Comments for Die Wohltemperierte Schreibmaschine

Comment on Nature Upside Down, Coyotes in Chicago and Disney Goes to the Arctic by Les R Forgue

Les R Forgue — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:27:17 +0000

Greetings. Enjoyed your writing here, from which I quote “the city looms in memory as a mass of brick, asphalt, and concrete, so it’s nigh unfathomable to consider that coyotes were my neighbors.
“. I have lived in Chicago since the year 1946. Within the city limits are hundreds if not thousands of acres of habitat suitable for coyotes. Albeit mostly in narrow strips along rivers and railways, plenty of dense cover for coyotes to hide and to den.

Comment on Judge Orders City to Evict Seals by Shannon

Shannon — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:01:15 +0000

Having the seals at the children’s pool has been an amazing opportunity to show children that we are not separate from other species on this planet. Their presence blurs the sad line that we tend to draw between humans and nature–the idea that we are “here” and they are “out there” somewhere (or neatly confined in our zoos or wildlife amusement parks).

I believe that evicting the seals and ending our mini-coexistance with them will send the wrong message to people (especially children) in that it places our right to leisure above the seals’ right to rest safely along the shore. Surely, this type of action will be detrimental to future attitudes towards wildlife in general.

Comment on Nature Upside Down, Coyotes in Chicago and Disney Goes to the Arctic by Jay

Jay — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:44:30 +0000

Disney has been down this road before. I use one of their ’50s nature documentaries, the Academy Award-winning and partially-faked White Wilderness, as an intro into a discussion of how we know what we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Wilderness_(film)

I liked your point about the myths being perpetrated.

Comment on The California Legislature We Love to Hate by Erik

Erik — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:42:17 +0000

Upon the failure of every budget initiatives except for Prop. 1F, there’s some interesting analysis in the LA Times today:

“Despite a big advantage in cash and manpower, the campaign failed to gain traction from the start. Polls throughout the race showed all the ballot measures — except Proposition 1F — losing badly, as voters expressed equal parts confusion over the package and disdain for the Sacramento politicians who crafted it.

Californians seemed upset partly by Sacramento’s call for more money at a time when employment was sagging, retirement accounts were plunging and the average resident was struggling. Others expressed irritationat being called back to the polls just months after a presidential election.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-props20-2009may20,0,5134709.story

Comment on The California Legislature We Love to Hate by Jay T

Jay T — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:16:05 +0000

The initiative process is one the main culprits here. It is just way too easy for citizens (or, more correctly, special interest groups and uber-wealthy individuals) to fill the ballot with proposed laws and constitutional amendments.

Comment on Economics: the Religion of the Weird by Erik

Erik — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:31:20 +0000

I guess I have trouble with the idea that people can be expected to routinely pursue their own economic self-interest. It’s the kind of belief that might be possible were it easier to see and pursue a particular self-interest.

Instead, the options people are regularly presented with are likely overwhelming to compare: should I quit my job and go to school to increase my wage-earning capacity? Should I take an initially low-paying job with high-upside or a moderately okay-paying job with no room for advancement?

Can you imagine what kinds of models we could build if we had the same kinds of assumptions built into our political predictions? In that case it would seem outright absurd to assume people act in their own self-interest when, in reality, we’re constantly struggling to define what that self-interest is.

Comment on Economics: the Religion of the Weird by Jay T

Jay T — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:21:45 +0000

The rationality assumption has been called into question many times over the years–that’s why you have the “neo” in neoclassical or neoliberalism. Recently, we’ve seen the rise of behavioral economics, which attempts to fuse economics with biology and psychology.

In the end, most economists tend to assume that people are self-interested utility-maximizers. We do our best to get more of what we think will make us happy. Clearly, this assumption is not going to always be 100% correct. But the divide isn’t between the economists that realize this and the ones that do not (as the quote from Michael Goldberg would lead you to believe). The divide is between those that argue that the flaws in the assumptions (and the classically liberal model that follows) require government intervention and those that argue that the costs of government intervention out-weigh the benefits.

Comment on The Deregulatory Lie: When Businesses Get Freedom and the Rest of Us Get Screwed by Erik

Erik — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:01:36 +0000

I didn’t remember that phrase, but it’s a good one. I guess my response to this deregulation crowd is motivated by a desire to see the egregious actions of businesses limited by a prudent government. I tend to think we get more when we side with the government than when we side with the “free market.”

Comment on The Deregulatory Lie: When Businesses Get Freedom and the Rest of Us Get Screwed by Jay

Jay — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:11:32 +0000

I tend to agree that the argument of classical liberal economic theory that markets will be self-regulation is over-simplistic at best. I do believe, however, that there might be merit to the argument that regulation does more harm than good. I’m not a follower of the traditional description of the harms of regulation (i.e. it inhibits capital investment, it costs jobs, limits economic growth, etc.) but I do worry about the relationship between government and business and that the regulation intended to limit a specific industry ends up being written by the industry itself for its own benefit. A great example of this is the amazing documentary about Monsanto, Patent For A Pig. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669587865067156619

I don’t know if you remember learning about this from Mr. Hastings in 12th grade, but there is a term to describe the incestuous relationship between business and government: Iron Triangles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle

Comment on What the Border Means When War Goes on Behind It by Erik

Erik — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:44:43 +0000

Usually it pops up in the news and then disappears, but this story has been building all week. Today, I even saw the following in the LA Times:

“Clinton: U.S. shares blame for Mexican drug wars”

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fgw-clinton-mexico26-2009mar26,0,5905189.story?track=rss