Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Plotting retirement.
  2. For those who suspect, just suspect mind you, that cyclists are just a tad different.
  3. Gosh, do you wonder why such stories aren’t in the mainstream?
  4. Ze French in Mali.
  5. Oh, and for when “just a flashlight” isn’t quite enough.
  6. OWS demographics, what the right knew all along … did the left?
  7. Well, you may have quibbles with the President’s Holocaust statement … but at least he didn’t try that.
  8. Woops.
  9. Interesting. Say irrigation was shown to be a larger factor in global warming CO2 from burning hydrocarbons … what then? Would the greens still be agin it?
  10. Heh.
  11. Taking your game seriously.

8 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. OWS demographics, what the right knew all along … did the left?

    I like their concept of a ‘disporportionate number of men’ as 55%. Considering sleeping in a park in the cold sounds like something that would appeal less to many women than men, 55% actually sounds like it was some typo of engineered affirmative action system rather than just the ‘natural’ number.

    As for the other criticisms….not really very 1% at all.

  2. Interesting. Say irrigation was shown to be a larger factor in global warming CO2 from burning hydrocarbons … what then? Would the greens still be agin it?

    Sort of like the wind farm fiasco we went thru a while back with you, it seems irrigation has nothing to do with global warming, but local rainfall and perhaps global storm formation.

    But how do you treat such issues? The fact is you have a case where costs are not internalized. The solution is to try to internalize the costs, if that’s impossible then you have to regualte them.

  3. Boonton,
    “As for the other criticisms….not really very 1% at all.” … hmmm.

    More than a third of the demonstrators in New York lived in households with annual incomes greater than $100,000. More than two-thirds were employed professionals, and 76 percent were college educated—of those, 28 percent had attended elite universities.

    How is that not 1%?

  4. Boonton,

    The solution is to try to internalize the costs, if that’s impossible then you have to regualte them.

    Are you saying if irrigation was a problem you’d cut back on it?

  5. Boonton,

    “It’s a pretty affluent demographic and highly educated,” said Professor Ruth Milkman, one of the study’s authors. “Many were the children of the elite, if you will.”

    Uhm … how is that not 1%?

  6. More than a third of the demonstrators in New York lived in households with annual incomes greater than $100,000

    How is that not 1%?

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/16/156688596/what-americans-earn

    About 20% of households in the entire US are over $100K a year. 30% are between $50K-$100K. Given that NYC has higher than average incomes it wouldn’t be surprising if about 1/3 of households have $100K+.

    “Many were the children of the elite, if you will.”

    Uhm … how is that not 1%?

    Wouldn’t a group of children of the elite be dramatically above the averages? Or are you saying the elite of NYC have taken exceptional vows of poverty? If being extra generous to the stats presented, 33% of $100K people is not much more than the 20% of the population they represent.

    Are you saying if irrigation was a problem you’d cut back on it?

    You internalize the cost. If the price of fertilizer goes up what does a farmer do? He evaluates the price he can fetch for a particular crop versus the costs to grow that crop. If one crop becomes unprofitable he cuts it and switches to another. if an entire region of land becomes unprofitable to farm then he won’t farm it at all….which is why you won’t find any farms in Manhattan even though there were plenty 200 years ago. It’s not like the soil has gone bad.

  7. Boonton,
    I see. You’ve taken a precise definition of 1% to refute the data … unlike the demonstrators themselves who would have identified the same elite as Ms Milkman with the 1%. Whatever.

    You internalize the cost.

    What cost? You mean you’d levy a artificial estimated cost? Or you’d wait until actual (hypothesized) effects occur and that presents the cost.

  8. I see. You’ve taken a precise definition of 1% to refute the data … unlike the demonstrators themselves who would have identified the same elite as Ms Milkman with the 1%. Whatever.

    Not really following you here. This is like the line that they were ‘disporportionately male’ at 55% male. 20% of US households are $100K+. In NYC that’s probably closer to at least 1/3. 1/3 of the prostors came from households over $100K. In other words, it sounds like they looked like what you’d expect if you picked people randomly out of the phone book (if phone books were still used). You and your academic seem to be confusing the difference between being a household that makes $100K+ (a minority but not a 1% one by anymeans) and a person who makes $100K+.

    What cost? You mean you’d levy a artificial estimated cost?

    How is it artificial? Let’s say your propery is next to mine. When I use fertilizer the runoff seaps onto your land and destroys your drinking water. It’s absurd to say the cost of destroying your well is an ‘artifical cost’. To see why just imagine instead of two different lots it was one big lot on an incline owned by you. In that case you wouldn’t farm on the higher portion of the land with fertilizer unless the value of your crop offset the cost to your well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>