guesses are not often made in American healthcare.
Did you miss the part where it said the following?: “An analysis of mortality changes after Medicaid expansion suggests that expanding Medicaid saves lives at a societal cost of $327,000 to $867,000 per life saved.”
I can only imagine what would happen if in my next project I say that the estimated cost is between “$327,000 to $867,000”
Might as well say they just don’t know.
It’s not $50,000 and it’s not $5 million. It’s what’s called an order-of-magnitude estimate.
Make the case Africa has the best health care in the world because there exists no insurance, no government control, no AMA, no malpractice suits, no Medicaid, no Medicare, no tax subsidized employer health insurance.
This is the best part of the trip, streets and shoes and avenues, mSGK bought a little; yes he did. This is the trip, the best part, I really like.
#2: cats a fine as they are. I don’t imagine the cat equivalent of the evolutionary cul-de-sac known as “pug”.
Humans get along with cats through mutually beneficial exchange as opposed the the dominance impose on dogs and other domesticated animals.
Re: this “exchange” with cats, what’s in it for us?
You dare question open borders for cats bigot?
Tell that to the Australians, who now have a tasty cat recipe, apparently. ‘An Australian has come up with a novel solution to the millions of feral cats roaming the Outback: eat them.
Wild cats – the escaped descendants of domestic cats – kill millions of small native animals each year. Now the tables have turned and they find themselves on the menu.
A bush tucker competition held at the weekend in Alice Springs, in the Red Centre of the continent, featured something new: wild cat casserole.
“It’s a white meat,” said Kay Kessing, who came up with the recipe. “They vary a lot. The first cat I cooked didn’t have a strong flavour. I put a lot of ingredients with it and made a beautiful stew.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561615/Cat-casserole-plan-to-save-Australias-wildlife.html
vermin eradication, mostly. they’re nice to look at too.
Cry rabbit, and let slip the barnes and noble.
I have killed feral cats that were attacking my birds. It must be done patiently in the winter. They are extremely wily, but slower and more desperate in the snow.
In some Nordic countries you can kill unleashed cats. Pointless and cruel. I only kill the predatory feral ones.
#1 – “There is also strong evidence that coverage expansion increases access to preventive services, which can directly maintain or improve health. Studies of Massachusetts’ health care reform9 and the ACA’s Medicaid expansion found higher rates of preventive health care visits,11 and al- though the utility of the “annual exam” is uncer- tain, such visits may facilitate more specific evi- dence-based screening.”
Seriously, it is very hard to make points based on evidence like this. The main problem here is that we keep mixing several different problems into this big thing called “health care”. Average life has been raised tremendously without having health care as a right. Are we saying that we want to “increase access” to increase that even further? What’s the evidence? OR are we saying that it is unfair that poor people have a hard time getting basic care? You see, there are totally and completely different problems, and the solutions are very likely different too.
Ino other words, Africa has a far more optimal health care system with the maximum cost benefit, and extending life by a year there would cost just far to much, that you would happily welcome being deported to Africa, as long as it was where they speak English.
#5 Not generally but certainly more than most the Chinese personality can be categorized as pragmatic, conscientious, and very unsentimental – almost ruthlessly so – in certain cases. “改革开放“ was simply a realization that communism in the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist fashion was an unsustainable solution for social and economic governance of China, a realization that I suspect Mao and Zhou knew from the outset, but couldn’t actualize because they needed to motivate the citizenry (ruthlessly unsentimental).
China is China. Always has been. Always will be despite whatever ideological table cloth you choose to throw on it.
#2: you mean cats are inner-directed, like to prowl and hunt, don’t fancy strange cats on their territory, like their routines, and give and receive affection according to their moods and not yours? Say it ain’t so…
they also correctly believe in Papal infallibility and support the revival of the Monarchy. such wonderful creatures.
The Russian timeline is wrong. New economic policy in 1922-28 allowed limited private enterprise. Also, land ownership remained private until 1932-33. The basic idea is that the central planning was imposed gradually sometimes more than a decade after the revolution (exception in the occupied countries such as Baltics, Moldova, Western Ukraine where it happened immediately) and it was not dismantled immediately. In Russia first private enterprise were allowed in 1986, prices liberalized in 1992, and privatization happened in 1992-95.
General point well taken, Ilya. However, move to markets started much earlier than the 80s.
Under Khrushcheve there was substantial decentralization of planning, with many enterprises freed from central planning,although in many cases put under republic or lower level planning. But there was an opening to markets in many sectors, especially in agricutlure, with collective farm markets providing as much as a quarter of the value of ag output from as early as the late 50s. In the 60s the Kosygin reforms introduced accounting and incentives for many enterprises that emphasized efficiencies and profit-like measures. There was also the matter that even for planned enteprises, many used black markets to provide necessary inputs to meet their targets,the so-called tolkachi, or “fixers.”
It is true that the central planning apparatus remained in place from the late 20s to the end of the regime, but outside of the high Stalin period, really a bit over a quarter of a century, that system was not nearly so rigid as the article suggests and usually had large amounts of the economy either in outright markets or else only loosely planned and not from the center.
The panhandling article has got to be a spoof –the stilted writing, the dispassionate academic tone, the “his or hers” reference, forcing people to confront what they learned in “the church, temple or mosque.” A terrific parody of academic writing.
+1
Aren’t most mosques and churches temples?
I never knew panhandling was such a complex and fascinaring matter.
“Λ|∃ , ∈
.
Similarly we define as the subset of Π of assigned people under M:
–
Π|∃ , ∈
.
A matching M Is congruent to a matching M’ if and only if –
′ and –
′ . The size of a
matching M is the number of elements in M: || –
| |=||. Let denote the set of all
matchings of size n.
For each location l, let
denote the minimum revenue a panhandler would earn at that
location for that period of time (more precisely, the ex ante expected value of this amount). For each
person j, let ! denote opportunity cost of panhandling for a unit of time (including stigma and
exertion), and let “! denote the excess revenue that person j would make at any location—which is
implicitly assumed to be the same at all locations. Let
! –
! # “!.
For ease of exposition we index locations in decreasing order of
a”
#5…Who really qualifies as a communist has long been a matter of opinion. An old Soviet era joke…”Brezhnev’s mother pays him a visit. He gives her a tour of his estate and shows her his garage full of fancy foreign cars. Her response: “But Lyonya, what will you do if the Communists come back?”
#5. Strikes me as a fairly banal observation that was obvious to a lot of us circa 1991-1993 and widely discussed at the time.
#2 House cats also show none of the typical signs of animal domestication, such as infantilization of facial features, decreased tooth size, and docility.
When my daughter was born and I heard her cry for the first time, my first though was (bizarrely) ‘She sounds just like a cat’.
To put it another way, the meow of a hungry cat sounds just like a newborn baby. Whether that’s a feature of domestication or an adaptation designed to exploit humans is hard to say.
Maybe children learned to cry and curr the way cats do to curry favor with cat lovers.
Your daughter doesn’t have this, does she?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri_du_chat
Nope, I got all the most accurate genetic screening done. And she definitely didn’t have low birth weight or poor growth. I just think babies sound a lot like cats normally.
Anyway she sounded like an ADULT cat, not a kitten. A very hungry adult cat.
1 is very interesting. It is written in a way to look as optimistic as possible without really committing to any really strong opinion. Both advocates and detractors will be able to take from it what they want — advocates from the optimism, detractors from the care with which the modest claims within are hedged. The word “nuance” appears twice and “mixed” five times. The word “significant” is used 16 times, roughly half of them to things which were not, or “borderline” significant and the other half to things that were. On mortality changes they punt almost completely. Insurance clearly makes people go to doctors more often, though why that should surprise anyone is a mystery. The financial risk benefits are hopelessly confounded with the ability to pay for insurance. The mortality benefits are questionable. The result for chronic illnesses is “mixed.” Suffice it to say that this view has had very little impact on my Facebook feed.
For me, I read the piece as just a bit too optimistic about the evidence and too willing to take certain claims at face value. For instance, let’s look at claim that the Massachusetts health study showed that expanding insurance coverage, primarily private insurance coverage, reduces mortality. The authors fail to note that at the time of the law’s passing, 95% of it’s population was insured, and the law raised it by 2 percentage points. It just seems implausible to me that such a small coverage expansion would lead to observed reductions in mortality enough to drive it down for the entire population. So what’s really going on here? Similarly, the author’s talk about self-reported health, and note that it’s a an important predictor on reduced mortality. But the evidence generating this conclusion is never really discussed, and the authors never consider the possibility that something other than insurance might be generating those reductions in mortality and the subsequent increase in self-reported health. Of course, two of the authors of this paper are M.D.s, so I take it they wouldn’t exactly be too happy with the conclusion that access to health insurance is not the strongest predictor of good health.
#4: “Interestingly, a fraudulent organization–UHO–probably helped panhandlers (since
inframarginal solicitors saw their revenue increase by more than $15) while an idealistic organization–
OWS–probably hurt them.”
Adam Smith: “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
Furtwangler {natashatova} declared in 1932, the year Goebbels snapped his fingers and declared he was not a jew, that German music was one of the very few things that actually to the elevation of prestige.
#6- every talented jerk in the world has people ready to defend them because of their talent. There’s a belief that greatness allows you to treat others poorly.
The response you linked to does not rebut the quotes in the article. Just the manifesto he wrote makes this look like an ungenerous, spiteful man.
We should give the dead the benefit of the doubt, but we shouldn’t cover up their shortcomings either. It seems like the author feels these should be ignored.
1. I am reminded of a Freakonomics podcast “The Suicide Paradox”. At one point they are discussing the timeline of suicidal impulse and whether intervention can deter someone from ending their life. “As soon as the terrors of life reach the point at which they outweigh the the terrors of death, a man will put an end to his life.”–Schopenhauer. I realize this is a morose way to approach healthcare, but sometimes people need to feel a sense of purpose. Investment in one another should be the ultimate goal in any society. Otherwise suicide by drugs or violent action will continue to escalate with rising inequality.
2. My beautiful and sassy tabby refuses to evolve. I am merely her servant.
3. Starving camels in the desert is barbaric, but considering the offenders I am not surprised.
4. The panhandlers should coordinate with CUNY to optimize their profits.
Tolstoy’s “Martin the Cobbler” is a parable that stays with me. I know there is a similar Jesus in disguise story taught in Protestantism and I am continually baffled by the hostility many Christians have to panhandlers and the needy in general (see topic 1 above). I include a local story on panhandling and the response by more rural states for perspective. http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article146606019.html
6. To be included in NYT Book of the Dead II?
2. Your cat wants you to be her equal, not her servant. Take my word for it, if you decide tomorrow to make your cat into a roommate or otherwise treat her as somebody on your level, you will bring her joy. 4. Tolstoy, more than any other writer at his level, mistreated the poor. Christians do not have hostility to panhandlers, or the needy in general. Why would you say such a thing? It is as if you never met a Christian.
1. Broader health insurance as a political placebo?