Reading This Time Is Different has taught me a lot about economic history, but it's taken a while because it's written very much like a dry academic paper than most nonfiction. Good news: it also has pretty pictures.

This graph struck me as very telling of our age—while the 10-year average inflation rate is always positive, only in the last generation has it stopped dipping below 0 every so often, and all of the most recent local maxima are higher than any age before.

From the book (page 179):

Perhaps it may seem excessive to devote so much attention here to currency debasement when financial crises have long since moved on to grander and more extravagant schemes. Yet the experience of debasement illustrates many important points. Of course, it shows that inflation and default are nothing new; only the tools have changed. More important, the shift from metallic to paper currency provides an important example of the fact that technological innovation does not necessarily create entirely new kinds of financial crises but can exacerbate their effects, much as technology has constantly made warfare more deadly over the course of history.

That's one hell of an analogy. The book goes on to explain that inflation is a tool used by sovereigns to reduce the value of debt owed, but the occurrence of sovereign default hasn't changed commensurately over the course of the graph.

And in case you don't follow Three Panel Soul:

Verizon on today's FCC vote:

There is no doubt that the policies put in place by the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration to jumpstart innovation and the spread of broadband worked. As a result, America’s broadband and Internet marketplace is intensely competitive and an engine of economic growth, job creation and multibillion-dollar investment. Today’s decision, however, unnecessarily departs from these successful policies.

I'm sure on Verizon's planet there's no lack of healthy competition, but back at nulamihaus we have no competitive alternative to Comcast. My brother-in-law's complex is served exclusively by AT&T. And then there's the Woz:

I have owned four homes in my life. None of these had cable TV, even though one was a new development where the law required cable. None of these had DSL, including my current home, which is only .8 miles up a hill from the populous town I live in. I pay for a T1 line, which costs many times what DSL runs for about 1/10 the bandwidth. That's as close as I can come to broadband where I live. The local phone providers don't have any obligation to serve all of their phone customers with DSL. They also have no requirement to service everyone living in the geographic area for which they have a monopoly. This is what has happened without regulatory control, despite every politician and president and CEO and PR person since the beginning of the Internet boon saying how important it was to ensure that everyone be provided broadband access.

Wired ISPs are local monopolies. An alternative that comes at twice the cost and half the speed is not "intensely competitive". Consider a car analogy: residents of California can only buy Chevrolet vehicles—if you want Ford you'll have to move to Montana. Don't like it? You can buy a bicycle for twice the price. People accept their choice of one decent broadband option because they liken it to their one choice of power or sewer company, and the market accepts the existence of multiple ISPs as proof of a competitive marketplace.

If the marketplace were as fierce as Verizon describes I'd be willing to yield to market forces—and today's FCC ruling gives more leeway to wireless providers, who are arguably heavily competitive—but wired ISPs today aren't competing, they're sharing the spoils of what amounts to industrial gerrymandering.

My straight marriage is under more threat from discriminatory anti-gay voters than from same-sex couples wanting to be similarly recognized. I got married in order to embark upon a commitment of mutuality and love, not join a private country club for straights only. I am astounded by the shallowness of a legal and moral definition of marriage which privileges the sex of its participants beyond all other criteria Tom Ryberg

this is why Cindy and I have postponed our marriage indefinitely. as much as we'd like to enjoy the tax and legal benefits, it is not fair to our friends. their relationships are just as loving and devoted as ours.

I love this video by Jarratt Moody. if you haven't seen it yet, try it out. audio track from Pulp Fiction, filled with cursing:

today I ran into this gem, and it turns out that it's from Causes! they're good people (Brad works there), and I highly recommend using them when you feel like supporting a cause. like this one, featuring Harvey Milk:

The quality of a city is determined by what life is like for the people who live there—not by how many people live there.

So why is my suggestion that my hometown of Flint should shrink—reducing the “built” environment—creating such a stir? Is our American obsession with growth and expansion so pervasive that a community would rather fail at being large than succeed and become a smaller place?Dan Kildee

yes. you've nailed it, Dan.

We want to think senior management will think through the long haul, but the reality is short-term thinking rules the day, and that’s not always a sin. An expensive switch is hard to justify, especially with stockholders breathing down your neck. Any CIO discussing costs of the switch is at least arguing a point worth considering. It’s when an organization brings up Microsoft talking points, such as security, that I feel they haven’t honestly considered a Mac approach.The Small Wave

I think this is dead wrong. short-term thinking is always a sin. if you're not strong enough to see ahead and stand up to your myopic, rabid shareholders you don't have what it takes to do more than just stumble into the future. you can only achieve and maintain Greatness by following the long view.

reactionary business strategies and higher-ups concerned only with tomorrow's stock price are why I can't take Libertarianism seriously. the market isn't self-correcting because people are a part of it. (related: why I don't take Communism seriously)

I see an IPO as a business equivalent to being bought by another company. the founders cash in their chips and the company is left to flounder along under a new ownership, flayed by shareholders worried about the opening price. it's possible to be Great as a publicly-traded company, but it's not at all common and usually involves silly tricks with different classes of shares.

a wingnut is trying to protect traditional marriage again, but it's not what you think:

he's trying to ban divorce.

People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.

it would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

in a way, I hope he makes it to the ballot.
 

UPDATE: wow, this sure is making its way around the internet. as usual, someone else says it better:

It’s hard to tell whether Marcotte is being serious or ironical about this (his picture is hard to read). Either way, it begs the question of whether people are willing to follow their beliefs to their logical, if unpleasant, conclusions. My experience in life has been that most of the time, people are not.Morgan Clendaniel

my experience correlates.

to help you cut through the crap more efficiently:

replace all mentions of "pro-family" with "pro-church".

because it's pretty obvious they don't care about their families at all¹.