-
The name of our manchurin president, Barack Hussein Obama II seems to be an attempt to desensitise andf confuse the populace It's true you know. That's why they put him against Sarah Palin, they wanted to cause confusion because her and Michael Palin.
-
Well, at least I got a quick answer - here is his response. 'I do know a lot about game theory, but sorry I never found a good introductory book. I just used notes that I typed up when I taught it at the undergrad level.' Someone on here has got to know Varian's book has two chapters on game theory that are a decent enough introduction at
-
This is what happens when you get your news from the BLOODY OP-ED PAGE! Here's a fuller clip of the interview surrounding the quote in question: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/14/obama-blames-atms-high-unemployment And here is a summary for those who can't even spare 2 minutes to get their facts straight: Obama was asked in
-
I would guess that it is due to the correlation between looks and intelligence. Attractive women seek men with high income potential, so they are more likely to marry intelligent men and make intelligent, beautiful babies. Whereas unattractive women Also, more positive feedback. If someone asked you whether attractive waitresses got tipped more than
-
Per that definition, "monopoly power" would seem to abound to the point of being almost meaningless. Also, why should people be forced away from pricing over marginal cost? Slow down there buddy, I never said people should be forced away from pricing over marginal cost. That's a pretty ridiculous position to take and I'm a reasonable
-
That definition is meaningless. (And certainly wrong about Mises). I didn't think it required a response. But here's one anyway You know, rather than merely asserting that with key words in italics you could actually try to argue in favour of this stance. Thing is, the meaning of that statement is pretty damn clear, in fact it uses two very
-
Markets solve problems of/in reality . Bureaucrats solve problems of/in models of reality . The fatal conceit is the one of humans equating models of reality with reality itself. Expecting to know how markets could solve problem X, implies arrogance about how close one's model of reality is to reality itself. You're equivocating, markets solve
-
Governments everywhere intervene in currency markets- is this because markets can't handle currency? More and more governments are getting involved in regulating the internet- do they really have a good reason to do so? I'm not really satisfied with the argument that because the government has been involved in something for X amount of time
-
Obviously science is the only thing that will have an answer- but besides that- why the assumption that taxes will prevent widespread anti-biotic use? It never will, people who need anti-biotics will get their hands on them no matter what they have to do. It'll certainly increase crime and cause more human misery than the proponents of such taxes
-
Coase, like I said, I think it's a tricky issue because of uncertainty issues, positives externalities, intergenerational concerns and the like. So I think that the appropriate response depends on a number of variables, amongst which I think a) likelihood of this becoming a significant problems b) timing of this becoming a specific problems c) size