I hope there will be appreciation for the contrast between this glowing blog post, and the stark reality of the first comment left there.

You think? You're welcome to come to my city and spend a day with this interesting selection of characters. I'm 50% tempted to go just for lulz value.

P.S. Is it just me, or is Sue Gardner kind of hot?

My question is, why would you want to accommodate those people for nothing?

I see that the "Assume Bad Faith" policy is in full swing again.

I'm actually passing through London for an overnight layover August 1, on the way back from a Mensa event in Prague. It looks like I'll probably miss a Wikimedia meetup by a week, by their usual schedule.

With all due respect, do you realize how "flying to Prague for a Mensa event" sounds to normal people? (Especially given that the Prague is notorious across Europe as a place whose sole attractions are cheap beer and cheaper hookers.)

I guess those Mensa guys are pretty smart then. (warning, according to Somey I have no facility with sarcasm or irony)

I'd say she was a 7 (a 9 by Wiki standards). However, I can't remember - are you male or female? If you are female and think she is hot, that would instantly put her up at a 10. I'll let Horsey explain why.

;/

How could anyone resist?

Depends what the slides are.

Sounds like my kind of town!



I am also available to discuss Keynesian economics, too.

Well, let's see what kind of slides she can do.


MR
Pres.
Flashdance Judging Panel

Alright, let's start with the brick-through-your-windshield fallacy.

Actually, a 19th century Polish (I think Polish) economist disproved it. Back then, it was the "broken windowpane" idea. He argued that if you broke all the windows, what you did was give the glassier more income but it took away from everything else and forced people to buy something they didn't need, thus hurting other businesses and taking away from the amount of goods people have (so a big drain on the economy). : )

But the glazier then spends his extra money in the local businesses so assuming a closed economy the net loss/gain is zero and all that's happened is a redistribution, no?

No, because you have to figure in that everyone lost a window to begin with.

Lets say you start at 10 (and windows are 1 point). By losing the 1, you have to spend the one, so you have one less to pay for everything else. If you make only 2 per month, it really destroys your ability to purchase goods.

Well no shit. That conclusion becomes more obvious when you personalize the question by saying "your windows" rather than "some windows", and propose to damage one's vehicle rather than a building.

(And yes, I also like to direct hostile innuendo toward Horsey when he's being a douche.)


Only if shards of glass are legal tender.

I think the modern term for that is cash-for-clunkers.

No, that's crash caused by drunkards.

No, since Frederic Bastiat pointed out that the $ the glassier spends on himself and the businesses he patronizes, is exactly the extra amount the window owner would have spent at other businesses, had he not had to buy a new window. It's a different SET of businesses, of course. The window owner, instead of a new window, might have bought a suit with that money, which would employ the tailor, who employs the weaver, who employs the cotton and flax grower, etc. The glassier employs the charcoal maker, the soda miner, the kilnmaker, etc. You might think the economy is net-unaffected either way, but in one scenario the window owner ends up with a new suit, and the other, he doesn't! So it's really true that destoying things that it takes a lot of people time and energy to make, lowers the standard of living.

This is the key reason why going to war (unless, Roman-style you manage to scavenge more booty from the conquered than you spend on armies and materiel) is NOT good for a nation's economy. Nor, generally, is government spending to do this-and-that. Even if the government builds nice things like museums and baseball stadiums, it only means taxpayers have less money to go to restaurants and movies; So the net effect is zero. Jobs are moved from private to public sector, and perhaps to some extent from one state to another (if it's a federal project) but the net jobs created is zip. In fact, quality of life may drop, inasmuch as the government is generally not as good a businessperson as the private entities which would otherwise decide if this or that stadium or museum is going to be a dinosaur that loses money year after year (answer, usually: yes)

Possible exceptions are government spending on infrastructure which would be prohibitively expensive privately (due mostly to eminent domain problems and efficiencies, and differences in red-tape). It may also be that government can stimulate an economy by spending money on research which private corporations would not undertake due to limited patent duration (where the government can take a longer view of payoff). National defence may also have long term economic payoffs that are difficult to quantify (in terms of attacks prevented, etc).

However, in general, most "jobs creation bills" are crap. Even the best of them that spend only on infrastructure and research, do so with a "leaky bucket," where only some fraction of every tax dollar actually goes to construction companies and science projects, and more is skimmed by administration than would happen privately. And if it's not spent on those things, then an economy really suffers, since jobs in beaurocracy and building stuff nobody really wants very much, take away money that that people otherwise would have spent on things they needed far more badly, and which would have created just as many jobs to provide (or destroyed if they were not provided). Like better food, housing, medical care....

Philly is historically been a bad city for hosting Web 2.0® events. One would hope Philadelphians don't take "edit war" to a new level, like they did with "flash mob."

Bah, that sounds right. I don't know why in my head it had a more Polish sound to it.

Philly has historically been a bad place for anything.

Straight from the WP article:

And of course, the lovely Frank Rizzo.

It's gotten better in recent years, but I've always though of Philly as a corrupt powderkeg.
That town has a lot of downright mean people.

Breaching experiment. Watch how they react to natural light, an actual Fortune 100 corporate environment, free coffee machine, etc. Things they wouldn't normally see in their mother's basement.

Oh, mama -- I love it when you're in your angry vixen mood. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!




Or the Drexel basement, if this blog post is any indication.

Looks like "Elsie" got her comment deleted by the blog author. Waaaahhhh!