Samefacts

I have struggled with this dichotomy for many years. I still feel that "affirmative action" is inherently discriminatory. But I too can offer no alternative to foster change. Considering the circumstances http://www.samefacts.com/2012/04/msm-mainstream-media/womens-worth-wom… I reluctantly accept that the end justifies the means.

>...It "goes back" to Nixon needing a tool to criminalize the anti-war and racial justice movement. The alleged Ehrlichman quote is brought up every single time drug prohibition is mentioned but it should be taken with at least some skepticism. The surviving members of his family don't believe he made the quote: >...Multiple family members of Ehrlichman (who died in 1999) challenge the veracity of the quote: The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father...We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond.[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman This is a very explosive quote - if Baum had included it in his book in 1996 I am sure it would have garnered a huge amount of attention for the book. Instead Baum did not include it in his book, but instead would wait for many years before making the claim when Ehrlichman was no longer around to dispute the quote. If the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it isn't a very accurate description of the overall drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs" rhetoric, the actual substance of his policies is a bit different than what people think it was: >...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug…

There's a lot more discussion of this post at the author's own blog: http://www.samefacts.com/2010/08/education-policy/a-letter-to-my-stude… Here's the comment I posted: I copied the following figures from the comment at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1631794 1965-1966: $4B nominal ($28B, constant 2010 dollars) 1982-1983: $25.3B nominal ($57.2B) 2008-2009: $144B ($145) 2009-2010: $119.2B ($119.2B) According to the comment thread, the state population increased from 15 717 204 in 1960 to 36 961 664 in 2010, which figures I assume are from the census. My own calculations: that's about 1.7% population growth per year on average (1.017^50 * 15717204 ≈ 36 500 000) so we can interpolate the population in 1966 as 15717204 * 1.017^6 ≈ 17 400 000. That gives a state tax burden of roughly US$1610 per person in constant 2010 dollars. The 2009–2010 tax burden is US$3200 per person. Therefore, at least over the 1966 to 2010 time period, if these figures are correct, then far from being the victims of an "enormous cheat" or "terrible swindle" in which state taxes were cut to the bone by a generation supported by state taxes, necessitating massive cuts in public services, state taxes per capita have nearly doubled during that period, adjusted for inflation using the CPI. Some other possibilities were suggested in the comment thread: • Maybe the CPI isn't the right deflator to use, because most of the state's revenues go to education and health care, not vegetables and…

Which is a problem in itself: It is getting difficult to appreciate just how rich or poor you are! - The income gap is growing, creating many more levels of wealth, each considerably richer/poorer than the next. - A lot of wealth is kinda in the background, like the real estate someone's parents might have that isn't discussed, but will probably be inherited someday? - Products and services cater to the different wealth tiers and create separation and filter bubbles. This results in very weathy people innocently betraying their ignorance in various public statements, like https://www.samefacts.com/2012/01/everything-else/mitt-romney-and-ann-… https://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2016/11/18/steve-young-usfl-40-million

There is a broad consensus among liberal and conservative economists that a corporate tax rate above zero is a dumb idea. Not quite. To add to tptacek's earlier comment: Planet Money's feature was strongly criticized afterwards for mischaracterizing the panelists's opinions, and overselling them as full-fledged policy positions [1,2]. Besides, the members were not representative enough to reliably infer a "broad consensus" from their agreements alone. [1] http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-disagreement-behind-… [2] http://www.samefacts.com/2012/08/drug-policy/planet-money-and-planet-e…

Michael O'Hare (Berkeley Prof) has an article about why public transit really wants to be subsidized: http://www.samefacts.com/2007/05/energy-and-environment/more-on-transi… The short version is that the marginal cost for an additional rider is basically zero.

Here's a proposal: reduce the drinking age, forbid drivers under 21 from driving with any detectable level of alcohol, and raise the alcohol tax. http://www.samefacts.com/archives/drug_policy_/2008/08/of_amethysts_an…

> the argument for comparative advantage has nothing to do with the redistribution of income But it has. Comparative advantage shows you that the country as a whole can afford more with free trade than before. But one of the theoretical consequences of the Heckscher-Ohlin trade model [1] is factor price equalisation, ie in once country wages might fall while returns to capital increase. Inevitably, there are winners and losers. Now, since economics rightfully shies away from inter-personal utility comparison, that does not tell you whether the country as a whole is better off; unless you invoke redistribution, such that everyone has at least as much as before (now you can say that everyone is (weakly) better off, and some strongly, and thus the country). This is well understood (see eg [2] for some more on this issue, quoting James Kwak, & I'm pretty sure Krugman has articulated the same). (This, btw, is not an argument from authority, but an answer to "I don't know where you got the idea") > Of course there are economic winners and losers, but by attempting to fully protect everyone, everyone becomes a loser How about comparing to northern Europe, and not some dystopia nobody is arguing for anymore? My point was that the case for free trade is good and valid, and it rests on (and should go along with) redistribution/compensation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher–Ohlin_model [2]…