India’s trucks are works of art
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in development economics, transport economics Tags: India
Map of diseases
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in development economics, growth disasters, health economics Tags: The Great Escape
McArdle on Nozick and the soccer gender wage gap
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in discrimination, gender, labour economics, labour supply, occupational choice, sports economics Tags: gender wage gap
Rents are unaffordable for one reason alone
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in economics of regulation, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice, rentseeking, urban economics
What banks do
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in financial economics, macroeconomics, monetary economics
Hornsdale Power Reserve: batteries compensating for intermittency?
15 Mar 2020 49 Comments
It has been a while since last post (on the Doctor’s analogy skeptic style). This post will be a bit different. It will be about energy, more specifically about (grid sized) energy storage. It all started with this tweet from Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. This is the text of the tweet:
Those who argue that fossil gas plants are needed to compensate the intermittency of renewable energy should read this @McMarghem @eliacorporate @EngieBelgium @LuminusEnergie @Gregoiredallema
View original post 1,105 more words
The Truth About Stalin’s Prison Camps
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in economic history, Marxist economics Tags: Stalin
Why do Hedge Funds survive?
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in entrepreneurship, financial economics Tags: active investing, efficient markets hypothesis, passive investing
Nuclear Power and Climate Change
15 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
in energy economics, environmental economics, global warming Tags: nuclear energy
Scientific American goes full Regressive Left, makes women’s rights depend on recognizing the “gender spectrum” and denying sex differences
14 Mar 2020 Leave a comment
An editorial (yes, an editorial, with the byline “BY THE EDITORS”) in the new online issue of Scientific American,”The new science of sex and gender“, is not only biologically misleading, but philosophically unsound. Its purpose appears to be that the “new picture” of sex and gender, which is no longer “simple” but supposedly confused by a variety of factors like social construction of gender, intersexuality, and so on, somehow means that women’s rights have suddenly become more important and more justifiable. But the science is right out of Everyday Feminism, and the social lesson commits a naturalistic fallacy, implying that women’s rights are somehow connected with recognizing that gender is “nonbinary”. In other words, they make a biological case for women’s equality, when the real case is a social and ethical one.
Here’s the totality of the science in the article:
Sex is supposed to be…
View original post 1,438 more words
Recent Comments