Recent Comments

1. over 7 years ago on Non Sequitur

   In Hebrew it’s “יַם־סֽוּף” (“cuwph yam”, “in the Sea of Rushes”). The Septuagint Greek gives it as “ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ” (“en erythra thalassi”, “in the Red Sea”). They’re just two different names for the same place.

2. over 8 years ago on [Deleted]

   It would be better to employ impartial researchers at public expense.

3. about 9 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   If only you could be a little looser.

4. about 9 years ago on Doonesbury

   I think the way to square this circle is by using Universal Basic Income and getting rid of minimum wage. That way someone can choose (and can afford to choose) to work for nothing, or for a dollar an hour, or whatever they like. The cost would still come from employers through taxes, but more fairly spread (because that’s what taxes do) while creating a much better structure of incentives. It would even help people start their own businesses, as you could take time to grow the enterprise without needing it to give you an income right away.

   For more, start here:http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/27/ed-dolan/libertarianism-pragmatic-case-universal-basic-income

5. about 9 years ago on Doonesbury

   There are two problems with that argument. First, product costs only increase if the profit margin remains constant, which it need not – either the total profit can decline, or reduced margins can be compensated by increased volume. Second, labour isn’t only a production factor, it’s also a consumption factor – the volume of consumption increases as wages increase. In fact, raising the income of the poorer quintiles increases consumption to a greater extent than increasing the income of the richer sectors by the same amount, because the poor have a greater propensity to consume (rather than save) than the rich. The prosperity of the nation is therefore better served by a rise in wages than by a rise in profits.

   The latter always escapes conservatives who believe in the fairy tale called ‘trickle-down’.

6. about 9 years ago on Doonesbury

   Must’ve been a Rhodes scholar.

7. over 9 years ago on [Deleted]

   No., I’m saying that your use of roads requires them to exist in the first place. As they are funded from taxes, they rely on the IRS taking some of your stuff (specifically, money) to make roads happen. If, like @Hardthought, you equate that to National Socialism, I suggest you renounce your use of such publicly funded amenities, lest you be corrupted by the evils of the system you disdain.

8. over 9 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Fine, whatever. You keep your stuff. Just don’t go using the roads, army, fire department, and courts that we paid for, OK? Oh, and that elementary education? You’re obviously not using it, so we’ll have that back, too.

9. over 9 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Maybe we can find a candidate who will promise to make it illegal to be funded by billionaires, and who will refuse a Super PAC himself? Naah, that’ll NEVER happen.

10. over 9 years ago on Doonesbury

    How is Syria in the Middle East? Whatever happened to the Near East?