Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

About Gramarye

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was only peripherally aware of this development until this weekend, when I met my sister and niece for brunch at the Cap City Fine Diner in this Bridge Park area. I'm seriously impressed with what Dublin has done with the place since the last time I was through this area, which was years ago but not that many years ago for how much has happened here. Glad to have this thread in existence as a great opportunity to click back through and see what I've been missing condensed into one crowdsourced place on the Internet.
  2. There is a separate thread for gerrymandering and Congressional districts.
  3. Gramarye


    You know things are probably interesting when Kavanaugh writes the majority in a 5-4 decision and Gorsuch writes the dissent, and that just happened with a potentially significant antitrust law decision that just came out: https://reason.com/2019/05/14/antitrust-standing-and-kavanaugh-versus-gorsuch-textualism/ The ultimate holding, 5-4 with Kavanaugh joining the left wing of the Court in the majority, is that those who purchase from an alleged antitrust violator have standing to sue, even if it was or may have been other parties in the chain of commerce that actually paid more than they should have to that violator. (In this case, that would be the app developers who pay Apple allegedly monopoly-inflated prices for access to the market of Apple's users.) That does raise some major questions (and I haven't read the opinions yet to see if they were at all addressed there) of (1) what happens if the app developers who actually paid the inflated prices to Apple also wanted to sue for antitrust violations, and (2) if the affected customers sue and win and recover, doesn't that mean they get a windfall if it was really the developers overpaying for access to the Apple ecosystem? Would the developers actually have a claim to part of the monetary recovery, even if the case is brought by the consumers? The developers might be 100% on board with any proposed injunctive relief if Apple really were found liable for monopolistic practices, but in general, damages awards should go to those who were actually damaged (statement of the obvious, I'd hope).
  4. In a saner world, this would actually be a golden opportunity for the U.S. Even under the current market, it would be a golden opportunity for U.S. firms than do have money to invest (pension funds, etc.), unless you actually think that the risk of default has risen and it isn't just an attempt at a political power move by China. Because if you want to dump a lot of securities in a hurry--basically any security, except in a stock buyout scenario in which the buyer pays a premium for gaining control and cashing out holdouts--you have to cut the price. And if the underlying fundamentals are still good and you're just trying to make a political statement, there will be money waiting to buy at that discount. If I were a trustee of OPERS or something and China wanted to dump Treasuries at 90 cents on the dollar, I would be all over that.
  5. Except that when China buys Treasury bonds, it is literally true that we are borrowing money from China. You can say that that isn't as bad as maybe some claim, but it doesn't change the literal truth of the statement, unless China were purchasing all its holdings of U.S. Treasuries on the secondary market. You can say that it's good that there is enough demand for Treasuries at very mild rates that other countries want to convert their native currencies into dollars (strengthening the dollar) in order to purchase Treasuries. That reflects well on our history of repayment, of reasonably sound monetary policy (particularly vis-a-vis the field), and others' confidence in the future of the U.S. economy, since the taxes to pay off those bonds will come from the future U.S. economy. All that is true, whether it's China or Canada coming to the U.S. public debt markets. But it doesn't change the fact that we are borrowing deeply from China (and other foreign nations--Japan also holds a slice of U.S. debt almost as large as China does), which gives them the leverage of threatening to stop that at some point. Implying that the "power dynamic ... is actually quite the opposite of reality" would be based on the threat of default, which of course would hurt the creditor forced to take a haircut, but nowhere near as much as it hurts the formerly-sterling borrower.
  6. There's give in this, though. EDIT: Bad example.
  7. Gramarye


    But what if employment decisions flow from something more fundamental, more paradigmatic?
  8. Gramarye


    Not sure what to make of this one yet, but The Lyceum is suing the city of South Euclid in a preemptive challenge to a recently-passed nondiscrimination ordinance: https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2019/04/catholic-schools-lawsuit-says-south-euclid-anti-discrimination-law-violates-religious-rights.html The Lyceum has been noted sporadically on UO, in part because of the exceptional number of National Merit Scholars they produce for a school their size (53 students grades 6-12): I checked their Web site and they claim that 25% of their student body over the school's history has received National Merit honors, which I feel like needs an asterisk somewhere even granting that the school is private and uses standardized tests for admission, so they can cherry-pick. Given the school's Catholic foundations (they are "independent" of the diocese but since that 2010 thread where me and StapHanger f.k.a. StrapHanger were talking about the school, you can just call it a Catholic school ... it's "independent" apparently because it doesn't think the Catholic diocese of Cleveland is Catholic enough), they're still limited in their student body selection to those whose parents are looking for that kind of cultural environment for their children. Now they're in a bit of a kerfuffle with the city, but I really wonder where this is going. The ordinance apparently passed more than a year ago. The city hasn't sought to enforce it against the school in that entire time, even though a religious exemption was in the original draft and was expressly deleted at the urging of Equality Ohio and other LGBT-advocacy groups. I get that the school wants clarity and the silence of the city in response to requests for clarification would be frustrating. But notwithstanding that, I think the school might necessarily have trouble forcing the issue when there's uncertainty regarding applicability and when the city itself has not actively sought to punish the school for acting consistently with its beliefs in the year since the ordinance passed. The fight has gotten some attention even in national niche orthodox Catholic press (https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-catholic-school-stands-its-ground). The complaint is here: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TheLyceumComplaint.pdf.
  9. I think we must be talking about a particular subset of the population, though, then. There are certainly blue-collar workers who work 50-60 hour weeks for nothing more than the pay boost of 10-20 weekly hours of overtime, if that. I doubt that's what's meant by the concept of a premium for those extra hours. I'm guessing what they mean is specifically people who are on management tracks in larger companies (those with analyst/associate/specialist > manager > director > VP > SVP/EVP/C-suite hierarchies). That's my guess, but I still probably shouldn't assume.
  10. Rhetorically impactful quote and I can imagine the story behind it ... but imagining is all I can do. Paywall. Nevertheless, it's certainly true that many top-earning men, especially if they're the kind in professions with 80+ hour weeks or brutal job stress (e.g., surgeons in life-or-death specialties like heart, liver, etc.), are going to be looking for a spouse who doesn't make a full-time career a core part of their identity. But not all, especially those who are comfortable making household staff a routine part of their working lives. (Needless to say, you'll almost never find a married couple in which husband and wife are both are doctors, large law firm partners, large accounting firm partners, etc. that doesn't contract out a lot of the household work. In those kinds of marriages, money is plentiful but time is decidedly not. And of course they tend to have larger houses that almost anyone would want to get help with if they could afford it.)
  11. Approval 42.3%, disapproval 52.6% as of right now on 538: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ S&P 500 has rallied impressively and I think we're at an all time-high but we came pretty close back in September 2018, too (approached 3000 then backed off). Wage figure is average, not median; averages are skewed by high earners and don't reflect the actual standing of the middle class. Envy of the world might be true simply because everywhere else has even bigger problems than we do. (We were the envy of the world in 1945, too, because the rest of the world was in ashes and embers.)
  12. The Cain and Moore picks are another prime example of Trump prioritizing celebrity and public profile far too highly when making major appointments. A Fed board seat is a 14-year term, so these are legacy-building appointments more than just about anything other than judiciary appointments. And while most economists out there are academics and do lean liberal, it's not like there are none on the other side of the aisle. Moore was just also really difficult to figure out, because sometimes he seems to be all about tight money (flirting with the gold standard at times), and yet also criticizing Jerome Powell for being too tight, of all things (assuming I'm remembering the backstory here correctly). He said that the Fed's premature raising of rates was hampering the Trump economic expansion (and of course publicly praising Trump on TV, and attacking people who annoy him on TV, is apparently the real way to distinguish yourself for a top appointment). Considering some of his historical comments about the need for a strong dollar, you'd have expected him to be critical of how loose Powell was, even as Trump wanted him to be even looser. One possible explanation is that's he's a spineless, unprincipled hack who would be glad to push for disciplined, strong-money measures (despite the sacrifices making such measures sustainable require from the political branches) during Democratic administrations but happy to break out the punch bowl (allowing easy money to cover gluttonous spending in the short term, and to hell with long-term consequences) during Republican ones. But of course Fed nominees are carefully vetted for doctrinal integrity and partisan neutrality before nomination.
  13. The 17-person Republican field of 2016 really narrowed to 3 or 4 legitimate contenders fairly early. Those were Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and arguably Jeb because of his exceptional early fundraising, but it never resulted in traction (the single largest contemporary counterargument to the notion that money buys elections). That likely means Sanders, Biden, and maybe one other candidate distinguishing themselves as a magnet for those who chafe at the fact that the latter two are old white men. There are many candidates who could become that third magnet--Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Warren--but I certainly wouldn't be placing confident bets on any of them yet. Early fundraising could distinguish some but I think it's likely that most of those will at least last into whenever the debates start, and see who can distinguish themselves in front of an audience.
  14. I know, I said "many" earlier, not "most." Really frustrating and the longer major outbreaks are allowed to spread, the harsher (i.e., more infringing on individual liberty) the ultimately necessary countermeasures are going to have to be, whether imposed by Republicans or Democrats (or, hopefully, both, and early enough to avoid more dramatic and controversial measures later). That said, as you said, it's not 100% clear to what extent Buttigieg even disagrees with any of that, if at all, or what his stance on mandatory vaccination actually is.
  15. I think that many anti-vaxxers actually are on the progressive, pro-choice side of the spectrum and find complete cognitive consistency with their arguments that the government has no right "telling a woman what to do with her body" and ordering that people get vaccinated, too. It wouldn't even surprise me if the majority of anti-vaxxers are more liberal environmentalists than conservative religious fanatics, though the Hasidic Jews in the NYC area are likely an exception. (One reason we wrote Spring Garden Waldorf School off the list of possible schools for our children is that there actually appear to be a disturbing number of aging-hippie anti-vaxxers among the parent group there.) They might even frame it in individual-liberty terms, but that is not a proper manifestation of that concept. Individual liberty may imply the right to deny benefits to others if doing so requires an affirmative act that would conflict with protected liberty interests, including but not limited to sincerely held religious belief or conscience. It does not imply the right to harm others, including probabilistic harms such as exposing others to a communicable disease that they might catch, even if any individual exposed person also might not catch it. The government can outlaw playing with fire, even on the part of people who haven't yet burned their neighbor's house down. The government can outlaw using your 0.1-acre urban property as a firing range, even if stray bullets haven't actually hit any of your neighbors yet. If he had in mind communities like this, I think he should have been less ambiguous about it. Because otherwise, he could equally be talking about groups like the Hasidic Jews in NYC, who are in a very different situation simply because of the population density of their surroundings. I was actually in NYC last week and had lunch with one of the groomsmen from my wedding, a very secular Jew who works at a law firm there. I can echo EVD's comments on this; my friend noted that it was a raging issue there and in fact that he had drawn the line in the sand for a nanny for his children when she didn't want to be vaccinated and he said that he couldn't keep her on if she didn't (and she actually held firm on that belief and left the job). He ruled out several neighborhoods when they moved out of Midtown because of the presence of too many people exposing themselves to those risks (and this was before the recent outbreak, so you can say he was prescient and foresighted or he just had the minimal wits necessary to grasp basic probability theory and didn't want to raise his kids in a minefield). The Amish have the advantage (if you want to call it that just for this context) of a kind of self-quarantine. You can't quarantine Brooklyn.
  • Create New...