Where’d you get that?
Well, I saw it on some website, but then I also saw it on the DP
I thought you might have seen it here
No, I think it was on the Examiner
Did you catch the h/t at that link? That’s why I thought it would have been cool if that’s where you saw it.
This guy used to be a typical “conservative”. Evidently he’s got a thinking head on his shoulders and eyes that can see…
(not to mention, 45,000 subscribers )
“for economists, they lok at a problem and they ask who can get rich by solving this problem? And if you have a decent answer, they say good, we don’t need to worry about solving this problem. On the other hand, noneconomists will say look there are people getting rich off of this, and that’s the problem!”
XD
The video I posted above is quite nice. The guy’s an amazing speaker.
I read Caplan’s paper on this some time back. It’s good but it seems to me to be over-analysis of something that could be stated in much fewer words. Also, I object to the idea of treating “irrationality” as a good and quantifying it, even though I think the general gist of what he’s saying is correct. The correct tools for this line of investigation probably come from biology (the evolutionary roots of xenophobia, for example) rather than from applied economics.
Clayton -
Ron Paul wins highest ACLU ratings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zrAXfIdRqmU
I don’t get it
If you happened to catch Rand Paul on Face the Nation you might have heard him throw a zinger about Santorum getting booed for interrupting a restaurant crowd trying to watch a football game…hehehe
It is from the end of Back to the Future. The “who will build the roads” is a common objection to a voluntary society.
Even though roads could be build without coercion, the post is implying that a voluntary society will be so awesome and technologically advanced that we won’t need roads.
FLYING CARS FTW.
Haha, someone mentioned that to see which is closer to “money” (gold, or dollar), you should use Google’s ngram statistics. Well, this is what they show:
The hardest part of evolution to accept - from an emotional perspective - is that human beings are animals. But nothing could be more obvious. Not only are human beings animals, we are a specific type of animal… we are mammals. And we’re not just any mammal, we are primate mammals. We share many phenotypical (physical form) features with chimpanzees (our closest surviving relative), apes and other primates. We share phenotypical features with other mammals such as bears and even whales, though fewer than we share with primates. And we share the blueprint of life itself - DNA - with all living things on this planet… plants, animals… even viruses.
So, if you can move past the emotional “ick factor” of thinking of the human body as an animal body and the human brain as animal brain, then you have overcome the motivational impediments to looking at the facts of biological history on this planet (called “evolution”) dispassionately. And once you look at the biological history of this planet dispassionately, you realize that Darwin was right. And Darwin was not the first to bat around these ideas, he was simply the first to present a powerful scientific case based on careful observation of the physical world combined with detailed arguments informed by his state-of-the-art understanding of biological science.
Not only do individuals follow the pattern of trait heredity within a species, all species are evidence of a very, very long history of common heredity (commonly known as common descent) which traces back to very early life forms, which probably arose on this planet a couple billion years ago.
Clayton -
Don’t you know? Even the universe is only 4000 years old