Assorted links

Comments

1. Hubris, right?

3. Reelect Bloomberg?

Well played, sir. Well played.

All you need form the cultural omnivores article:

That notion is compatible with a separate NEA report that finds while 34.6 percent of adults attended “benchmark” arts events such as ballets or art museum exhibits in 2008, nearly 75 percent “attended arts activities, created arts, or engaged with art via electronic media.”

It's the same as the record industry woes. The established gatekeepers are bemoaning the fact that fewer people want to see the overpriced "benchmark" art the gatekeepers want them to see. Which isn't so much that art is dying. Just that massive traditional arts organizations are becoming irrelevant.

I wonder how much of the arts events drop-off might be due to changing patterns of housing? It's harder to go to an art gallery or concert hall if you live in an exurb...

6. Can you please elaborate a bit on your dismissal of DFW? Did you put down Jest after 100 pages? Or maybe contemporary American authors in general? You crapped on Franzen after he wrote a book essentially nailing how people compete within their own modern social domains.

I don't think Glenn would have been mad if he had read the entire book instead of hearing a summary of it from Brink. The idea that stagnation could be a temporary plateau rather than a permanent situation was totally lost there.

It is strange to define "omnivore" as "someone who congregates around galleries and concert halls". Somehow I suspect those mostly-over-55 "omnivores" are not fans of culture like NASCAR, Reddit, or Xbox games. An injustice to the "omni" prefix.

7. The real question is when academics will LEAVE government.

Academic jobs and salaries are propped up by so much public funding, subsidies, loans and grants that they should all be considered public employees.

That's not to say I think all academics are not worth their salt, nor do I think all grants are unnecessary. Public guarantees or loans might be beneficial, although I still believe there are almost zero marginal external benefits to a college education.

There's no doubt, however, that we have too many resources flooding into higher education, and that most of it is going into virtually worthless degree programs. We are funding state propaganda, not education.

Of course, present company is excepted. Economics is one of the few truly value-added, self-supporting majors. Our gracious blog hosts uphold a welcome and refreshing opposition view to the dominant state-funded paradigm.

4 - like what Kevin said, "omnivore" seems to mean "congregates around the culture _we approve of_, not the stuff that normal people actually care about". What a joke. Just because people aren't attending your obsolete cultural modes of expression doesn't mean they've stopped existing.

7 - Where does Tyler think his salary comes from? Yeah, I'm sure the free market would be willing to pay him his salary to teach stuff that most people don'e need to learn and research problems that interest him. _Real_ productivity there, ya know...

Six_Ounces, your reply to 7 said it much better than me ... albeit without enough sarcasm ;-)

Yikes, I disagree with Six_Ounces's last paragraph though ... certain economic knowledge is useful; most of what they teach is unnecessary though (or necessary only because people need to identify existing bad policies).

Tyler,

The first link misdirects.

Looks like the link for #1 is broken, I got a blogging-heads about the Japanese reactor.

The link is http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/34829?in=18:06&out=29:43

Tyler thinks "Glenn gets mad." I don't see that at all.

# 1 Brink Lindsey says there are no ques for Government jobs, I beg to differ. Most of the lower income people that I know would love to get a Government.

Addendum:
I once took the postal exam along with about 400 other people many with college degrees, there were 2 openings!

#8 Much better than the Saloman piece was this restaurant review from Vanity Fair that it references:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/04/lami-louis-201104

Very caustically written.

He got mad about us incarcerating a huge swath of people and then complaining about a lack of potential human capital, as well he should.

"# 1 Brink Lindsey says there are no ques for Government jobs, I beg to differ. Most of the lower income people that I know would love to get a Government."

Many people making middle class money I know would love to work for the Government. I honestly have no idea how Lindsey could say such a thing. There are massive amounts of applications for many Government positions. Demand is so strong there are specialty pay services to help applicants find openings. Getting a Government job, if you don't know someone already inside, is a long process lined with many, many competitors.

Sometimes I wonder if folks in the Washington/Academic circuit really understand today's middle class employment market. With a fallen economy, and just as importantly a national college focus that see's an overload of kids sent to college without a growing labor market to soak them up, thing have changed a lot in a relatively short period of time. To me, there was a big shift *a lot* circa the late 90's. I'm not sure that folks who had their formative business/'starting out' years 20-30 years ago always acknowledge how different today's landscape is.

Jonathan,

I don't think you watched the whole thing:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/34829?in=30:51&out=32:21

They were still talking about the book in the above section.

I still can't figure out what Glenn was responding to. He said he wasn't talking about Tyler Cowen, and he said "OK?!" at the end of his... argument.

Andrew,

So I should steer clear of Tyler Cowen's book, because he's making the mistake incarcerating huge swaths of people, and turning around and complaining about a lack of potential human capital?

I ask because the book was the topic of conversation at the time.

Re #5: Libertarianism and sci-fi

Not sure how one can blog about that and leave out Robert Heinlein. Just sayin'...

2: I don't understand why the desire to defend charter schools leads first to looking at outcomes other than test scores, before pointing out that charter schools are intended to experiment with many possible education alternatives. This allows us to find the few that are better than the status quo, so that those might be adopted on a larger scale. A priori I would not expect them to even do as well as the status quo on average, considering that the status quo is not a random choice but has been selectively honed.

By definition, every single charter school is "better" than every single public school by the simple virtue of the fact that the parents have chosen that school and are pleased enough with it to keep their child there rather than in the local public school.

That is the ONLY acceptable measure of "success" for schools.

same as the record industry woes. The established gatekeepers are bemoaning the fact that fewer people want to see the overpriced “benchmark” art the gatekeepers want them to see. Which isn’t so much that art is dying. Just that massive traditional arts organizations are becoming

Comments for this post are closed