Thanks for your comments. It's always better to have someone with first hand knowledge of the situation. I think your comments jibe pretty closely with the paper that I linked to in the post that criticized the "kerala" model.

But you know, that's what's great about a real democracy, like India's -- the voters put the Communists back in power in May, and they're getting what they want...

As I understand it Sean, and you can follow the link in that post to sources of more information about exactly that, the point of the Monsanto user agreement is to attempt to shift liability for the contamination from Monsanto to the farmer. I agree with you, I don't understand how this protects Monsanto from a suit by the injured party, and I'm not sure if this has ever been tested in court. I'll try to follow up on it.

Just what we need, another bubble!

I'll keep my eyes open on that one, thanks.

Andrew,

My understanding of the term "property rights" as applied to fishery management is that it does not refer to location, but to the fish themselves. That is, in the case of halibut off alaska, you can purchase the right to fish so many fish, and you can even sell that right to someone else, under certain limitations. Another word often used in this context is "quota" but for strange reasons, libertarians often shy away from that terminology...

Chris,

Your analysis of negative amortization and how banks go about their business is much appreciated. I learned a lot from it. I'm going to add an update to the piece linking directly to it. That kind of added value (along with all the other letters in response to this piece so far) is the kind of stuff that will ideally make this blog a shared conversation, rather than just my helter-skelter observations.

I still have to say that the fundamentals implicit in Washington Mutual's numbers are unsettling to me. A surge in negative amortization in conjunction with a housing bust is going to stress mortgage holders. WaMu has already laid off a bunch of mortgage bankers, and Wall Street is now, after the horse is way out of the barn, asking for loan standards to be tightened up. I don't have quite the same faith that bankers are being as prudent as they should be. I guess we'll find out.

Thanks for adding that level of detail. You're absolutely right about the petrochemical industry, of course -- though it's not for lack of industry attempts to get over.

I've been away from Taiwan too long -- I really need to study up.

i dunno dan, the data out today about existing home sales brings us the worst numbers in two and a half years. Flippers were definitely a big part of it, but if the downturn continues another six months, real people are going to suffer.

you're absolutely right, charlie. serves me right for getting cute.

I goofed on the homo sapiens and bigger brains. I should have known better -- my mother is a brain scientist. Also, I did not realize that neanderthals would also be considered humans. Mea culpa. I'll update.

whoops!

urk.

argh.

I spent four years in Michigan drinking Strohs, and have pounded more than a few Bud longnecks in my time. But I'll stand by my opinion that beer selection generally gets worse the further you get from urban centers and coastal regions. There are exceptions, to be sure, and I didn't mean to imply in my piece that what change _has_ occurred happened yesterday. I have been greatly pleased, in fact, by the spread of Sierra into supermarkets and corner stores across the country over the past decade. That's progress!

The Wall Street Journal's reporting documented that consumption of imported beer has been rising in the Midwest. That rise has lagged a similar rise on the coasts.

Contemplating the reasons for that and seeing it as a positive thing should not be an excuse for accusing me of living in a bubble.

Although, I like my bubble, thank you very much.

I was an original fan.

I even wrote about Xena for Salon, waaaaaay back in the day.

http://archive.salon.com/july97/21st/xena970703.html

I really hate making sloppy errors like that.

It's been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

that is a good question, and I don't have a great answer.

i think ultimately that developed countries have fewer options than developing countries, and that's as it should be, since nations with dynamic economies that are able to shift resources from sector to sector with comparative ease can adapt to global realities a lot better than lesser developed countries.

Andres

the list of ten countries are the ones that China has trade deficits with, not surpluses. it has a trade deficit with Angola because it imports so much oil from Angola.

mitch,

my personal opinion would be that punitive tariffs would not be the wisest industrial policy for the _U.S._ to engage in, but that's a horse to beat in another post...

parliament, i believe, but I'd better check.

China Law Blog asks what I think about that new UN Report -- well, that's the one that I started reading that led to the Rodrik paper, which distracted me for the rest of the day. Today, I aim to try to finish it!

and the point made by noryungi about weak and strong states is critical, yes.

kookibear,

i've been a full-time employee of Salon for nigh on ten years now, which is pretty amazing, but for awhile I hid behind the scenes as an editor.

thanks!

yes, camille, I think that post makes the key point that the real problem is not whether China gains more than the U.S. from trade, but that the distribution of gains in the United States is a travesty.