Experimental philosophy of Freedom...

Behavioral Economics.... on cheating

History of Stoicism Documentary

the failure of a self-interested society...

Why Bonuses Are Bad

A lot of outrage has been expressed over the possibility that some of the people who greased the financial slide we're on may still get substantial bonuses. How can anyone at Merrill Lynch, for example, merit a bonus when its losses in the last year exceed its profits for the last forty. We should be outraged by undeserved bonuses. But we ought to be thinking bigger. Why are we paying bonuses at all? Why pay people extra-often a lot extra-just for doing their jobs? Pay them a nice salary. Give them a promotion. But a bonus?

abortion thought experiment

Left on Lanier points us to this excellent post: How to Stump Anti-Abortionists With One Question

UK MP Sir Gerald Kaufman, son of holocaust survivors: "Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza"

cut taxes

Stop Taxing the Poorest Incomes at 20 Per Cent

Removal of the income tax from the very poor may mean that the richer would pay ‘proportionally’ more on their much larger incomes, which Adam Smith said was appropriate in other contexts, and not at the expense of the poor, ‘who are least able to supply it.’ [WN V.i.d.13: p 728; Edwin Canaan, 1937 edition, Random House, p 686]

I oppose Obama's taxs cuts as stimulus--because they aren't/won't. But if he's gonna get some republican votes do it... but don't spend such a large chunk of the package on them from thor's sake!

the economists who can't get fired...

Finally somebody says it!

Economist, author and Audit pal Jeff Madrick has a piece on the Daily Beast that I’ve been hoping someone would write:

How the Entire Economics Profession Failed

Economics is probably unique among academic disciplines in the extent to which its academic debates end up affecting the lives of everyday people. Put it this way, art historians, comp-lit scholars, and anthropologists may be susceptible to the same academic pitfalls as economists—group-think, a focus on minutia, the lack of interaction with humanoid life forms, poor hygiene, etc.—but it doesn’t matter because policymakers don’t actually rely on them to make policy.

That’s not true with economics. This is a profession that could stand for some soul-searching, and some scrutiny. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad story idea for a business-news outlet.

If you screwed up flipping burgers as many times as some major economists have they'd be fired in a heart beat...

Bertrand Russell -- "Love is wise, hatred is foolish..."

"A happy life must be to a great extent a quiet life, for it is only in an atmosphere of quiet that true joy dare live."

"A process which led from the amoeba to man appeared to the philosophers to be obviously a progress though whether the amoeba would agree with this opinion is not known."

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd."

"Freedom of opinion can only exist when the government thinks itself secure."

"I believe in using words, not fists. I believe in my outrage knowing people are living in boxes on the street. I believe in honesty. I believe in a good time. I believe in good food. I believe in sex."

Who really cares?

Ezra Klein on conservatives and charitable giving... DO LIBERALS HATE CHARITY?

Every so often, his findings are trumpeted as proof that conservatives are more genuinely compassionate than liberals. And that's exactly what Nick Kristof did over the weekend.

But the difference can be explained in one word, and it's not "compassion." It's "religion." A recent survey from Google similarly found that self-identified conservatives gave more to charity than did self-identified liberals. But they also found that "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." Indeed, religious congregations are far and away the largest recipients of charitable gifts: In 2006, they made up 32.8 percent of all giving. But is that charity, at least charity as Kristof and Brooks are defining it? For instance: Utah is among the most Republican states in the nation, largely because of its heavily conservative Mormon population. Mormons tithe 10 percent a week to their church. But is that charitable giving? Or is it a membership fee? How much of it goes to anti-poverty programming? How much to church administration?

Saying that conservatives give more to charity is another way of saying that conservatives are more religious.

experimental philosophy

Seriously though, whats the difference?

Is What Blago Did Illegal?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment. Obviously, if the tapes are accurate, what Blagojevich was odious and unethical and dishonorable. But was it illegal?

Here's why I ask: the Tribune's reporting that not only was Jesse Jackson Jr. candidate five, but that Blago had a meeting with a business man named Raghuveer Nayak who's a fundraiser for both men, and it was during that conversation that Nayak offered to raise as much as $1.5 million for Blago's campaign fund if he gave Jackson the seat.

OK, it's possible that Jackson had no idea these folks (including, it appears, his brother) were scheming on his behalf. But here's my question: My understanding of the law is that there's a distinction between personal pecuniary interests/compensation and campaign fundraising. In other words: it would be manifestly illegal, obviously, if Blago was "selling" the seat in the sense of trading it fro cash for himself. But is trading the seat for fundraising help really illegal? and if so, doesn't that mean that a huge percentage of political transactions are illegal, including all those conversations during the primary about Obama inducing HRC to drop out in exchange for fundraising help to retire her debt?

I'm not defending this at all. Let me make that clear. I'm saying that politicians trade things for fundraising help all the time, it's half of what they do. So where's the line where that becomes illegal?