Skip to main content

A "must-have" for Delawareliberal . . .

. . . a widget from Congresspedia that tracks super delegate totals.

C'mon Jason, Lgeek, DV, it'll go perfect right above the daily poll.

h/t Where HipHop and Libertarianism Meet.
Labels:

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
"Thus the statement that "An oil spill, for example, increases GDP because someone has to clean it up, but it obviously detracts from well-being," is not necessarily or even probably correct, because the cost of the clean-up may create some new economic activity, but that is inevitably at the opportunity cost of all the things that would have been purchased with those funds, as well as the capital loss of all the oil that was spilled, both to the oil company and those who will pay higher prices for their next load of fuel."

It seems to me that your analysis misses the point altogether, so much so that you are replying to a straw man.

The post at Mid Atlantic labor isn't recommending that the economic activity generated by the oil spill be counted as part of the GDP. It's merely stating that the activity IS AS A MATTER OF FACT counted toward the GDP.

You treating a description as if it were a prescription.

To me that makes as much sense as, say, attacking someone's accurate description that prostitution is illegal in Delaware as though it were an argument that it should be illegal.

Two different critters.
March 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Steven H. Newton said…
Dana,
You got this comment in the wrong post and I don't know how to move it, so I answered it over there.
March 13, 2008 at 6:49 AM
Anonymous said…
Muchas gracias, mi amigo.

Added.
March 20, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more