You can be a realist or idealist, but you cannot have the way you like.
A few weeks ago I heard Kevin Hassett was interviewed on NPR. At one point I insisted that the economics textbook explains that Taiff doesn’t raise prices. Hassett is sure that this is not true, and he knows that it actually raises prices.
So, what do you think about this interview? SOM may argue that it cannot accuse the economic advisor of spitting Nosense. Because that’s a job requirement. Even economically illiterate leaders need smart advisors to implement policies. It’s not a big deal that the directors of the National Economic Council make some very questionable claims with management policies on their backs.
This argument may or may not be true, but you cannot have the method you like. If economists feel that shade the truth for centralist reasons is nudely , they must also accept that it will hit their reputation. Even on the agenda I happen to agree with, if I know Sumone makes misleading claims to advance the policy agenda, I tend to discount their arguments. And Hassett’s argument was extraordinarily exaggerated, even by the standards of government spokesmen.
Tyler Cowen recently discovered a sub-new study on corporate tax, combined with Kevin Hassett.
Here you might think Hassett is a biased source, but there are other serious rectifications covered by him in the past.
I tend to add with the claim that higher corporate taxes reduce investments. Unfortunately, I now consider Kevin Hasters as an unreliable policy and put no weight on his claims without independent confirmation from more reliable sources.
Our Society You have an unfortunate tendency to believe that there is no price to pay as long as you can “understand” why Subone behaves in a certain way. I don’t aggregate – criticizing is no excuse. If I rushed my wife to the hospital, illegally parked in front of me, and was worthy of getting a parking ticket even if I was about to give birth. If I think the situation is breaking the rules, I’m sure I’m willing to pay it. Parking tickets are not moral condemnation. This is a fee that allows you to allocate resources more effectively. If the truth-shady administrative spokesman doesn’t pay the price of reputation, we’ll get even more fraud.
The New York Times You have a good article about Supreme Court Judge Amy Connie Barrett.
Her leader, Judge Scalia, is remembered as a leader in legal rights, but he occasionally surprised the public. He is famous for signing the opinion that burning the American flag is protected by the Constitution.
“Judge Scalia once said, but I sincerely told Agare: If you realize you’ve lost the outcome of all the decisions you made, you’re in the wrong job.”
Unfortunately, not everyone supports integrity:
The sub on the right has turned her academic background into her, agreeing that she is too loud about the greatness of the law, and hearing the screams of “scholars no more” meetings for future adaptation.
Subtack is personal:
Trump’s alliance sub has put her on, accusing justice of being a turncoat and calling her a mother of seven. Her young son asked why she had bulletproof Vara, she said in a speech last year, and her extended family was threatened.
“We had too much hope for her,” said Mike Davis, a right-wing legal activist with close ties to the Trump administration, in a recent interview. “She doesn’t have enough courage.”
This spring, on a Stephen K. Bannon podcast, he torrented her with such rough hair and even laughed at the size of her family, and called him, according to people aware of the exchange, that Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, whom Davis once arrived, called him to express his disapproval of his comments.
I have always found it slightly depressing to observe that potential justice is “liberal” or “conservative.” What do those hairs actually mean in the context of the law? Are there any conservative justice summons who believe President Biden is too powerful and that President Trump is not too powerful? Or is it an object to have the principle view of the presidential forces?
Supreme Court judges are easy to avoid political pressure as they have a life appointment. So I am not trying to morally distinguish between people in different positions. Nevertheless, people are judged based on their actions. Just as President Truman once took the forest, if you can “hopefully” get out of the kitchen. “If you don’t like to hit your reputation, don’t work for a boss who persuades personal loyalty beyond integrity.
During PS, Trump’s first Terte, many conservative jurists assumed they were on the same team as right-wing populist politicians. Over time, they discover that they are on a completely different team.
