Comments on: Links 7/15: Link-Carbon Battery

By: Dishwasher

Dishwasher — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:26:52 +0000

But even at that what would cause that? Would it be some effect of unexpected money meaning it is a 1 time benefit or what?
I would bet it is spurious but it would be good if it were not.

Report comment

By: Smithe344

Smithe344 — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:42:44 +0000

Great article post.Really thank you! Fantastic. kbkagabbabbggfde

Report comment

By: Oliver Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:11:41 +0000

What, indeed, about the communists who rule our countries? Is Saul Alinsky a criminal “just” because he bombed the Pentagon? Is Warren Wilhelm/Bill de Blasio a criminal “just” because he delivered material support to Marxist terrorists?

Society says no. The law says no. Reason says yes.

Report comment

By: Oliver Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:07:46 +0000

The most likely explanation is that it accelerates childrens’ development but doesn’t affect the level at which they top out. This is a robust finding of all these types of interventions and why IQ is less heritable in children than in adults.

Report comment

By: Floccina

Floccina — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:48:56 +0000

giving poor families money improves children’s outcomes considerably – for example, closing the financial gap between rich and poor kids would close half of the school achievement gap.

If giving poor families money really improves children’s outcomes that much, we should really try hard to find out why. Keep in mind that only 16% of people in the world earn above the USA poverty line:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba380104-24fc-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html#slide8

SO is relative poverty somehow reducing children’s ability or motivation? If it is, it hard to see how. Would it mean that people should try to be the richest people in a poor area. Is it stress due to lack of savings? That could be reduced by teach people budgeting. See here: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/

It could mean that the problem in intractable or conversely very cheap and easy to solve.

Report comment

By: Edward Scizorhands

Edward Scizorhands — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:46:45 +0000

Oh, no, I don’t think this works well at all with requiring employers to pay $15/hour.

But it seems weird to have so many people on welfare while having so much “not worth $15/hour but worth something” jobs out there that could really help poor people.

Report comment

By: Non-yomi

Non-yomi — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:14:20 +0000

The difference is that the former is an excuse for breach of contract, while the latter is a justification for upholding the contract. In the way onyomi was using it, the debtor is trying to escape repayment by arguing that the creditor should have known that the debtor would not have been able to pay (which would require in this case that the creditors had judged Greece in a way that Greece, at the time, would have likely objected to, despite now invoking the rationality of such a judgment). The debtor is essentially arguing that although the debtor agreed to the contract with no intent or ability to honor it, it was the creditor’s responsibility to determine that about the debtor, rather than the debtor’s responsibility to know that about themselves.

Your statement on behalf of the creditor is very different. For one, it is correct. The creditor is saying that both parties need to uphold the contract, and that if one of them knew at the time they made the agreement that they could not fulfill it, it was that party’s responsibility to not make the agreement. For the creditor, both parties are responsible for knowing about themselves and about their own intent and ability to uphold the contract, whereas the debtor’s excuse puts the onus on the creditor to be responsible for both parties’ ends of the bargain. Ultimately, “You should have known better” is rarely invoked by creditors as an excuse to not deliver the loan in the first place, or to violate the explicit contract in some other way that would be analogous to Greece’s role here, but as a justification for the agreed-upon contract.

Report comment

By: Matt M

Matt M — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:04:25 +0000

Now imagine you have to pay them a $15/hr “living wage”, plus provide comprehensive health care, plus social security and unemployment benefits, plus workers comp, plus ensuring OSHA standards, plus making sure your workforce is racially diverse, and so on and so forth.

Still looking like a winning proposition?

I agree with you that there’s tons of useful things the poor could do. The state just makes most of them illegal and/or impractical, while also paying them to do nothing. So employers have no incentive to offer low-skill jobs (because you have to pay as if they’re high-skill) and the poor have no incentive to take them (because you can enjoy a comparable standard of living sitting on your couch watching TV)

Report comment

By: Edward Scizorhands

Edward Scizorhands — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:19:48 +0000

37% of income? Really?

I know a couple of these “life dropouts.” Some of them eventually got off their asses and back to work. Some just keep on sitting around doing nothing.

I don’t buy that there’s nothing useful they can do. There’s a lot of jobs I wouldn’t want them to do, those where a bad job can have negative consequences on life or property.

But there is still lots of low-level work in the world that can be done, especially for the poor. Imagine an apartment building with graffiti problems. Some tenant hires 3 people to just sit in front of the building with their cell phones from midnight to 8am, with their one job being to call building security if something shows up. At worst they sleep on the job.

In the 21st century, there’s still lots of useful stuff even people with significant disabilities can do. In my upper-middle class lifestyle I don’t always see the need for those jobs but my poorer relations do.

Report comment

By: Matt M

Matt M — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:07:39 +0000

Do they really count as “out of everyone’s hair” if everyone has to pay 37% of their income in order to support these people?

A deadbeat relative who lives in your house for free and eats your food and sits around watching TV all day and contributes nothing is certainly not “out of your hair,” all we’ve done is collectivize the process, so now we ALL support EVERYONE’S deadbeat relatives.

Report comment