Well, the key is to order all of your magazines online so that they cost next to nothing.
New Yorker: Have for years, love the urban feel and the mix of arts & politics and 10,000+ word articles on very strange things. Most importantly, great writing and a great fact checking department.
The Economist: To the point, global, compact, and great writing and reporting. Plus the student rate isn't that expensive. It combines well with my Washington Post and WSJ daily subs.
City Journal: It's Quarterly, but is sort of like a more conservative free market New Yorker. Great articles with a different slant.
Atlantic Monthly: I read a lot of the articles online, and read a lot of Andrew Sullivan, so decided to support the magazine and pick it up in print as well (got 2 years for under $10 online)
GQ: For the pictures and ads, although British GQ is better it's just too expensive in the states. Personal interest in style/fashion/design.
Forbes: I let expire after they wrote an article titled "Love Global Warming" (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html) written by the head of what is more or less an ExxonMobile thinktank. It was just too much for me.
Wired: Because it was free
Used to subscribe to Maximum PC (great magazine) when I use to tinker with computers more.
Magazines I'm looking at subscribing to:
HBS: For upcoming mgmt consulting job
Urban Land Institute: Due to a growing interest in commercial development, architecture, and urban planing
Probably a magazine on design/architecture... haven't decided what yet.
FT: And before you start nitpicking the numbers, a word of warning from the study:
"Our Social Return on Investment analysis is not just an intellectual exercise – it has big implications for the way in which our society and economy are structured. Financial incentives are very powerful, and we tend to shower them on some of the professions that are the most socially and environmentally costly. This promotes undesirable behaviour, while positive activities are discouraged.
....
We have not aimed for precision in our calculations – there may be aspects of value that were left out. The point was to draw attention to the issue. We have not included detailed recommendations because it is clear to us that there are deep structural issues that need to be addressed, and change will not come overnight."
On that wider `issue’ note, prepare to forget almost every economic theory you’ve ever heard.
According to the study, the City of London is not essential for the UK economy (manufacturing, apparently, is much more important). Low-paid jobs don’t create a ladder for people to work their way up — social mobility is flat. The UK doesn’t need high salaries to attract and retain talent, since higher salaries don’t necessarily reflect the best people available. Etc.
Well you can "borrow from the Fed" but you are right that it is different from the federal funds rate. You can borrow from the Fed at the discount window which traditionally is about a point higher than the federal funds rate (and as such only used in emergencies when banks won't even loan to each other overnight). Traditionally it was also an overnight loan that was audited by the fed and which U.S Treasuries were put up as collateral. Traditionally, there was also a large stigma attached to borrowing from the Fed as it was sort of a "last resort" option.
That's changed a bit now as the Fed has does whatever it can to increase liquidity. Less of a stigma, the discount window rate is about what the fed funds rate is, the time period of the loans is longer, etc.
So, you can borrow from the discount window (the fed) and you can do so at a rather low rate. However, the whole theory that the recent upsurge in banking profits is from buying treasuries is a bit silly.
For starters it isn't risk free to buy a 30 year treasury note when you are financing it with short term loans the rate of which could be changed at any time. If interest rates go up your 30 year treasury you bought isn't going to be worth much and may actually start to lose you money. Remember if you are 10x leveraged the market price of that 30 year treasury only has to drop a little for you to lose money. So instead, let's invest in short term treasury rates ( http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html) well except the return on short term treasury rates is about what you would pay at the discount window.
I guess you could invest in short term bonds or other investments, but it isn't going to be risk free then. And it really isn't a scandal that trying to set low interest rates will encourage lending/investing some of which could turn out to be speculative or would not have been made if interest rates were higher. It could also lead to inflation. Those are sort of the costs/benefits of cheap money.
I grew up on adventure games like this. Making them semi-multiplayer is a really cool idea. It reminded me of an adventure game MMO that's been in development forever (http://www.blackmasquegames.info/).
I didn't just grow up with adventure games like this, I grew up with these specific adventure games.
It looks like they actually implemented the old Sierra game interpreter in Flash. I recall there being an open-source clone of the interpreter under the same name, actually.
Activision Blizzard owns the IP for these old Sierra games. I wonder what with Lucasarts recognizing the value in their back catalog (e.g. releasing some of their classic games to Steam, remaking Monkey Island, and porting the latter to the iPhone) if Activision won't actually re-release or even remake some of these titles to modern standards.
With Eve these matters are a bit confusing as you can "role-play" a morally bankrupt character or a thief and such behavior is at times semi-encouraged in the game. Players known this when they sign up for the game. However, when you use your trust within the community to steal from a player-formed bank and then use the proceeds for real life gain it seems to cross an ethical boundary.
I've debated before over the justification for real money trade (http://www.gamerates.com/posts/show/debate_over_the_justifca...) and compared the "War on Gold Farming" to the "War on Drugs" (http://www.gamerates.com/posts/show/the_war_on_drugs__the_wa...), but all of those arguments required that the RMT/gold farming be a sort of "victimless crime" which would not hurt the game or community anymore than if you choose to play extra hours instead of outsourcing that boring playtime to China (boring repetitive gameplay is at anything a game flaw in MMO's as it's expensive to make original unique gameplay that can keep players busy for months/years; and very cheap to make them replay the same event hundreds of times aka "farming").
It seems the thief made the common mistake that just because you are anonymous and online that it is somehow OK to cheat and steal. I mean how many of you have had someone try to cheat you out of something online, but doubt the same person would ever be so brazen in person? It didn't seem like the theif was "role-playing" to enhance the wild-wild-west-in-space nature of the game either. He stole virtual money from a bank he was entrusted with (that players had spent a great deal of time acquiring and valued) and then sold it to a website that spams virtual currency ads to pay some bills.
It is one thing to outsource boring parts of the game to another to player for you, and another to steal from your fellow players and then sell the proceeds to pay your personal bills. If the player who did this was fine with his actions, he should have publicly released his name. However, hiding behind anonymity shows he's probably not that comfortable with his actions "role-play" be dammed.
I know if I ran a google search of his name and this was the top story that came up I'd have reserves about hiring him.
I got my Kinesis on Ebay for between $100-200 a about four years ago. It's a joy to type on and probably one of the best investments I've made. The second probably being the Steelcase Leap chair I got (http://www.steelcase.com/na/leap_products.aspx?f=11852). I try to buy nice products that I spend a great deal of my time using.
Well of course "fair" is a normative question, but it is one that there are usually some common themes about.
For example the "equal opportunity" American ideal doesn't match up if the greatest predictor of your economic success is not your intellect, hard work, creativity, etc. but rather the income of the family you were rather arbitrarily born into.
"The truly amazing thing to me is that parental income isn't just crucial in getting to college, and getting through college -- its effects linger on, basically, in perpetuity. One of the most remarkable findings from the Pew Charitable Trusts' Economic Mobility Project is that a child from a family in the top income quintile who does not get a college degree is more likely to wind up in the top income quintile himself than a child from a family in the bottom income quintile who does get a college degree"
A large part of this is due to public policy and there are clear examples of many European countries where changing public policy produces less arbitrary income inequalities. As the developed world transforms into a more knowledge based economy which requires large long-term investments in yourself to really compete, income inequality will only grow between those that can make the investments and those that can't.
I'd also be careful to consider how the market pays people as necessarily being "fair" until you look at after-tax income and the institutions that help determine that price. There are many different ways to setup a distribution of resources in a society and there are many different ways to setup markets (property rights, laws, public services, regulation, taxes etc.). As such we should consider the fairness of our human created rules and institutions; the particular results they create are just indicators. Of course whatever people are paid is "appropriate" as long as it follows the system of rules we have setup.
The "appropriate" results would be very different if we changed how the system was setup.
Your quote claims the effects of the parents' income persist, but in doing so it claims correlation is causation and neglects to consider other familial effects, such as genetics and upbringing.
An alternative explanation is that wealth doesn't beget wealth, but rather those with the characteristics which lead to the acquisition of wealth also beget offspring with the same properties. This isn't necessarily unjust, as Yglesias states, but rather an artifact of the reality of genetics, upbringing and their effects on productivity. If so, to achieve the "equal opportunity" you seek, you must wipe away these differences in both genetics and upbringing, in which case, just call me Harrison Bergeron.
For some Harrison Bergeron, for others John Rawls Theory of Justice. Sort of dystopian/utopian sides of a similar coin. A strong public education system is suppose to minimize the differences in upbringing (by helping those without a strong upbringing; not by bringing down those who already have a great upbringing Harrison Bergeron style).
You wouldn't have to wipe away the differences, but for some a "just" society should view someone who had poor parents, limited opportunities and an IQ of 70 and someone who had every opportunity, great parents, and an IQ of 130 as equally important and valuable. Such people view a society where the top 2% of the world owns over half the wealth and much of the world lives in absolute poverty as a sign that maybe our institutions are a bit out of wack.
Personally I'm more a fan of smaller "nudge" (nudge.org) like concepts combined with a progressive tax code and a strong commitment to helping minimize "brute luck" (being born to poor parents) while holding people fully accountable for personal decisions or "option luck" (choosing to take a risk, or making a life decision such as being a teacher vs. an i-banker; or going out at bars instead of saving). (Sort of in a Dworkin fashion see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin#Theory_of_equali... / or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck_egalitarianism).
About half of US workers don't pay income tax. They pay for part of their retirement (SS for them is a modest deal, because their ROI is subsidized by folks who pay more).
Our vice president said that paying taxes is patriotic. Shouldn't they be patriotic?
Have you ever heard of 'regression towards the mean'? On average, exceptional parents tend to have slightly less exceptional children.
In any case, there's no need to sit here and think up a priori explanations for this correlation. I'm afraid I don't have time to look them up right now, but I would guess that there have been studies done that examined the performance of adopted children of wealthy families, and I strongly suspect that these studies show that the adopted children perform comparably to biological children of wealthy families.
These hypothetical studies would not contradict an explanation which emphasized upbringing, rather than income or genetics as a determinant of success. Parents bring their time and perspective, as well as their money, to the table.
For such an explanation, I'll note that as the article mentions re. savings plans, much of the behavior which perpetuates poverty tends also to be associated with a short time horizon, or a high discounting of the value of future income. It may be that these practices are largely adopted for lack of educating and training the child of the alternative: that sacrifice and current effort can lead to greater happiness over time. Parents would be well-situated to impart such a lesson.
But my explanation need not be the only factor at play, it only serves to show that the view that income begets income (and thus needs to be equalized) is not the only conclusion supported by the facts.
New Yorker: Have for years, love the urban feel and the mix of arts & politics and 10,000+ word articles on very strange things. Most importantly, great writing and a great fact checking department.
The Economist: To the point, global, compact, and great writing and reporting. Plus the student rate isn't that expensive. It combines well with my Washington Post and WSJ daily subs.
City Journal: It's Quarterly, but is sort of like a more conservative free market New Yorker. Great articles with a different slant.
Atlantic Monthly: I read a lot of the articles online, and read a lot of Andrew Sullivan, so decided to support the magazine and pick it up in print as well (got 2 years for under $10 online)
GQ: For the pictures and ads, although British GQ is better it's just too expensive in the states. Personal interest in style/fashion/design.
Forbes: I let expire after they wrote an article titled "Love Global Warming" (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html) written by the head of what is more or less an ExxonMobile thinktank. It was just too much for me.
Wired: Because it was free
Used to subscribe to Maximum PC (great magazine) when I use to tinker with computers more.
Magazines I'm looking at subscribing to:
HBS: For upcoming mgmt consulting job
Urban Land Institute: Due to a growing interest in commercial development, architecture, and urban planing
Probably a magazine on design/architecture... haven't decided what yet.