Search
Who's new
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 14 guests online.
Frontpage FeedActive Posters
Users posting in the last 30 days:
- Crystalnye7971 - 20 posts
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
-
smoked salmon (not verified):
-
carpentry contractor ma (not verified):
-
carpentry contractor ma (not verified):
-
rqjqqzfyada (not verified):
-
kamal (not verified):
-
business immigration canada (not verified):
-
business immigration canada (not verified):
-
abhishek644 (not verified):
-
abhishek644 (not verified):
-
Anonymous (not verified):
Recent Trackbacks
Popular Posts
- The Blogosphere: A Kosmos
- Workers: The Faceless, Interchangeable Cog
- Baby Steps or Cold Turkey
- Public Goods, Public Bads, and NASA
- Political Child Abuse
- Tell Me What to Do!
- Lessons from the Second City
- Economic Puzzle Involving Stock Ownership (Part II)
- Pop Culture Individualism
- Hope vs. Belief (Part II)
- Build Applications, Not Infrastructure
- May Day 2006: A Day of Remembrance
- The Hanover Street Shoe-Shine Boys
- Will the AMA Vote Against Self-Interest If I Become A Member?
- How to Combat Economic Ignorance: A Proposition
- Toward a Fallibilist Synthesis
- The Other Vouchers
- Strange Omissions
Commenter RL in the econlog
Commenter RL in the econlog thread pointed out what's wrong with Bryan's analogy: "Isn't it really more like expecting people to show up for work on time EVERY DAY for the next 50 years?"
If we know that 50% of a certain kind of contract will eventually be broken, it might be worth reexamining some of the terms of that contract to see if some detail is the cause or significant contributing factor to this failure, and if this detail can be changed for the better.