Quotulatiousness

June 21, 2017

Greek Rifles and Pistols of World War 1 I THE GREAT WAR Special feat. C&Rsenal

Filed under: Europe, History, Military — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Published on 20 Jun 2017

If you want to learn more about the firearms of World War 1, subscribe to C&Rsenal: http://youtube.com/candrsenal

Othais explains the rifles and pistols that Greece fielded in the First World War, among them the legendary Mannlicher–Schönauer M1903 and the Greek Gras M1874.

College Students ‘Think Freedom is Not a Big Deal’

Published on 20 Jun 2017

Sociologist Frank Fruedi and Reason’s Nick Gillespie discuss the decline of free speech on campus and his new book, What Happened to the University: a Sociological Exploration of its Infantilisation.
———-
“For the first time, a growing number of young people actually think freedom isn’t a big deal,” says sociologist Frank Furedi, who’s an emeritus professor at the University of Kent and author of the new book, What Happened to the University: a sociological exploration of its infantilisation.

The university was once a place where students valued free speech and risk taking, but today “a very illiberal ethos has become institutionalized,” says Furedi. “In many respects, it’s easier to speak about controversial subjects outside the university…It’s a historic role reversal.”

Furedi sat down with Reason‘s Nick Gillespie to talk about the roots of this intellectual shift on campus — and how to fix it.

Edited by Mark McDaniel. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander. Music by Bensound.

“Donald Trump and Al Gore [are,] politically speaking, […] brothers from different mothers”

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Here’s Shikha Dalmia with an opinion to offend both left and right equally:

Donald Trump and Al Gore would no doubt cringe at the thought that politically speaking, they are brothers from different mothers. After all, what do the Republican president and the Democratic presidential wannabe have in common besides the fact that they are both old, white, pompous dudes who live in mansions and hate Hillary Clinton?

Whether they realize it or not, they both believe in the precautionary principle — the notion that even a small chance of a catastrophic event requires sweeping measures to avert it. Nor do they care about the costs of these “sweeping measures” — both in terms of money and individual liberty.

Their only disagreement is about the events in question: Trump invokes this principle in his crusade against Islamist terrorism — and Gore and his fellow global warming warriors against climate change.

Dick Cheney famously declared that if there was even a “1 percent chance” of another 9/11-style attack by al Qaeda, “we have to treat it as a certainty in our response.” For all of Trump’s criticisms of the Iraq War, he has a natural instinct for this kind of excess. No sooner did the dastardly Manchester attack occur than Trump reiterated, as he had in his inaugural address, that this “wicked ideology must be obliterated.”

[…]

Given that the odds that Americans will perish in any terrorist attack — not just those involving Islamists — on U.S. soil is 1 in 3.6 million per year — if the trends of the last four decades are any indication, such draconian steps to avert another 9/11-style event won’t make Americans substantially safer. But they will make them substantially less free.

Liberals understand this when it comes to dealing with global terrorism. Al Gore himself gave a great speech in 2006 lamenting all the constitutional protections that the war on terrorism was claiming and expressed alarm that the executive branch had been conducing warrantless surveillance of telephone calls, emails and other internet communication inside America.

But when it comes to global warming, Gore’s ideological blind spots are more dazzling than the sun. He condemned Trump’s pullout from the Paris agreement as “indefensible” and “reckless.” Likewise, the ACLU, which has been heroically fighting Trump’s travel ban and other constitution-busting moves, bizarrely tweeted that the withdrawal would be a “massive step back for racial justice.”

But the fact of the matter is that a pre-emptive strike against climate change will be no less damaging for justice, racial or otherwise.

Physical Capital and Diminishing Returns

Filed under: Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Published on 29 Mar 2016

Do you recall our question about Germany and Japan from our previous video?

How did they achieve record economic growth following World War II?

Today’s video will help answer that question. We’ll be digging into the K variable of our simplified Solow model: physical capital.

To help with our discussion, we’ll be exploring two specific concepts. The first is the iron logic of diminishing returns which states that, for each new input of capital, there is less and less output produced. Your first input of capital will likely be the most productive, because you’ll allocate this first unit to the most important, value-adding tasks.

The second concept we’ll cover is the marginal product of capital. This concept describes the output created by each new unit of invested capital.

Can you already see how these two forces of capital help answer our question about Germany and Japan?

For these two war-torn countries, the first few units of invested capital had a lot of bang for their buck. The first roads between destroyed cities, the first new steel mills, the first new businesses — these helped boost their growth rate tremendously.

Even more so, remember that Germany and Japan were growing from a low economic base after the war. It’s easy to grow a lot when the base is small. But all else being equal, you’d rather have a larger base, and grow slower.

Capital has some more nuances worth thinking about, which we’ll show in the next video. So get to watching, and in our next macroeconomics video, we’ll show you yet another problem surrounding physical capital.

QotD: Profit

Filed under: Business, Economics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

While capitalism has a visible cost – profit – that does not exist under socialism, socialism has an invisible cost – inefficiency – that gets weeded out by losses and bankruptcy under capitalism. The fact that most goods are more widely affordable in a capitalist economy implies that profit is less costly than inefficiency. Put differently, profit is a price paid for efficiency.

Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics (fifth edition), 2015.

Powered by WordPress