Easy Useless Economics - Krugman

Mark Thoma provides a Krugman commentary in the NY Times.  Basically, how some economists explain away economic phenomena as "just because".  That sounds bad.  I should sum up a bit better.  Economists calling the current drag in unemployment a structural problem.  Krugman says this is the easy way out and leads to laziness - if it's structural, you're rather limited in what you can do to bring employment back up.  He points to pre-WWII as evidence, as there's an article in the AER, a top economics journal, calling the pre-WWII high unemployment structural.  Krugman says that WWII provided fiscal stimulus, and the US bumped down that high unemployment.  While I (seem to) agree with Krugman that this current bout of high unemployment is unlikely to be (mostly) structural, as I can't imagine something that happened so quickly and drastically changing employment decisions, I'm curious if Krugman is insinuating that NOTHING is particularly structural.  I feel it's appropriate to criticize the somewhat lazy thinking, but I think Krugman is thinking first best (when there's nothing to distinguish between ideal and real life), whereas we live in a world where we need to think about third best (transaction costs and political friction).  There are folks out there who don't want to see fiscal stimulus, so even if you want to see it happen, it ain't happenin'.

Job Creation by Party

From Bloomberg.com, via Mark Thoma.  Private jobs increase more during a Democratic presidency while public sector jobs see more of a boost during Republican presidencies.  A little ironic, but it's definitely more of a correlation than a causation.  Roaring debate in the comments section about which presidents did what with regards to taxes to boost growth.  Some violently defensive comments, somewhat amusing...

IGM Forum Poll

Another two-fer.  My excuse is studying for finals and working on some final papers...

French labor policies.  I lied, this is sort of a three-fer, as this is a two part poll.

Question A: Reducing the minimum retirement age in France from 62 back to age 60, permanently, would reduce long-term French economic growth and substantially raise French debt relative to GDP over time.

Question B: France’s overall employment is higher today because of the 35 hour work week than it would be without a limit on weekly hours.
General agreement for A, I think it's hard to argue against it, and the one disagree vote didn't have a comment.  Encouraging people to not work (retirement) surely can't help growth.  Question B, I think that the general equilibrium effect is difficult to assess; a few economists think this, quite a few uncertain votes.  If (big if) workers are homogeneous and each hour they work is homogeneous, then the work hour limit would boost employment - you want to hire a certain number of total hours, but it's split between more people.  Research project, maybe?

Price gouging.
Connecticut should pass its Senate Bill 60, which states that during a “severe weather event emergency, no person within the chain of distribution of consumer goods and services shall sell or offer to sell consumer goods or services for a price that is unconscionably excessive.”
Lots of beef with "unconscionably".  For the most part, people like pricing mechanisms in the free market setting, which I'm a fan of, but a few economists are wise enough to point out unfortunate monopoly effects.  If a rich-ish person (not so rich that they wouldn't mind arbitraging a little) sucked up quite a bit of the supply, this would lead to some serious inefficiencies.  Two agree, and Angus Deaton steps in and strongly agrees: "Efficiency is less important than distribution under such transitory conditions."  I'm torn; if people aren't jerks about it, this law isn't necessary, but I'm rather skeptical about people not being jerks...  Professor Deaton is right, though, efficiency needs to take a back seat if the welfare of a good amount of citizens is suffering.

Age Limit in the NBA

Steve Kerr on age limit for NBA, via Grantland.  He thinks it's good business to have a 20 year old age limit.  On the one hand, I would argue that it's up to the clubs to make that cost/benefit analysis to themselves; if clubs don't think Anthony Davis isn't ready, they can just pass on him.  There are arguably externalities, though.  It hurts the whole league a little bit if top pick bomb, not just the club itself.  And, if there was anything that really stood out during the lock out, it was that owners and general managers needed rules in place to save themselves.

From a "right to work" legal stand point, I'm curious as to how age limits work.  There's an age limit for the US President and other political offices, but no one cries foul about discrimination or anything like that.  Kerr points out that this isn't ruining their opportunity to earn income - just look at Brandon Jennings playing abroad.  I definitely think the one year rule is a pretty big farce; as has been pointed out, you don't really need to attend your classes to play your freshman year.  You'll be put on probation in your second semester, and failing those classes, you'll be suspended, but you're going pro anyways, so it's all moot.

I definitely think there needs to be more information given to these athletes, trying to get them on the right path in the long run, and in life in general, not just the quick money grab.  With that being said, the NCAA definitely needs to fix up the image of the "student athlete" it's trying to portray.  I don't know about paying student athletes, but I do know that the NCAA needs to make sure athletic departments get their priorities right: the students should come first.

Youth Football and Concussions

Youth Football and concussions, article by Ashley Fox on ESPN.  The article has a video with Merril Hoge discussing youth football risks.  Fox would want her kid to play any other sport than football.  She doesn't name hockey, to be fair, but lists lacrosse as a possible alternative, but from what I know of lacrosse, it's not extraordinarily better than hockey or football.  I agree with Hoge in that people seem to be ignoring improving the situation.  Risks are higher in football, but good training of the coaches and parents can do a lot for those risks.  I also agree with TMQ's suggestion to let kids play flag football until their brains have developed more.  Even more so, with the game becoming a pass heavy league.  You learn plenty of good techniques and skills, playing flag football - how to run routes, remembering plays, and all that.  Maybe even argue for better tackling, since you can't recklessly go after someone and hope to grab a flag.

The Culture of Music Snobs and Music Mobs

"High brow" elites moving towards "low brow" culture in the Understanding Society blog. (Via Mark Thoma)  I put in quotations because I question the definition, but we'll get to that.  The article covers a few articles researching the music-listening habits of people divided into high status and low status categories.  The theory is that high status people would flock to "high brow" elite culture whereas low status people flock to "low brow" mass culture.

(much longer post, so click below to read more!)

Paul on Paul vs. Paul

Krugman (not Ron) thinks face-to-face debates are kind of pointless.  At least, in the setting which the video presented.  Need some fact checkers, says he.

I think it was TMQ or Bill Simmons who said that all these televised debates should have people checking facts, so one wouldn't be able to (inaccurately) hype themselves up/blast others.  I think the reference was to "Around the Horn" or "Pardon the Interruption", where arguments are revisited and mistakes are pointed out.  Blowing things out of proportion, stretching the truth, I get how that's part of politics.  Telling (blatant) lies to generate votes in your favor, however, is disgusting.  If I ever run for a political position, I will hire plenty of fact checkers to correct other people and myself mid-debate.  Anybody who doesn't want a fact checker during these sorts of things is a phony.

Blogs as Academic Articles

In Overcoming Bias, thoughts on whether blogs should count towards academic credentials.  Good point about getting press via blogs, but not necessarily good research.  I think tenure should keep good press in mind (if students like you, they're more likely to apply), but being a professor is really about just doing research (unfortunately... teaching is a far second for quite a few profs, sadly).  I'm not sure blogs should be highly considered in academic credentials, though I think it would be good to make note of a researcher's blog whenever possible.  Though not as rigorous as peer-reviewed journals, you can get some interesting, off the cuff ideas via blogs which can contribute to your own research.  To be fair, I think blogs are meant to be somewhat off the cuff.  It's a good forum for discussion, but nothing particularly rigorous.  Researchers just need to weigh whether the lack of rigor is worth the good press and the little light bulbs.

(As you can tell by my notable absence last week, it wasn't worth it for me... big end-of-semester paper due...)

Paul vs. Paul

I could just post the video, but might as well give some more traffic to Mark Thoma...
A video of a "debate" between Ron Paul and Paul Krugman, with Krugman's comments.  I feel both did their fair share of not-listening, though Ron Paul did some straw-manning, which is not cool.  And there definitely wasn't enough explicating from either side, though not entirely their fault.  A few things which the discussion should have gotten into: the stance on going back to the gold standard and the stance on the Fed.  I'm bothered by Ron Paul's 100% crowding out assertion and his suggestion that the negative correlation between deficit and employment is a strong one.  I counter the latter with: you could eliminate all unemployment by increasing the deficit a drastic amount - the government hires everyone to be a teacher, cop, or politician.  I do agree with Ron Paul that uncertainty is not doing the economy any favors, but his other comments I find rather iffy.

IGM Forum

So, each week, the IGM Forum, which is associated with the Chicago Booth School of Business polls a variety of famous economists on whether or not they agree or disagree on one or two comments.  The results are usually what you might expect, but the comments some economists put down are occasionally high in the unintentional comedy scale.  To give these guys credit, some do have good comments which make you think about your stance on the comment a bit deeper.  The last two weeks' polls...

Ticket Sale:  Laws that limit the resale of tickets for entertainment and sports events make potential audience members for these events worse off on average.
One good comment on (rich) scalpers buying up all the tickets and reselling and insane prices - though this would be transparent enough, and scalping is illegal, thereby limiting this happening.  Best thing to think about in this case: are tickets sold efficiently in the first place?

Security Screening: The former head of the Transportation Security Administration is correct in arguing that randomizing airport “security procedures encountered by passengers (additional upper-torso pat-downs, a thorough bag search, a swab test of carry-ons, etc.), while not subjecting everyone to the full gamut" would make it "much harder for terrorists to learn how to evade security procedures."
Some economists advocate profiling (it would be more unintentionally humorous if there was a large racial diversity among the poll responders, and only the white guys advocated profiling...).  A lot of questioning on why economists should know this - because it's a behavioral thing, silly, and you're supposed to know your game theory.  Predictable screening habits don't make much sense, as terrorists can plan for that, and inspectors can miss noticing something dangerous if they're focusing on looking for something like a small lighter.  I think that the full gamut is too costly compared to the benefit (if nobody slipped through, I'd buy it, but I have a feeling that's not the case).  A mixed playbook of checks seems like a good idea, but profiling is going to lead to trouble.  One economist argues that terrorists will just send more guys through, but gathering that many guys and training them is much easier said than done.

Science & Tech Stuffs

Two interesting articles in the Economist's Science & Technology section from last week's issue.
The (social) science of civil war.  The article examines different programs which model the possibility of a civil war-related messiness.  Predicting terrorist attacks in a guerrilla warfare setting, understanding the evolution of protests, looking at "what-if" scenarios during growing conflict.
Telephoning habits of the different sexes as they age.  Once people hit the grandparent-ish age, the people they call changes quite a bit.  Women start calling other women, presumably their daughters, to assist in relationship-building (of the child producing kind) and child-rearing.  The reasoning: if you can't produce babies anymore yourself, better make sure your offspring are producing and raising babies successfully.  Guys, no such (biological) necessity; men do call women at a lower rate as the get older, though (not as much need to call the wife).

Medical Costs

How One Hospital Bent the Cost Curve - NY Times
Nice to see that there are little things the medical field can do to reduce costs.  I really think the focus of insurance and hospitals are the results, not the number of procedures.  Incentivize getting the patient healthy, not the process of restoring patient health.  Preventive action is also pretty key; insurance agencies should really be pushing the preventive care, I'm sure it would save them costs.

US Capitalism vs. European Welfare

A Mark Thoma article in the Fiscal Times. (*GASPS* not from his blog?)  Mark Thoma compares the free market managing of the US and Europe.  US = very free market, very dynamic.  Europe = more protection, a little less free market.  The tradeoff: giving up security for (1) higher economic growth and (2) a more stable economy.  You can read the article for further explanation...

Key part of the article is a very basic comparison of US economic growth and stability to a variety of European countries.  (1) There has been more growth, but the difference is "relatively small and has been diminishing over the last decade", and these benefits have been mostly going to those at the top.  (2) Stability is a mixed bag; unemployment is higher in the US than some countries, lower than some, but a paper from the Institute for the Study of Labor suggests that there is little correlation between size of welfare state and subsequent sovereign debt troubles.  You don't say.

Mark Thoma's conclusion sounds about right: you don't need to give up the dynamicism of the US, but there are European models of security that look like they can work well in the rather-free market.

Dynamic Ticket Pricing

Basically, demand for tickets go up, price for tickets go up.  The companies which do the ticket price calculation for the sports teams have variables which they plug in to get a price.  Article on ESPN's Page 2 Playbook.  (I liked the old Page 2 blog roll style, Playbook is rather unfortunate).  I'm curious as to how this affects scalping.  My thought process : if prices stay low, then demand exceeds supply for good games, and scalpers can push their prices up a bit more; with dynamic pricing, the equilibrium price is being met by team's pricing system, so there isn't nearly as much excess demand.

This brings up another thing I've wondered about.  At sports games at UH (University of Hawai'i - Manoa, the university I attend), there's the occasional ticket scalper at basketball and volleyball games.  However, these games are nowhere near sold out, and the price at the ticket booth is like $10-15.  The time (and risk) of scalping seems rather hefty for the marginal profits the scalper might make.  Maybe I'll do a paper on the economics of scalping.

Goal Line Technology in Football

Or what Americans like me call soccer.  A brief comment on goal line technology for soccer.  Two arguments against: continuity and the element of human error.  To the former, the author points out we don't have to ruin continuity and it's good to not want to chop up the smoothness of the game.  To be fair (and soccer is my favorite sport, so I'm not making fun of the sport like your stereotypical American), not very many goals are scored...  To the latter, I say there's two kinds of human error: bad ones and ones that don't matter as much.  I think wanting to remove (the effects of) bad human error is a noble cause, and robbing people of goals/giving undeserving goals are bad human errors which should be removed from the game.

Clippers to 'protect' Griffin from hard fouls

From ESPN LA.  And people question the enforcer role in hockey...  Granted, I think some of the scrapping in hockey is just ridiculous, but there's gotta be some happy compromise.  I say bloody knuckles.

Surprise Surprise...

... liberals "consistently score higher on a personality measure called 'openness to experience'" while conservatives tend to be less open, ie. conservative... Article in the WaPo.  It's an opinion piece talking about some recent research into the psychology of politics.  The author kindly points out the two sides' different kinds of irrationality: liberals will latch onto something extremely novel, even if there isn't much evidence provided, whereas conservatives stick with their beliefs even with mounting evidence against it.  Note that this is the psychology of thinking liberally/conservatively, not necessarily the ideology of liberals (Democrats) or conservatives (Republicans).

I think the best way to go about it is to be conservatively liberal.  Be open minded; I'll believe you if you show me some solid evidence.

Repealing "Resolution Authority"

If Mark Thoma says it's crazy, it must be crazy...  House Republicans voting to repeal "resolution authority", which is what would give the government authority to take over a (large) shadow bank.  Without it, you either let the bank fail or you bail it out.  Republicans calling out for preventing moral hazard, but you can't let a bank just fail.  I bet if they a good deal of their savings in banks, they wouldn't want a bank to fail and eat up their money.  I empathize with not giving banks an out if they stink up the joint, but allowing a bank to fail is not a good idea, nor do I think it's a credible threat.  Bailing out, as pointed out in the article, allows the generous severance packages.  I'm not suggesting that the government does a significantly better job than banks do, but governments don't have perverse incentives like bank managers do - the government doesn't necessarily care about profits.

Is repealing resolution authority just a way to insure that crappy bank managers still get mad money, rather than getting kicked out?

Government Optimism

Mark Thoma sends us to Jeff Frankel about over-optimistic official forecasts.

Unrealistic macroeconomic assumptions, fanciful theories about tax cuts, and legislation that deliberately misrepresented policy plans ... explain the failure to run surpluses during the economic expansion from 2002-2007: if growth is projected to last indefinitely, retrenchment is regarded as unnecessary.

Apparently, government folks don't like erring on the side of caution.  Some interesting decisions made with regards to budgeting, and explained rather well by Frankel.  The Office of Management and Budget are the guys churning out these budget forecasts; I'm pretty sure this is a "both party" problem, so no finger pointing, please.

Alternative Medicine

The Economist has an article on the increasing popularity of alternative medicine.  I'm a fan of preventative measures, which the article suggests alternative medicine does a better job of.  Being Asian, I don't mind me some herbs and acupuncture.  But where to draw the line between strange things that work and just plain strange?  Homeopathy, that seems a bit funky.

I think the different takes on double blind tests is particularly intriguing.  Also, the effectiveness of the placebo effect.  More specifically, the physical effectiveness of the placebo is obviously not as buff, but the psychic effect is on par with "real" medication.  Both groups feel equally as good.

State of Sactown Basketball

From ESPN's Page 2 Playbook, Tim Keown's take on what should happen to the King's.  Even though I'm very upset with the way the NBA (David Stern and Clay Bennett, in particular) handled the Supersonics move, I'm disgusted by what the Maloofs have done with the city of Sacramento.  In a time like this, strong arming the city that passionately supported the team into helping out with an arena?  I'd argue that if David Stern didn't encourage the Supersonics moving to OKC, the Maloofs lose a lot of power.  Thanks, David Stern, for screwing over two cities...

Mankiw is Popular

And I don't mean because of his book or because he was Bush II's economic adviser.  Plenty of posts about his recent comments.  All via Mark Thoma.

Mankiw doesn't know an invisible hand when he sees one.  Or rather, he sees one when it really isn't there.  It's a common mistake, plenty of people misquote Adam Smith, I'll give him a pass.
Brad DeLong things Mankiw endorses Obama.
Harold Pollack thinks Mankiw is giving the left wing ammo.
Dean Baker thinks Mankiw is doing a cover up job; governments are supposed to redistribute, but they've implemented a system that redistributes upwards.  I dislike one of Baker's examples about pharmaceuticals;  yes, the companies make a lot of money off one drug, but they also lose a lot of money on other drugs.  You want to make sure you still have pharmaceuticals making drugs?  Make sure they can cover the incredible risks they take.

To be fair, I think Mankiw isn't opposed to the government; I think he recognizes that government intervention is necessary when it comes to social benefits and redistribution.  I think he's considered a conservative because he believes the role of government in providing these two are lower than most liberals. He's a stingy liberal, if you will.  It's just too bad he thinks Romney'll do a better job than Obama...

Cost of Obamacare

Just wanted to post something, as I haven't been as on top of posting as I could be.  Krugman commenting on Steve Rattner's peice on Medicare and the Affordable Care Act.  I guess it would be good for me to read both articles that Krugman provides, Rattner's piece and Robert Reischauer's piece, so I can formulate my own opinion on whether double-counting is happening or not.

Crime and Capitalism

Bruce Judson on crime and capitalism. (via Mark Thoma).  Judson argues that crime, if not punished appropriately, creates distortions within the "free" market, which can really disrupt growth.  It gives cheating agents an unfair advantage, allowing the agent to profit when it really shouldn't be profiting.  A good extension on being paid (somewhat) equal to your marginal productivity.  If you're cheating, you're not really being productive, and you shouldn't be benefiting from that faux productivity.

Clarification is Good

Dwyane Wade clarifies his "Olympic compensation" remarks.  Wade's never seemed the type to be disingenuous about such things, and I buy his argument.  I can only imagine that a lot of people up top are making off with loot when the US team is successful - unless all profits (not all revenue; I'm considering managerial/organizing costs) to Olympic related sales are going back into the Olympic development programs, you can't really criticize Wade's comments about jersey sales.  His point about not getting a break is really big, too; money can't buy you the rest you need between seasons or time spent with family.  How do you compensate for that?

Panflation

The Economist says everything is getting bigger.  Some key figures:
American universities are giving As to 45% of students, compared to 15% in 1960.
A woman's size 14 in 1970 is now a size 10.  What used to be an 18 is a 14.

Development Economics War?

Chris Blattman asks Did Acemoglu and Robinson just declare war on development economists? (via Mark Thoma).  Considering my development professor was an institutionalist, I don't have the background as to how institutions don't matter (at all), or what sorts of articles completely ignore institutions.  I think it's foolish to think that ONLY institutions matter, so writing an development article with which institutions aren't the main catalyst isn't necessarily ignoring the importance of institutions.  However, until we start looking at HOW institutions matter, what really lies behind the political economics of it, I don't see what's so interesting in institution-based development economics.

Potlucking

So much more appetizing than politicking...  or pot licking, for that matter.  Anyways.

Macro model party, all via Mark Thoma.
Forecasting ability of macroeconomic models, professional kind, theoretical kind, some old school Keynesian-type kind.  None do a very good job.  Research says "No" to Krugman saying "No" to DSGE.
Noah Smith defending (weakly) Lucas/Prescott.  "No" to forecast, but policy implications are OK.  I started thinking about Minority Report with the mention of the Lucas Critique; you know someone's going to murder someone else, but then you have actions which change that.  Now I'm thinking of Back to the Future.

I buy it.  Forecasting, unless you're keeping track of everything, is impossible because of stochastic, random(ish?) events.  The movie Limitless is a lie.  The usefulness is in policy analysis.  At least think a little bit about how people might react/interact to policy changes which an older macromodel might not be able to handle as cleanly.

PS.  Sorry for the tangents.
PPS.  Yes please.  Electric DeLorean DMC.

Politicking

Some stretching-of-truths to get some political positioning?  Surprised?  I guess that's the whole point of politics  *cynicism/sarcasm*.  Krugman sends us to this article in the NY Times about Governor Christie of New Jersey stretching some numbers to excuse (reason?) shutting down a public transportation project.

Worst line:  Mr. Christie said "I refuse to compromise my principles".  Even if that's what the people who voted you into position want you to do?  I'm not saying that's what the majority of Jersey-folk wanted, but just sayin', that's a tough stance to take...

More Social Darwinism

Don Boudreaux thinks this article is sexy.  I think it's a stupid argument.  Social Darwinism has nothing (per se) to do with the size of government.  It has everything to do with how to handle inequality and socioeconomic differences.  I don't think it's particularly unfair to call out some Republicans for social Darwinism because they're not huge fans in (at least, some notable ones aren't fans) of helping the poor achieve higher levels education - actually, some have pointed out how education is stupid (indoctrinating, I think is the word Santorum used).

It's stupid to call Obama a socialist, a Muslim, Kenyan, or the anti-Christ because he isn't (with regards to the last one, I don't think he's demonstrated in any way that he is).  You won't get exercised if a social Darwinist is a social Darwinist.  While it might be "offensive", doesn't mean you can't call someone out for being one.  I'm happy to tell someone that they're racist to their face if they indeed are.  While the Ryan plan isn't blatantly social Darwinist, the emphasis on the "free market" which has screwed over the poor demonstrates scant attention to the welfare of the poor (despite what the words might construe in the plan).  At the very least, it shows how little these people really know about bringing people out of poverty, and mentioning their suffering without actually attacking the problem is unfortunate.

Tax Loopholes

So I've been exploring some other blogs, to diversify the economic literature that I read.  After a discussion on economics with a friend who's on the more conservative side of things, I figured I should read some (respected) conservative/libertarian blogs, and Cafe Hayek seems to be the trick.  I have yet to read anything that I consider beneficial to my knowledge of economics, but I do find several posts worth commenting on.  This one on tax loopholes brings up a good point.  Governments, you would think, are trying to be efficient, so there aren't technically any tax loopholes.  This makes some sense (Donald Boudreaux points out that this is not saying the tax code is optimal).  However, what does this say about Ryan's budget plan?  How do we offset the losses in tax revenue from decreasing top level tax rates by closing "loopholes"?  Are we looking at deductions which could make the poor suffer?  I hope Bourdeaux has a serious talking with Ryan...

Social Darwinism

More multi-article posts!  This one on a hot topic in politics...

Miles Corak on research by Isabel Sawhill regarding the permanence of inequality (via Marginal Revolution).
Robert Reich on his beef with Social Darwinism (via Mark Thoma).

I guess the main question, which I have yet to see answered, is how is Social Darwinism any different from biology?  If anything, the former article by Corak appears to reinforce the notion; if you're hosed at birth, not much can be done to be less hosed when you grow up.  Response to that after my answer to the difference in biological and social Darwinism.

In biology, not much can be done to ensure that your offspring and their offspring aren't hopeless.  A not-so-camouflaged prey is going to bear not-so-camouflaged prey, even if you give it a jacket of sorts so it doesn't get eaten.  However, if you give a broke guy a million dollars, assuming he's not stupid about the windfall, can pass on the benefits of the change in situation to his kids.  Moving out of hopelessness isn't so possible in biology, even if you assist it (unless we change the genetics of the creature); moving people around in socioeconomic classes with assistance, and the change can be permanent.

In response to anybody who might claim that Sawhill's research only makes Social Darwinism more of fact, I say "nay"; there are two options for what we see.  (1) Social Darwinism is true (I doubt this), (2) we're not giving enough transfers.  My story: let's say all you need to move up the socioeconomic ladder is a BA.  University costs $10,000 to attend.  Those low on the ladder cannot afford any tuition; all their budget is tied up already.  If the government gives out anything less than $10,000, we won't see any changes because the wealth transfer isn't enough.  So, with Sawhill's research, you could actually argue that we're not giving out enough.

Yessir.

Information Asymmetry

Name of the game in two articles...
Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier on Grantland on info asymmetry in sports.
Pink Slime commentary on CEI's blog.

The former introduces the concept of what happens when one party knows more than the other - namely when the sports industry can "trick" fans.  Not particularly deep, but a good introduction if you haven't taken any hardcore economics classes before.

The latter is more interesting, with the information about pink slime's pervasiveness in the food industry.  An argument has erupted in the forum about the appropriate amount of information which should be divulged.  I agree with the author that there is some tilt in the way the media is portraying the issue, but the opposition has a good point - how do you pick and choose what information should be divulged and what shouldn't?  I think they're overselling the need for complete information, as few people operate like that; I'm the only person I know who regularly checks nutrition labels.  Complete information is a cost (otherwise, we wouldn't really have asymmetries in information), but what are the benefits?  I agree with the author's accusation of people who have taken a holier-than-thou look at the issue; on one hand, the addition of LFTB is somewhat trivial to your food.  Not completely trivial, mind you, but I think that if LFTB hadn't been dubbed "pink slime", these celebrity chefs wouldn't commenting - it is, after all, very similar to sausage.  Conversely, the doubters point out that if the matter WASN'T serious, the industry would not have disguised the fact.  Converse conversely, if it was THAT serious, the FDA wouldn't approve it.  So... how much information to divulge?  What are the costs and benefits?

My view?  I don't know about the economics side of it, but from the health side of it, I'm not a huge fan of ground beef in the first place (I stick with ground turkey), but all the health folks mention reducing processed meats; I think that's the key to LFTB.  It's probably not a big deal to consume it, but you shouldn't be consuming too much of what it's coming with in the first place.

Social Immunization

Article in Scientific American via Mark Thoma.  Very interesting.  Ants which pick up an infection (a moldy parasite, in the case of this experiment) are not quarantined; rather the other ants in the colony help clean up the infection.  By reducing the dose of the infection, there's increase chance of surviving on the part of the initially infect ants, and the rest of the colony has a little bit of an immune boost.

I say if viruses and bacteria are going to survive our attempts to eradicate them through hand sanitizer, we should fight back and survive their attacks.  Show them who's boss.

Spelling Bee

The spelling of heteros*edasticity...  A publishable paper can be written on this?  I didn't read the paper, but you only really need to read the abstract.  In the case of the dasticity, people are shifting from c to k.  However, c is more common in homoscedastic(ity) and heteroscedastic.  I should do an examination in grey vs gray...

(I'm not sure how I should label this post; this is hardly front page news, and there's really no debate, hence no on-the-fence-ness...)

Ghostwrite the Whip

More beauty from Grantland.  Amos Barshad and ghostwriting in hip hop music.  I love hip hop for its lyricism, so it's fun to think about how rather well-defined vocabulary, patterns, structures, and cadences sounds when using a different voice/timbre/pitch.  Eazy's lines on the "Straight Outta Compton" with Ice Cube's voice?  Album wouldn't be the same.  Eminem doing all of "Forgot About Dre"?  Loses its punch.

I feel like I should step it up more when it comes to recognizing these lines (especially considering I still buy albums, so I have liner notes to use to my advantage); I can hear when someone is using a ghostwriter, usually, but I never stop and think who might be actually writing the lyrics...

Pink Slime Economics

The title of a Krugman op-ed piece in the NY Times.  (I know!  Not a blog post, a whole article!)  Krugman derides Rep. Ryan's budget proposal, and I find it indeed hard to not be critical of the proposal.  A commentor points out the hypocrisy of the right wing crying out class warfare.  Another point of hypocrisy, I haven't read much about the new budget proposal actually doing significant deficit reduction - and from what little I've read of the proposal, I can't see how it would, considering you're cutting spending and likely dropping revenue.  Rep. Ryan consistently suggests "broadening the tax base" - is he suggesting taxing the poor significantly more?  I agree with some notions, such as rethinking the culture of government spending, but this proposal is ridiculous.

Path to Prosperity for Rich Folk, more like...

Heat and Hoodies

Fantastic piece in Grantland about hoodies by Wesley Morris.  Quick summary of the tragedy, brief mention about the subtle racism of the hoodie, and then a wonderful discussion about the duality of the hoodie and "gangsta" culture in the NBA, the dress code in particular.  The dress code as an attack on culture, but also how the players embraced it and evolved their culture.

The star players looked on the bright side. They hired stylists and began to think about (and overthink) what to wear. They donned suits and bow ties and snazzy glasses. They went to the tailor, wore their clothes tight, and accessorized. The new style felt like both a mockery of dapperness and a legitimate embrace of it. Hip-hop was already headed in this direction, away from gangsta-ism. It made sense for the NBA, too. A wealthy man should look rich.

And then, how the Heat's team photo  is a stark contrast to this (new) image the NBA portrays.  Very powerful.

Gas!

I could've sworn the clip from Bill Nye was "It's a gas!!", but my old age apparently has robbed me of my memory.

Anyways, everybody knows that the president can't affect gas prices... Let's hope more people see these sorts of articles and makes the connections.  Articles include a commentary by Richard Thaler in the NY Times (via Mark Thoma) and an article in The Economist.  More please, so we don't have any more confusion...

My People!

Lin injured, out for season (?)

Education in the US

... and the fight over government spending.  Krugman links us to Jared Bernstein about education.  Graph can be better viewed on the original post by Bernstein.  While the percentage of younger adults who have a tertiary educations is higher than the percentage of seniors in most OECD countries,  the US (along with Israel and Germany) isn't doing so hot; Bernstein and Krugman argue that it's an attack by the GOP on government funding of education.  Bernstein points out the budget proposed by Rep Paul Ryan changes will "eliminate [Pell] grants for 400,000 students and cut grants for more than 9 million others in 2013 alone"; Pell grants are federal grants to assist students from lower income families to help pay tuition for college.


Krugman attests this to conservative distrust of science.  While the graph is interesting (moderates used to science significantly more than conservatives?), I'm not completely sure I buy this.  Most of those guys attended college, I'm sure, so I'd imagine they know that college and science are not the same thing.  I wonder if this is more to do with the disconnect between social inequality, college, and being able to afford college.  It doesn't seem like the GOP understands that to really be a "soon-to-have", you need something to get you there (some sort of education), and that "soon-to-haves" cannot afford this education by themselves.

Oh Boy

Former NFL number two pick Ryan Leaf arrested on burglary and drug possession.  This is made worse by the fact that he was on probation for crimes he committed in 2008 and was indicted for in 2009.

I was trying to think of some clever pun about how far a leaf falls from a tree, but it's just not a good pun to work with.

How to Cure Tanking

From Adam Gold at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. (Via Katie Baker at Grantland)  As soon as one gets eliminated, you earn points for wins and ties (as always), but these points go towards draft order.  More points, higher draft pick.  I like it, though it makes it tough for teams who are perpetually on the cusp to have a good chance of getting that one top pick which can push them to the top.

I've wanted to attend this conference for quite some time.  However, I have very little background in sports analytics.  I think I need to spend the summer reading all these sabermetrics books (and the respective sport analyses).  Also, it would be pretty awesome, I think, for students to take a class in this; get more students interested in economic analysis.

Permanent Fall in Potential Output

Mark Thoma contemplating Bernanke and DeLong&Summers.  He wonders if the current high level of long-term unemployment is cyclical or structural.  In other words, reduced (aggregate) demand or worsening mismatch between workers' skills and employers' requirements.

I wonder how either is possible as permanent shocks.  People still like (buying) their stuff, and it's hard to imagine that employee/employer matching has suddenly become severely worse.  I think we're still seeing the effects of financial constraints from the recession; it seems to me like a lot of inertia is involved, and we need to rethink how to attack these problems.

There is No Social Security Crisis

The Atlantic, via Mark Thoma. I'm not sure if the graph is really suggesting that there won't be a SS crisis, but it's emphasizing that Medicare (and health care in general) is more of a crisis.  As long as the US can rev up output, we shouldn't have a problem, right?

Kentucky and College Basketball

Chuck Klosterman on UK basketball.  He suggests that if Kentucky wins, the recipe for college basketball will change.  Everyone will recruit the top one-and-dones and duke it out.  I disagree because...
1) Kansas is going to win it all (disclaimer - Kansas fan)
2) As the article mentions, just assembling a buff team of NBA hopefuls doesn't mean you'll win it all
3) A lot of talent takes time to develop; a few freshman get selected as top picks, but there are other good basketball players who are upperclassmen, and this development can outweigh raw talent

This is an interesting phenomenon that Calipari is working with, as I've read before that his recruits don't fare significantly better than players from other colleges.  Anthony Davis would be the number one pick no matter where he went, it's not like Calipari (necessarily) somehow developed him to be awesome.

History Lesson

Menzie Chinn with a history lesson on Econbrowser.  The lesson isn't fantastic, but the post has a quote from Chinn and Jeffry Frieden's book that I like.

[T]rue fiscal responsibility involves a willingness to raise sufficient tax revenue, over the longer term, to pay for the programs the government implements. Fiscal responsibility should not be equated with a small government, but rather with a commitment to pay for the government services provided. ...

... If the nation affirms that enhancing national defense and improving health care for the poor are legitimate goals, fiscal responsibility entails raising the revenue to fund these programs, rather than borrowing for them. (Chinn and Frieden, 2011, pp. 202-03.)

Though, I will add that I don't see a little borrowing as a problem; need some flexibility with funding items.  I do agree that fiscal hawks need to actually think about what "raising revenues" actually entails when they complain about deficit spending.

Medicare for All?

Robert Reich suggesting that Obamacare should really be Medicare for all. (Via Mark Thoma).  During my break, I had a conversation with a good friend's father, who happens to be a private doctor.  He's troubled by Obamacare and other sorts of government intervention in the medical field.  Reich suggests that much can be solved by making Medicare an insurance source for all Americans, like Social Security is a retirement fund for everyone.  He points to lower administrative costs, and how some of the problems private insurance companies are seeing are due to the "pre-existing health problems" mandate (my friend's dad also made note of this).  I tend to believe that something as crucial as insurance shouldn't be profit motivated, or nearly as profit motivated as it likely is.  I think a lot of problems with regards to health coverage is a poorly functioning insurance-health care partnership; there's a lot of limited coverage, you can only see certain doctors, doctors will only take certain insurance, etc.  On the other hand, I lived in Montreal for 3 years, so I experienced government health care, and it's a mess.  I wonder what (entirely) public insurance and (entirely) private doctors would look like.  Government supported health care can be messy, but poor people have to see doctors, too.

Oh Acemoglu

One solid instrumental variable*, and your career is set.  Article in Slate about The Hunger Games even makes a  reference to you.  The economics of the movie is all about colonialism, which I'm sure Acemoglu (and Johnson and Robinson) didn't come up with, but you get a few paragraphs talking about your research AND name dropping of your book.  Alas, I clearly just need to come up with an amazing IV and I'll never have to work again!

*For those not in economics, an instrumental variable is a proxy for a variable which is quite possibly correlated with your dependent variable.  AJR's paper notes that economic growth and institutions is a little chicken and eggy, so you need to find a proxy for institutions (in AJR's case, it's settler mortality).

PS.  Gone for a few days, can't update blog, and suddenly, my blog views are up like 30 views... I should publish less often.

Fan Violence

California bill could ban violent fans.  I'm all for rooting for your team and making fun of other fans, but assaulting another team's fan is just ridiculous.

Inequality Buzz

A lot of buzz about inequality recently, in politicking and in the blogs I follow.  Let the list commence!
Robert Reich on Social Darwinism - basically, the rich get richer, only the strong survive.  This is case in point that some members of the GOP are using the budget deficit as a screen for leaving the poor out to dry; Paul Ryan's plan will end up with similar budget deficit levels.
John Sides via Mark Thoma about budgeting concerns - the GOP is actually not closely following its "constituents" as one might imagine; the guys upstairs want to cut SS, Medicare/aid, but a poll suggests that even Republican primary voters are against cutting these.
Roger Altman via Mark Thoma urging action - or rather, no more inaction on inequality.  Do something about taxes and education, Altman says.  A comment in the comments section suggests that globalization and union busting is a source as well, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.  Globalization improves efficiency, and consumers greatly benefit from lower prices; you'll lose a few jobs, but I'm inclined to think those are low-skilled jobs, and we should be educating those people to be successful at high wage jobs.  Unions can decrease productivity; when low-skill jobs really sucked, protecting the worker was crucial.  Now, some unions are prone to inaction, being belligerent and protecting workers' jobs when the occasional guy really needs to get fired.

My two cents?  Inequality is OK.  REAL socialism (not "Obama socialism" crap) and communism was a disaster for quite a few countries.  Not gross inequality, like what we're seeing, but some variation in wealth should be expected.  It would be nice to change the mentality of "haves and have-nots" to "haves and soon-to-haves", but there's nothing that the (Republican) candidates are doing to suggest that they're working to ensure that people are actually in the "soon-to-have" arena.  Alas, there seems to be no effort, and as the wise C-3P0 said "We seem to be made to suffer"; it's looking more and more like "haves and never-to-haves".

I could've sworn I've read way more stuff on inequality... This is an unfortunately wimpy list.

Password Security

With all the hax happening on the interwebs these days, it's strongly suggested to have buff passwords.  This article in The Economist is interesting in that it has research data on how break-able some passwords are.  If a website limits its attempts to 10 (guesses), hackers can get through 1% of the time, and as many as 126 websites don't (attempt to) limit guesses.  Using a mnemonic is suggested to make easy to remember/tough to crack passwords, but a 2006 study showed a 4% success rate using a dictionary of song lyrics, movie titles, and other pop culture goodness.

I... Don't Understand

Tebow to Jets.

Opportunity vs. Entitlement

Nancy Folbre commentary on Romney accusing Obama of an Entitlement Society.  I do think people who preach opportunity but accuse governments of entitlement need to explain the growth in inequality of income distribution before they can go around calling out people for too much entitlement.  Clearly, there isn't THAT much opportunity going around, if the outcome isn't leveling out somewhat; I find it hard to believe that the equilibrium of butt loads of opportunity is a very high Gini coefficient.  Further, giving kids a good education can hardly be called entitlement.  I would agree with Romney if there was serious investment in colleges and universities, but the increase in student tuition and decrease in state and federal funding at colleges tell a different story.  Either way, you need serious investment in primary and secondary education if you want to promote an Opportunity Society.

War of the Words

A combat of sorts, regarding the capital gains tax.  Mankiw has an article in the NY Times, Uwe Reinhardt has a response, and Steve Landsburg has a response to Uwe.  Easier to just link to Mankiw's blog, which has all 3 linked.  What are my thoughts, you ask?  Read on, I say.

Craziness

Manning to Denver, with Broncos looking to trade Tebow.  This is a complete 180...

Phony Kony

After this mess made by Jason Russell, one of the founders of Invisible Children (Kony hunters extraordinaires), I felt like some sort of thoughts could be put on paper.  Always need a spring board, and why not Chris Blattman?  I like Blattman's critique on advocacy: "successful advocacy often tells a simple story; simple stories usually lead to simple solutions; and simple solutions can do more harm than help. If you want to help, your first duty is to make sure you don’t make things worse".  (I also think this analysis of Invisible Children, which can be applied to all advocacy groups, is awesome).  So far so good.  I disagree with Blattman's analysis.

Suppose you believe (as I [Blattman] do) that capturing or killing Kony is the best of a bunch of bad options. And suppose you also believe (as I do) that, to capture or kill the man, Central African governments will need advanced military, intelligence, and special forces support.

Capturing or killing Kony is irrelevant, from my understanding; the LRA is largely out of Uganda, and Kony hasn't had a presence for quite a few years.  I'm not sure I agree with his latter conclusion, as well.  The LRA is becoming more and more sparse; Uganda and other Central African governments have done fine without superior military might, intelligence, or special forces support.  They need coordination, as with any fight with mobile guerrilla resistance units.  Granted, awareness from the general public can motivate governments into some action.

One major concern I have is...  Even though the LRA's actions are despicable, an interview with Kony I saw brought up a serious issue in Uganda.  The LRA allegedly started their fighting because of the corruption in Uganda politics.  I'm working on a paper related to corruption, and Uganda's government kind of sucks.  Its democracy is somewhat of a sham.  Throughout all this talk about Kony, why hasn't this been brought up?  Save the children from Kony, and save the Ugandans from their government?

Economics Exceptionalism

Andrew Gelman on the buffness of economics.  Actually, questioning how buff economics really is, but being an economics PhD student, I HAVE to think economics is buff... right?

The post analyzes the current status of economists and economics, and compares it to Freudian psych in the 1950s.  Basically, [insert economics/psych] is the belle of the ball, and everyone is ogling.  As always, I have some little thoughts about bits and pieces of the article (which is lengthy), and the other articles it points to (which get even lengthier).  The background of the debate, I can put my views in quickly, but the recent debate (relating to Rush Limbaugh's garbage) sparks some other (unrelated directly to economics exceptionalism) comments which I've been pondering about, but have yet to publicly display.

Playlist from 3/16 Set

DJ Kno Kname Set:
Public Enemy - Bring the Noise
LL Cool J (is hard as hell) - I Can't Live Without My Radio
Run DMC - Can You Rock It Like This
Eric B (is president) & Rakim - Let the Rhythm Hit 'em
Afrika Bambaataa - Planet Rock
Naughty By Nature - OPP
A Tribe Called Quest - Can I Kick It?
Gangstarr - Step Into the Arena
Wu Tang Clan - Protect Ya Neck
Aceyalone - Lonely Ones

Baby Bobby aka Little Digital Set:
Stevie Wonder - Master Blaster (Jammin')
Ike & Tina Turner - Come Together
Aretha Franklin - Nobody Knows the Way I Feel This Morning
Nina Simone - Black is the Color of My True Love's Hair (Verve Remix)
Roberta Flack - Killing Me Softly
The Temptations - Just My Imagination (Motown Remixed)
Donny Hathaway - Little Ghetto Boy (Live)
Curtis Mayfield - Mighty Mighty (Live)
Isley Brothers - Love the One You're With (Live)
Lee Fields - Who Do You Love?

Scat Spiegel Set:

The RZA - Bebop (Live at the Rooftop) Remix
Charles Mingus - Moanin'
Duke Jordan - Night in Tunisia (Rebop Remix)
Thad Jones & Mel Lewis - The Big Dipper
Herbie Mann/Sam Most Quintet - Fascinating Rhythm
Herbie Hancock & Chick Corea - Liza (Live)
Wes Montgomery & the Wynton Kelly Trio - Four on Six
Thelonious Monk & Gerry Mulligan - Straight, No Chaser
Max Roach - Freedom Day

Soundtap Madness

Much like March Madness, except commercial-free radio style.  Help KTUH dominate even more.  Listeners log in and listen to their favorite radio stations.  Radio station with top listener-minutes move on to the next round.

Internet Tethering

And I don't mean using your cell phone.  The Economist has an interesting article about being handcuffed to technology (namely, smart phones).  I'm hooked to my phone, but that's because working for a radio station that runs 24/7 means stuff can hit the fan at any time.  Gotta make sure important texts, calls, and e-mails don't get to me too late.

And I write this post as my cell phone is turned off, due to running out of batteries.  The irony.

Moral decay

Reich and Thoma on public vs private morality, via Thoma.  I don't necessarily agree that what people do in their bedroom is their own business, but I do marvel at the hypocrisy of the Republican candidates.  They want small government, but want to impose serious restrictions on the private morality of people.  I agree that politicians should focus on the public morality side of things, and only private morality when it truly does have serious implications on the welfare of the nation.  Gays being married, I don't think, will tear down the moral fiber of every American, nor will it harm the economics side of things.  Access to contraception, if anything, makes people more productive, as they don't have babies to worry about - that is, of course, if they aren't spending more time canoodling since they don't have to worry about babies to take care of.

I will say that I think there is some private moral rot, but not in ways that the Republicans are suggesting.  I think people should step up and be more responsible and more active, kinder to other folks, etc.  Public moral rot, though, that's deeply concerning, and undermining "the integrity of [our] economy and democracy", that's not cool.

Touche

But not necessarily game, set, match.  Bear with me as I think this through.  Mark Thoma brings us to a Bruce Bartlett commentary regarding some logic used by Professor Allan Meltzer.  (So if you want to refer to me for referring you to the above link, I think the easiest way would be to copy and paste that sentence, and add "via Wayne Liou, wannabe economics blogger").

There is evidence that policies don't do very well equalizing distribution of income, so Professor Meltzer denounces the point of policies.  Bruce Bartlett counters that if policies don't matter, then it must be that higher taxes don't have as much of an effect on the (dis)incentive to work, which is mentioned in a later Thoma post (original article by Diamond).  I don't think this is quite the right conclusion, but I agree in a sense.

Policies don't have an effect on equalizing distribution of income, not necessarily on productivity of the economy.  Distributive policies could lower the income growth of both rich and poor people, so Professor Meltzer's warning makes sense.  However, I've read that most people don't care about absolute wealth, they care about relative wealth, so the wealthy folk shouldn't be too considered about feeling poorer; the poor are poorer as well.  So, since feelings won't be hurt with respect to feeling rich, we're looking at economic productivity/efficiency.  Which brings us to the Diamond research, which says "Bring on the tax man".

More on College Athletes

Syracuse's Fab Melo ruled ineligible for tournament.  What, did the school really think his grades would improve in a matter of weeks so he could play in March Madness?  Another complete failure on a university's part to make sure these guys are students first, athletes second.

Weighing in on Scales

Krugman's example on when scales matter.  Besides when you need to find out how much weight you've gained over Christmas and New Year's.  Basically, if you're looking at a tiny scale, a boom is fantastic, but on a larger (national) scale, not so much.

I dunno, I think this is intuitive, and he could have come up with an example that wouldn't confuse anybody.  If you win $500, you're pumped (I'm assuming you aren't particularly rich; if you were, I have no idea why you'd waste time with my blog).  If Bill Gates finds $500, he's meh.  The graph he provides comparing Pennsylvania and North Dakota hides a little of this; the amount of endowments increases, but the percentage increase in resources is drastically higher in North Dakota.  I don't know who would argue that the discovery of energy resources in North Dakota (only) would have a crazy impact on the US as a whole...

Graduation Rates Among Athletes Improving

AP via ESPN, gap between graduation rates for African Americans and whites is decreasing.  The unfortunate part is that over half of the change is the graduation rates among whites dropped by 3%...  Not meeting standards is punishable by loss of scholarships, which doesn't make all too much sense to me.

Belts and Metaphors

Krugman says "Lose the Belt".  Kinky, sorta?  So what's the difference between a government and a family tightening its belt?

When a family tightens its belt it doesn’t put itself out of a job. When a government tightens its belt in a depressed economy, it puts lots of people out of jobs; and this is a negative even from the government’s own, narrowly fiscal point of view, since a shrinking economy means less revenue.

I have beef with his metaphor comparison, especially in the Greece example.  A family not doing so well slashes spending on inessentials, but shouldn't postpone (serious) medical care and other (essential) big expenses, nor quit their jobs and reduce their incomes.  Austerity implies cutting everything, but I don't think that has to be the case.  The government need not put itself out of a job.  However, there are certainly many aspects of the government's spending habits that could be done more wisely.  As conservatives say (but rarely actually mean), cut the fat.

Crazy Kids These Days

What is going on in Afghanistan?  Army staff sergeant leaves base and kills 16 civilians.  Afghanis seeing this as a plot, but Americans saying the guy acted alone.  Irony(?) is that he was part of an operation trying to "develop close ties with village elders, organize local police units and track down Taliban leaders".  From a macro perspective, the US Government isn't doing the best job in the world in the Middle East, but the micro side (individual soldiers) isn't really helping the cause.  Burning Korans, killing civilians?

The Prestige

Fan of the movie, not of the ridiculous emphasis of it in the job market. (NY Times article via Mark Thoma)  The article starts off talking about increases in higher education tuition, which can be attributed to a prestige chase - graduates from top schools get most of the attention on the job market, so there's a competition to hire top professors to make your school a "prestigious" top school, boosting professor salaries.  Darn this stupid signalling effect.  If a prestigious school was really tied to fantastic intelligence, I'd buy it, but while there most certainly is a (positive) correlation between the two, I wouldn't say the correlation is 1.  I'd love to do a paper on this, see how much signalling is happening versus how much skill development/initial intelligence is happening, but as anybody who does research on human resource/education can tell you, evaluating skill development/initial intelligence is tough...  If only I was incredibly intelligent and attending an Ivy League school, I'd be able to come up with a devious instrumental variable (*dripping sarcasm*).

Ethics of (Macro)Economics

I'd like to see Krugman back his claims up.  I can buy it, there are plenty of folks out there only interested in themselves, but it's not nearly as transparent in some cases.

Don't Hate the Player

Hate the game.  Via Thoma, Krugman 'splains Santorum and Romney hating on the education game.  It's completely incomprehensible why anybody would root for bringing down education.  For someone who is Chinese, whose ancestors made the mistake of being all proud and full of themselves and shutting down the growth of knowledge, this is sad.  It's one thing to argue something like the effects of economic policy.  But taking a dump on education?  WHAT ARE YOU THINKING??  If Santorum thinks schools indoctrinate kids, then he should get people to step up and make schools "better", rather than tell people to be too cool for school.  Disgusting.  Maybe... unforgivable?

Speaking of Bounties...

Washington moving up the draft board, moving up to #2 for RG3.  I'm a fan of RG3, but that's some serious booty to give up for RG3.  Bountiful, even.  I'm a Seahawks fan, and I would have loved to see the 'Hawks trade up for RG3, but trading away 3 years of firs round picks and this year's second round pick?  Better draft really well in the later rounds...

Equality of Opportunity

Awesome graph in this post by Krugman.  I'm curious, though, how much of the difference in completion outcomes is related to income.

Romney is awfully cynical - "don't expect the government to forgive the debt you take on".  If this is the mentality, we wouldn't have very many doctors or lawyers; med or law school without loans, yeah right.  I think I'm convincing myself a little bit to agree with Romney... less lawyers... yum.

Also, if you don't go to the university with the highest price, you're not really getting equal opportunity.  Harvard is a whole lot more helpful in changing your socioeconomic status than a small div III college close to home.

Libertarianism

Via Mark Thoma, Noah Smith on libertarianism and Yann Giraud.

Two quick things; (1) it's never safe to label political/economic ideologies in such general ways, and (2) I'm not a particularly huge fan of Milton Friedman, either.
(1) I have a friend who considers himself a libertarian, who is a bit idealistic like Milton Friedman, but he has some core differences with the stereotypical libertarian; I think the stereotype is because of hiding among the right wing folks, and not stepping it up and being "truly" libertarian.  Some of those guys are only libertarian when it comes to money, and even then, being only concerned with free markets, they don't do a very good job of making "liberty" sound good...
(2) I'm all for free market, but Friedman only seems to see externalities and incentives when it means no government intervention, as opposed to when we should have some market controls.  I recall seeing a video where he pwns a student wondering about an inheritance tax, but overlooks the flip side of inefficiencies when it comes to giving out inheritance.

Unforgivable x2

TMQ on Saints' bounty system, that is unforgivable indeed.  Especially when it trickles down and affects kids at the high school level.  As the guys at Hodge-Stansson's Production say, unforgivable.

Unforgivable

Jon Stewart summarizes this mess up pretty concisely and in somewhat humorous fashion.

I can empathize (somewhat) to various political/ideological/moral views which oppose my opinion - hence my whole "on the fence" spiel.  Being a complete idiot (and jerk) about it is something that no one in their right mind should stand.

Back down to Earth

Ben Detrick wants the Linsanity to stop.  Hear hear.  The man (Jeremy Lin, not Ben Detrick) has done a fantastic job, coming out of nowhere and earning a starting job in the NBA, but his game still has holes.  I like keeping things in perspective, and Detrick sums it up perfectly in his penultimate sentence:

Like most guys in the NBA, he’s neither a star nor a fraud — just a player who can do useful things in the right situation.

I wish Lin nothing but the best.  I just realize he has a long way to go before he can be as dominating as the media made him out to be when he burst onto the scene.  No drooling from me yet, no sir.

Interesting...

Washington Post Editorial via Mankiw, Mankiw encouraging a Steven Chu (Energy Secretary) tax on gas, of up to $2 (it's currently less than 2 dimes) per gallon, of which the money is supposed to go towards road infrastructure.  Mankiw is Romney's economics adviser, so if Romney goes along with this, I would imagine it'll be tough for Romney to win the Republican candidacy.  (1) Taxes, (2) believing in the externalities of consuming gasoline.

I buy it, I think gas is pretty under-priced, even though the price is quite atrocious in Hawai'i.  The only thing I wonder about is how elastic peoples' use of gasoline and driving really is.  You can't do much about changing how far away your job is, and while I'm a big proponent of public transportation, it's a tough thing to rely on, and I can understand driving to/from work.  Buying more fuel efficient cars is a possible outcome.  Thinking out loud, though... most of a car producer's profits are from selling SUVs; would Detroit be in an even bigger mess if the gas tax had kept up with inflation?  Conversely, it's possible people do end up taking more public transportation, and every place has a beastly public transportation system.

Little Thoughts on Many Things

Not too many deep thoughts on several recent posts, but here goes...

KTUH Action

Groove in the Garden, March 8, 5-8 PM
Radiothon Kick Off Party, March 15, 5-9 PM
KTUH Radiothon, March 18-24
But wait, there's more.  Call now and get...
KTUH Radiothon DJ Night
I'm totally not cool enough to DJ for that last one...

Four Ponies...

... because they'll bring the APOCALYPSE??  Horsemen/ponyboys of the apocalypse?  Oh, I missed an "H"?

Krugman presents... some phony arguments by the Republican candidates, updated version.  Summarized, despite all their chatter, the four Republican candidates' plans might result in higher budget deficits.  The shrewdness, the trickery.

Jon Stewart has more Republican trickery...



... and now, back to our feature presentation, Krugman's blog post.

Smart Jocks?

ESPN's Page 2 presents a study which found that student athletes might be more intelligent than the stereotype (damn these stereotypes *shakes fist*!) might suggest.

There are some concerns with the measurement of the intangible categories the researchers used, and it's true that student athletes, in general, start a bit lower on the academic ladder, thus have more room for improvement, but I believe some of the speculation on why this might be.

B.O.I.

To B(O.M.B) or not to B(O.M.B), that is the question.

Sorry, I like puns.  The Economist analyzes what to do with Iran and its increasing nuclear buff-ness.  War does seem like a stupid idea with Iran.  I've been seeing pamphlets up around campus suggesting that the US shouldn't sanction Iran, either, and that puzzles me.  Intrigued, I Googled "no sanctions on Iran", and stumbled onto this website.  I'm very interested in what these people propose we do about Iran.  Iran's repeatedly ignored calls to slow down their uranium enrichment, and in the past, has had secret reactors.  The country reluctantly allows inspections by an international organization.  This isn't George Bush Jr. being kind of stupid and invading Iraq while claiming WMDs.  This is various countries being concerned about Iran's ability to weaponize its nuclear material.

I wonder what these "no sanction" folk do when their kids misbehave.  Beating the kid (attacking Iran) might not be so good, but the kid has got to at least get a time out (sanctions), right?  I agree that Iran should be able to use nuclear energy (though it does seem odd that every other country in the world seems to want to NOT use nuclear energy, unfortunately), if someone tells you to slow your roll, you're going to look suspicious if you don't.  Just sayin'.

By the way, Outkast reference in the title?  Anyone?  Bueller?  No, not Boi like Big Boi, B.O.I., like B.O.B., but we're not talking about Baghdad.

Jeremy Lin...

... and more racist thoughts thoughts on racism.

Via Cracked.com, 4 things the Jeremy Lin story reveals about modern racism.

I posted previously on fortune cookie Lin-sanity frozen yogurt and how, as a (second generation) Taiwanese-American, I wasn't particularly offended and didn't find it particularly racist.  The Cracked columnist's revelation #4, though, with the screen shots of comments on Hoekstra's political ad, had me irked (the comments, not the revelation).  Which got me to thinking about racism...

How Is It...?

Jon Stewart poses two very good questions... "How is it that Mitt Romney hasn't crushed this guy already?", and "How is it that Rick Santorum hasn't crushed this guy already?"

Which sends us to Paul Krugman, who sends us to Digby, who

 sends us to Chris Mooney on how conservatives become less willing to look at the facts, more committed to the views of their tribe, as they become better-educated.

David Stern = Punk

Sacramento Kings have arena deal in place with David Stern along for the ride when it came to arrangements between the Kings and the city of Sacramento.  Thank you, David Stern, for proving once more that you're a jackass.  You did nothing to help out the Supersonics situation, merely saying it was unfortunate, and all but helping Clay Bennett pack his bags to Oklahoma City.  And somehow, Sacramento is more deserving than Seattle...?  Not trying to bash Sacramento at all, but honestly, Seattle is top 20 in market size, has a passionate fan base, and has history (won an NBA championship), yet doesn't deserve David Stern's support?  Since this blog does not have the whole "Adult Content" warning thing, I will have to refrain from expressing any more anger.

Yes, I'm from Seattle, and I love(d) me some Supersonics.

Classic Comedy Butchered

Greg Mankiw - Abbott and Costello Explain Unemployment.  Two things; one, this isn't as funny as Abbott and Costello should be.  Two, I have a feeling this is a jab at Obama, but I can't really tell, and the jab isn't even necessarily pertinent...  I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the data.

Frozen Yogurt + Fortune Cookies

"Taste the Lin-sanity" frozen yogurt has... fortune cookies in it?
To be fair, as someone pointed out in the comments section, a lot of Chinese restaurants out there serve fortune cookies, so Chinese folk aren't really helping their own cause.  I'm not saying fortune cookies in (Asian inspired) frozen yogurt is a good idea, but any Chinese person offended by this needs to call out Panda Express and other Chinese restaurants for serving fortune cookies as well.  I, for one, wouldn't mind a full shut down of Panda Express, except for their cream cheese rangoons.

Full disclosure, I'm Jeremy Lin-lite; second generation Taiwanese, I play basketball, I studied economics as an undergrad.  It's just that I'm 5'7" and nowhere near as awesome.  Or smart, since he went to an Ivy League school, and I went to a WAC school where people read surf forecasts instead of graduate level textbooks in their freshman year.

P.S.  Some ice cream suggestions in the comment section are pretty funny.  "Charles Barkley Ice Cream: It's Turrible"...  T-R-B-L, turrible...

@dj mr. nick

I don't condone twitter, but KTUH's dj mr. nick has a new Twitter account.

Might as well encourage people to follow KTUH's Twitter account while I'm at it...

What Is Opportunity?

Noahpinion - What is opportunity?

So, we have two thought experiments:

1. Ability is 100% inheritable (an average of your parents'), and income is a direct function of ability.  A straight up meritocracy.

2. Ability is determined at birth by a dice roll.  Straight up luck.

Are either scenarios the "land of opportunity" to straight cash, homey?