ksraines

5 ms·

1.
by ksraines 16y ago
Nice.
2.
by ksraines 16y ago
No, your criticism is worthless. Insofar as you are correct in pointing out where I am correct, I give you some credit. But you fail to appreciate the full scope of my correctness and thus miss the whole point. 1. Consider: who would actual
3.
by ksraines 16y ago
Point taken. However, Krugman's comments were a little stronger than what you suggest. He explicitly called for the creation of a housing bubble (see my other response below). Please don't take the link as a blanket endorsement of libertari
4.
by ksraines 16y ago
Please see my comment above. You are evidently confused about the history of the housing bubble: it was beginning just as Krugman was making these comments and writing the article I link to below. The burden is, in fact, on you to find a li
5.
by ksraines 16y ago
Let's not forget that Krugman was one of the chief advocates of the housing bubble (before it popped) and that his "berating of the raters" should begin with an apology. http://blog.mises.org/10153/krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bu...
6.
by ksraines 17y ago
If you said no - and meant it - then you are wasting it. (Or perhaps we just interpret the question differently.) Who goes to the gym just to lift the lightest weights?
7.
by ksraines 17y ago
It is perhaps easy to overlook the fact that the modern standard of "fair" is far subtler than the ancient standard of "fair". Social mobility, human rights, effective medicine, myriad technological comforts all make our lives unbelievably
8.
by ksraines 17y ago
Apart from the tortured logic, the most egregious part of the e-mail was the Prof.’s elementary math error. Question: A student goes to three classes, each for approximately the same amount of time. He arrives at the third course approximat
9.
by ksraines 17y ago
Unfortunately this article overlooks the "startup" costs for developing and deploying the requisite technologies for harvesting the profits (which are significant enough to preclude privatization, IMO). And there is another more grievous ov
10.
by ksraines 17y ago
In my view, the article is backwards. Let me ask a very honest question: what does one actually have to gain, personally, from making a fundamental contribution to physics? Consider that it takes at least a decade for prizes to be distribut
11.
by ksraines 17y ago
Funny. I thought this was Obama's data: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obam...