"More interesting is the plan to refill the reserve at $70. "
I think he's doing here exactly what you'd expect him to do if *he actually has no intention of refilling the reserve.* Buying the futures would have required actually spending money on refilling the reserve. It would have committed him to buying the oil.
Talking about buying the oil at a $70 is just talk, it doesn't commit action.
If the intention is to refill the reserve, he's doing the wrong thing, but if the intention is to just leave it empty while obscuring this decision? He's going about it the right way.
>Single parent families can be disastrous. In Colombia the current rate of that is 84 (!) percent
I was also shocked, went digging, and found the original report (https://ifstudies.org/reports/world-family-map/2014/executive-summary). It looks like this is primarily caused by high rates of "cohabiting". They claim 35% of age 18-49 adults are cohabiting, vs 20% married. In the US the numbers are 9% vs 45%.
It looks like this is mostly due to the fact that Colombia has strong legal support for civil unions. A common law marriage (union libre) begins after two years of living together (or other circumstances? hard to say, it's all Spanish), and offers substantially the same legal protection as a traditional marriage (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-31442-6_7). One online poster claims that traditional marriage (matrimonio) is expensive and not worth it for many (https://able2know.org/topic/20633-1).
So what is the actual number? One site (https://colombiareports.com/84-colombias-children-born-wedlock/) gives 27% "children living with only one parent", which is still high but not absurd to the degree 84% would be. I don't think this takes away from the original point.
I'm a judge, so I work in a weird interruption-space.
The general rule is that the judge can interrupt the lawyers, but the lawyers can't interrupt the judge. There are exceptions and non-exceptions:
Exception: Lawyer can interrupt the judge if long thing judge is going to say is no longer relevant. ("We're dropping that claim/stipulating/non-issue.")
Non-exception: You're mad at judge because he's wrong. This begets things like, "The number of times I should have to raise my voice and tell you to stop is definitely not over one, and is certainly not three."
Having an understanding of the right time to interrupt on both sides saves time and energy, I think. Judicial interruptions are often on the order of, "Counsel, I'll let you explain that, but could you answer my question?" or "What authority do you have for that?" or "Wait, I'm confused, isn't [fact true]" or, less frequently and less happily, "I don't believe that representation, counsel."
But it's struck me from both sides of the bench that this asymmetric interruption rule is probably correct, but tricky.
… Trump fretting about all this a couple of years ago, and trying to get ByteDance to sell TikTok and threatening to ban it if they didn't. And the immediate reaction was something along the lines of "stupid dictator Trump, trying to get rid of TikTok because he hates adorable teens".
So that would help explain the "continued indifference to this whole problem". It's not weird, it's just that Orange Man Bad and therefore it was declared Obviously Not a Problem.
I guess enough time has passed and this has become obscure enough that people are starting to pay attention to it again.
Great response to my NFT royalties article here - I will incorporate the feedback. On the consumer protection point, I can see how this will prevent the typical pump and dump scheme run out of a discord server, but am I right this will not prevent the "rugpull" scam where the wash traders are also the creators (because they will recieve the royalties anyway)? Or is there another mechanism at play here?
the main concept is That Biden decided to kinda slow migrants in. which in a sense should require legislation.
I'm ignoring the moral question, where Zvi obviously supports letting the migrates in. and rather in the abuse of executive power. it's indistinguishable from Trump Muslim ban
it seems Scott will not be going on Conversations with Tyler
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/y2chok/go_on_cwt_scott/is26wfl/
"More interesting is the plan to refill the reserve at $70. "
I think he's doing here exactly what you'd expect him to do if *he actually has no intention of refilling the reserve.* Buying the futures would have required actually spending money on refilling the reserve. It would have committed him to buying the oil.
Talking about buying the oil at a $70 is just talk, it doesn't commit action.
If the intention is to refill the reserve, he's doing the wrong thing, but if the intention is to just leave it empty while obscuring this decision? He's going about it the right way.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/10/treason.html
Not sure if you saw this, but Mercatus and Cato were being called treasonous for their work against the Jones Act.
I was wondering if this changes your perspective on the policy landscape.
>Single parent families can be disastrous. In Colombia the current rate of that is 84 (!) percent
I was also shocked, went digging, and found the original report (https://ifstudies.org/reports/world-family-map/2014/executive-summary). It looks like this is primarily caused by high rates of "cohabiting". They claim 35% of age 18-49 adults are cohabiting, vs 20% married. In the US the numbers are 9% vs 45%.
It looks like this is mostly due to the fact that Colombia has strong legal support for civil unions. A common law marriage (union libre) begins after two years of living together (or other circumstances? hard to say, it's all Spanish), and offers substantially the same legal protection as a traditional marriage (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-31442-6_7). One online poster claims that traditional marriage (matrimonio) is expensive and not worth it for many (https://able2know.org/topic/20633-1).
So what is the actual number? One site (https://colombiareports.com/84-colombias-children-born-wedlock/) gives 27% "children living with only one parent", which is still high but not absurd to the degree 84% would be. I don't think this takes away from the original point.
I'm a judge, so I work in a weird interruption-space.
The general rule is that the judge can interrupt the lawyers, but the lawyers can't interrupt the judge. There are exceptions and non-exceptions:
Exception: Lawyer can interrupt the judge if long thing judge is going to say is no longer relevant. ("We're dropping that claim/stipulating/non-issue.")
Non-exception: You're mad at judge because he's wrong. This begets things like, "The number of times I should have to raise my voice and tell you to stop is definitely not over one, and is certainly not three."
Having an understanding of the right time to interrupt on both sides saves time and energy, I think. Judicial interruptions are often on the order of, "Counsel, I'll let you explain that, but could you answer my question?" or "What authority do you have for that?" or "Wait, I'm confused, isn't [fact true]" or, less frequently and less happily, "I don't believe that representation, counsel."
But it's struck me from both sides of the bench that this asymmetric interruption rule is probably correct, but tricky.
>TikTok
A memory from the deep banks is wafting up…
… Trump fretting about all this a couple of years ago, and trying to get ByteDance to sell TikTok and threatening to ban it if they didn't. And the immediate reaction was something along the lines of "stupid dictator Trump, trying to get rid of TikTok because he hates adorable teens".
So that would help explain the "continued indifference to this whole problem". It's not weird, it's just that Orange Man Bad and therefore it was declared Obviously Not a Problem.
I guess enough time has passed and this has become obscure enough that people are starting to pay attention to it again.
Great response to my NFT royalties article here - I will incorporate the feedback. On the consumer protection point, I can see how this will prevent the typical pump and dump scheme run out of a discord server, but am I right this will not prevent the "rugpull" scam where the wash traders are also the creators (because they will recieve the royalties anyway)? Or is there another mechanism at play here?
Nepa is a trick.
the main concept is That Biden decided to kinda slow migrants in. which in a sense should require legislation.
I'm ignoring the moral question, where Zvi obviously supports letting the migrates in. and rather in the abuse of executive power. it's indistinguishable from Trump Muslim ban