Interesting rant on American liberals from British liberals.
Say that again? You're telling me you didn't already factor that in?
"If finance’s footprint is reduced, Simon Wells, chief European economist at HSBC Holdings Plc, predicts wages for the sector’s 1 million workers could also be subdued, lowering the tax take from such high earners.
While just 1 percent of taxpayers earn the 150,000 pounds a year above which the highest rate of tax is levied, they account for almost 30 percent of total income-tax revenue, according to HSBC."
I've grown up without being told "if you don't have anything nice to say, then shut up". Maybe that's why I find this article so right.
<In an unnamed liberal arts college in the north-east, the candidate the system most prized was one who could pay full tuition and was just good enough to make one of the higher-profile sports teams but had a strong enough academic record not to eat into the annual allocation reserved for students whose brains work best when encased in a football helmet.
Combined with the long-running push for racial diversity on college campuses, this makes for an esoteric definition of merit. Men are slightly under-represented across college campuses; African-Americans are not, but can still benefit from some forms of affirmative action; and there is always a need for those who are good at sports. Poor whites and Asians get a bad deal from this kind of filtering. Though the Ivies all deny operating quotas to limit Asian students—the best performing group in SAT scores—the number admitted each year has fallen from its peak in 2008and stays strangely consistent both from year to year and between institutions. Caltech, a university which admits purely on academic ability, has more Asian students than other elite schools. It also has much less feared sports teams.>
Nowhere in this interesting article is any thought about the essential difference between LIBERAL ARTS and SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY.
Of course I might be biased, but I find hugely surprising that American elites can spend all those efforts on their children education and then send them to "Liberal arts colleges". That seems quite clearly the cause for those funny selection criteria, where brains appear totally irrelevant. Of course they are.
What a great intelligent article.
<Evidence continues to build that the shooter, Omar Mateen, while definitely a Muslim, was also gay. Presumably a self-loathing one. Meanwhile, there’s no evidence he’d ever been in contact with ISIS. This complicates the simple portrayal of a jihadist and serves nobody’s purpose, although it does seem to be getting progressively more play.>
But there's much more than this.
Why? Don't you do this all the time?
<For individuals, the trick is to be your own devil’s advocate: to think through how your favored conclusions might be misguided; to ask yourself how you might be wrong, or how things might turn out differently from what you expect. It helps to try practicing what the psychologist Charles Lord calls “considering the opposite.” [...] And lastly: Seek advice. Other people may have their own misbeliefs, but a discussion can often be sufficient to rid a serious person of his or her most egregious misconceptions.>
From Dr. Dunning HIMSELF! The one discovering the Dunning-Kruger effect! I LOVED IT!