Assorted links


On Ed Glaeser's article, "he should write a book on this." I'd buy it.

I've been involved with urban economic development since grad school (early 1970s), as an urban planner (Indianapolis, 1976-1980), and as a faculty member teaching urban economics and doing a little research on the question.

I've been saying for more years than I can remember that everyone kept writing NYC off n the 960s and 1970s and again in the 1980s, but it never died--because it is, apparently, a good place to *start* a business, because it attracts an immense number of people, either internal migrants from the rest of the US of immigrants, who want to start businesses...

Entreprenuership is not everything, but, in urban development, it matters a lot.

how about MV = PT?

You'd have to cross out the "t" if you wanted science.

8. When the first signatory is a well-known quant trader and one of the statements on the short letter is the concern QE will "distort financial markets" -- I can't help but wonder if his concern is what's good for the economy or what works for his trading models.

how about MV = PT?

Shouldn't that be pV=mRT?

It looks like you have it all mixed up, and you left out the R.

On the QE signers, two points:

1. What on earth is William Kristol doing on the list? He's not an economist, is he?

2. A heavyweight group? Kind of borderline, in my view. But maybe I'm just having a parochial reaction to the fact that there's no one from Yale.

I'm guessing that Prof. Cowen has no desire to touch the second question.

On #1, why didn't Cameron just hire Christian Lander? The effect would be the same, and he probably comes cheaper.

Link #4 (the psi study) makes me think of Dr. Peter Venkman electro-shocking college students (unless they're cute) for failing to guess the image behind a card.

Florida never lets the facts get in the way of the truth.

"MV = PT?"

How about ""the illusion of science without any of its substance."

That would probably increase the owner's chance of getting laid.


Re: Montana vs NYC, it's hard to say: in NYC, you can put a table of book on the sidewalk or walk dogs with zero regulation, a restaurant gets a lot more regulation.

Of course, it's far more lucrative to do innovation in the rich states: a good idea well executed probably benefits from the regulation because rich customers need to do less due diligence, so you get more market share much faster (e.g. food trucks can go from $0 to $BIGNUM very fast.)

William Krstol, Dan Senor, Niall Ferguson, Amity Shlaes -- this is not a powerhouse group of monetary theorists. On what has Ferguson been correct about for the last 2 years?

Comments for this post are closed