I don’t know where Razib Khan finds the time to read and publish all that he does, but I’m glad that he does since a lot of it I find interesting.
My comment is on the Yglesias piece, since that sort of thing is in my wheelhouse. I remember the conviction back during the GFC(!?) that heads would roll on Wall Street. I never believed any of it because, while I thought the reasons for the severity of the crisis were many, the root cause was a broad devaluation of lending standards. Wall Street was too clever by half in accommodating this credit binge with CDSs and CDOs and MBSs and the like, but there was nothing criminal in their fiendishly clever ways of taking advantage of an environment characterized by high leverage and poor credits betting that housing prices could never go down.
Our ( Canada’s ) interim 🙏PM, Mark Carney, claims the crisis was the result of a misplaced faith in efficient markets. That sounds innocuous, but isn’t, since it is such wrong-headed academese that it speaks to a lack of faith in markets period.
Was just learning about the Ming dynasty today. The first Ming Emperor does seem to fit the mold of an Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini -- a man who came from humble origins but who managed to become ruler. In this sense he seems much more modern than most leaders from European history.
One of the main reasons the “fifth caliph” was so consequential, even more so than the four prior ones, is that he is a historical figure and the others are mythological. More detail details here:
I'm finishing up David Lay William's <i>The Greatest of All Plagues</i> on the recommendation of <b><a href="https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/poison-for-the-soul">Branko Milanovic</a></b>, about the long concern in Western political theory with economic inequality due to its implications for the stability of republican polities: Plato, the Gospels, Hobbes, Adam Smith, Rousseau (of course) and Marx (as a communist because of deeply held republican values). I already read (most of) Milanovic's own book on inequality in economic theory, which I think is of much narrower interest. BTW, neither thinks that Marx is concerned with inequality directly but only to the extent that it interferes with more important, republican, values. Next up, again at Milanovic's suggestion, Darrin McMahon <i>Equality: An Elusive Idea</i>
I don’t know where Razib Khan finds the time to read and publish all that he does, but I’m glad that he does since a lot of it I find interesting.
My comment is on the Yglesias piece, since that sort of thing is in my wheelhouse. I remember the conviction back during the GFC(!?) that heads would roll on Wall Street. I never believed any of it because, while I thought the reasons for the severity of the crisis were many, the root cause was a broad devaluation of lending standards. Wall Street was too clever by half in accommodating this credit binge with CDSs and CDOs and MBSs and the like, but there was nothing criminal in their fiendishly clever ways of taking advantage of an environment characterized by high leverage and poor credits betting that housing prices could never go down.
Our ( Canada’s ) interim 🙏PM, Mark Carney, claims the crisis was the result of a misplaced faith in efficient markets. That sounds innocuous, but isn’t, since it is such wrong-headed academese that it speaks to a lack of faith in markets period.
I'm gonna start eating maggots. High in protein and fat. Rotting flesh not so much. Thanks for the info.
Was just learning about the Ming dynasty today. The first Ming Emperor does seem to fit the mold of an Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini -- a man who came from humble origins but who managed to become ruler. In this sense he seems much more modern than most leaders from European history.
It's always amazing to read your book reviews. Thank you for sharing!
One of the main reasons the “fifth caliph” was so consequential, even more so than the four prior ones, is that he is a historical figure and the others are mythological. More detail details here:
https://a.co/d/hbNikPM
I'm finishing up David Lay William's <i>The Greatest of All Plagues</i> on the recommendation of <b><a href="https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/poison-for-the-soul">Branko Milanovic</a></b>, about the long concern in Western political theory with economic inequality due to its implications for the stability of republican polities: Plato, the Gospels, Hobbes, Adam Smith, Rousseau (of course) and Marx (as a communist because of deeply held republican values). I already read (most of) Milanovic's own book on inequality in economic theory, which I think is of much narrower interest. BTW, neither thinks that Marx is concerned with inequality directly but only to the extent that it interferes with more important, republican, values. Next up, again at Milanovic's suggestion, Darrin McMahon <i>Equality: An Elusive Idea</i>
Hi - typo alert. The author of Imperial China is named Mote, not Motte.