Underemphasized point in undergraduate economics and a devastating reply to the dopey people who argue that economic growth can't continue on a "finite planet".
"If you plan to vote for Donald Trump in November, do me a favor, and think of Binyamin Appelbaum and the LSU Tigers when you do."
An excellent exposition of the great difficulties in understanding the causes of crime and what public policy should do about it. Three of the most interesting points:
In 1992, a meta-analysis of four hundred and forty-three published studies on juvenile-delinquency programs found that a third of them had done more harm than good. Evidence suggests that D.A.R.E. and Scared Straight—modern-day programs similar to the Youth Study—may have been counterproductive, too. . . .
Such indirect effects of changes in the law are hard to predict. For this reason, Sampson argues, “practitioners (e.g., cops on the beat) may be better ‘theorists’ of what policy changes will trigger on the ground than academic criminologists who theorize at a considerable remove.”
Criminologists face a problem that’s common in many fields: overdetermination. Why does someone commit a crime? Was it peer pressure, poverty, a broken family, broken windows, bad genes, bad parenting, under-policing, leaded gasoline, Judas Priest?
A well-done explanation of why your doctor is probably more confident than he or she should be.
But, hey, it's not all bad in Baghdad by the Bay: some San Franciscans still turn out for the annual "pants-free BART ride". Does your deplorable city have that?
“San Francisco is the Bill Clinton of cities. It squandered itself with its flaws.”
Doesn't really give an answer, but the author deserves credit for raising an interesting question.
Made me smile.
My vote for best would be Wazza's bicycle kick against Man City. Son's recent spectacular run would be a close second.
Revenues (kinda), not profits, but still quite impressive.