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.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
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.
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).
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, April 23, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, April 20, 2012
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?
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.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
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...
Monday, April 16, 2012
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...
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...
Sunday, April 15, 2012
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.
Friday, April 13, 2012
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.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
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?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
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.
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...
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...
Sunday, April 8, 2012
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.
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...
Thursday, April 5, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
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.
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...)
(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...)
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
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...
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...
Monday, April 2, 2012
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...
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)