by Tyler Cowen
on August 14, 2013 at 11:40 am
in Uncategorized |
1. New disputes about black holes and firewalls.
2. Dasgupta against Sen.
3. Are the French scandalized by celibacy?
4. Hezbollah’s refugee problem.
5. Is federal student aid counterproductive?
#5: This is a great topic and a nice article. One of the great challenges of this era is explaining the dangers of third party payment systems in such a way that no one will ever try them again. College financial aid may provide the opportunity to do it. It seems that some in higher ed understand the trap in which they find themselves. It is similar to what some in the South realized about the economics of slavery.
Counterproductive for whom or what?
#5, of course, no news there, surely?
Does it matter, is the question. Nothing’s going to change the direction of that train.
To label the link to Dasgupta’s article as “Dasgupta against Sen” is incredibly deceptive. The argument, because it focuses on externalities, is very much an argument agaitn the free market policies of Sen’s detractors. This is the type of deception I would expect from a Koch Brothers operation.
#2 should be “Dasgupta against Sen and Bhagwati”
3. Amazing that nobody would want to have sex with that creepy woman for 12 years.
1. I cannot understand the scientific reasoning. I cannot understand the non-scientific explanation in the article. And I have a doctorate level education (non-science). My conclusion: this stuff is confusing.
Why can’t economics reporting be like this article? And why can’t comments on economics articles be like Allan’s comment? Why oh why are we stuck with the usual insanity that passes for economic discourse?
The two-party system.
Any other questions?
As the article notes, even professional physicists are unclear and divided on this tricky paradox where several individually empirically well established laws of physics seem to imply different outcomes. Unlike economics, in physics, a lack of clarity among experts in the discipline regarding what conclusions the core established theories of the last century of academic study in the field imply is newsworthy and unusual.
People should be clear with 5 that the big problem comes with aid that goes to nearly everybody, including most of the middle to upper middle class. The model doesn’t have a problem with things like Pell Grants reserved for the poor.
After all, to radically simplify, if *everybody* gets $X to go to college, then colleges can try to capture that by raising tuition by $X. That argument doesn’t apply if only a small percentage of people are getting the money.
We ran the experiment. Lotto revenues increased tuition dollar for dollar. Case closed.
I don’t get why #3 is such a big deal. Can’t people maximize their utility how they want to.
1. Wow, that article proved beyond any metaphysical doubt that time can be sucked into a black hole.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Elon Musk’s hyperloop
Next post: The future of higher education in Alabama?
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.