Here is the link. The chat covered how economists should think about incentives, the proper scope of libertarianism, my book as "economics for the emotional," whether I have ever visited a prostitute, Natasha’s biggest self-deception about me, underrated and overrated economists, and why New Jersey has produced so many libertarians.
Here is one excerpt:
reason (8:40:58 AM): …what’s the inner economist’s most important message to congress (briefly)?
Cowen (8:42:17 AM): Humility would be a good start. Cut spending is another. Worry about nuclear proliferation. Institute greater accountability.
So what spending would you cut?
Tyler,
I am all for you playing up the NJ connection. Despite my travels I still think it is the best place in the world for a mix of high/low culture, and the aggressiveness at which ideas (trivial and profound) are discussed. And it has the best pizza on the planet.
Pete
Apropos of not this, have you seen this? Filipino prisoners dancing to “In the Navy”, “Thriller”, etc. as YouTube phenomenon and, increasingly, market in…something.
“reason (8:52:06 AM): we’ll talk more about the limits of knowledge in just a second. first, explain why you’re such a lousy tipper. you counsel your readers not to go above 15 percent.
Cowen (8:52:51 AM): give the money away to somebody who really needs it. send it to Haiti! Any waiter working in the U.S. is doing pretty well in the broad scheme of things.”
Disappointing! This squares with creating incentives, how? Please tell me I’m tired after a long week and this was sarcasm passingly lovingly over my head.
Bernard Yomtov wrote: “Good advice [humility}. And advice that I would direct to the GMU economics dept as well. The extreme collective egomania that comes across on the web sometimes makes it hard to evaluate the underlying ideas.”
Maybe Bernard need to have a little more self confidence or work on
his inferiority complex????
The folks at GMU are NOT idealogues and they seem willing to engage
all comers on the merits of the ideas; this makes them a real pain to
the real idealogues and networked academic old boys who underrate
economists who dare challenge their “innovations” with such primitives
as: evidence; downward sloping demand curves; and/or considerations of
opportunity cost. Long live the spirit of true debate that GMU is
fostering!
Bernard,
I offered you a look in the mirror, not psychobable. Your missed it;
too bad for you.
The tone, the tone, oh the tone of the GMU faulty oppresses me . . .
PPPLLLEEASE, get over yourself and focus on the ideas.
Of course the GMU faculty are proud of themselves; they have
engineered themselves as the epicenter of debate in economics. Since
economics is at its best when economists are arguing about ideas, they
deserve kudos, not carping about their self-confidence.
of
Nick, I read your article about Larry Craig and find your reasoning ability fatally flawed.
No one, heterosexual or homosexual should be soliciting sex from anyone in a public place. We have laws for a reason and apparently you think we should all do whatever we want no matter who is affected.
I’m a registered non-partisan voter and have no love for most Republicans in Congress, but not for the same reasons you revile them.
You contribute to ‘Reason’ magazine? Give me a break.
Hi Best wishes。Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.xicao loves-æµæ°´çº¿å¨±ä¹åšå®¢å¸¸å¹´æ供高ã€ä¸ã€ä½ŽåŽ‹é”…炉钢管ã€æµä½“钢管ã€ç»“构钢管ã€åŒ–肥专用钢管ã€çŸ³æ²¹è£‚化钢管ã€åœ°è´¨é’¢ç®¡ã€æ¶²åŽ‹æ”¯æŸ±é’¢ç®¡åŠåˆé‡‘钢管-æ— ç¼ç®¡-æ— ç¼é’¢ç®¡ç‰è®ºæ–‡å‘表资讯/刊物信æ¯ï¼Œå助客户制定论文å‘表方案
Comments on this entry are closed.