Assorted links

1. Dating markets in everything.

2. Caplan responds on pacifism.

3. The political bias of The New York Times.

4. Timothy Lee on TGS; he simply repeats a point I make in the book (and elsewhere) and calls it a criticism.  And there is Lis Carey on TGS here, and Mixed Realities here.

5. Markets in everything earthworms there is no great stagnation

6. The new Robert Fogel book (1/20).


Tyler, do you own a smartphone?

Search your Kindle version of "The Great Stagnation" for the word "mobile" for the answer to that question.

Or does a smartphone own him?

After having spent the last 3 days listening to doctors and nurses gripe about each others' electronic medical records despite (or maybe because of) everyone knowing for a decade that electronic medical records was the next no-brainer, I conclude that the singularity is far.

Why not just go to the store and buy earthworms? Weird. Hey, did you know that earthworms are an invasive species?

2. Yay! You can in fact embrace a pacifism bias AND read the newspaper. If you read the newspaper and haven't embraced a pacificism bias it is YOU who is being impractical.

But what about civil resistance and civil (including violent) disobedience (of which pacifism would be an example in a time of conscription)?

The argument some Palestinians use (and the Jews might have used in the Warsaw Ghetto) is that bystanders are not innocents. The degree to which they are right or wrong in this argument seems key.

Interesting that the NYT paper was submitted in March of 08 but only published this year.

What does the paper on the NYT, published in an economics "journal," have to do with economics? Come to think of it, I find myself asking this question more and more frequently about purported economics articles. Perhaps somebody could help me with current definition of economics? Is it the use of statistical methods? Are they not used in other disciplines?

They realized there was a market for sociologists with basic statistics skills and filled the niche.

Does the Fogel book make any new arguments from Fogel (2003), or does he just add more data?

#1 - I don't understand what's the difference between that and hiring escorts?

What's the difference between buying women with money or by buying them with dinners or engagement rings right? I suppose it's a matter of degree and flavor.

"Markets in everything earthworms there is no great stagnation. "

that is not a very grammatical sentence.

infovores have no time for grammar

The rhetoric in the NYT article on Fogel's new book doesn't seem to match up with the facts. I've never considered healthier living an evolutionary advance. People have reached very old age throughout history as long as there's been sufficient supply of natural resources to live off. I think Angus Deaton nails it when he asks why African adults and children are taller on average than children in India, despite India having a more advanced and wealthier economy.

Furthermore, didn't Thomas Macaulay make Fogel's argument 150 years earlier?

Well, average height in the US declined from 1830 to 1890, just the time when the US economy grew the most in history. The decades of fastest industrial growth in the US were the 1840's, 1870's, and 1880's. Perhaps if people that started living over a large area start to pack together they tend to get smaller, as people that work in agriculture and live on open spaces and go for the industries and the small closed spaces of the cities. With the growth of the suburbs from 1890 onwards, people started living in more open spaces again.

In India, people have war less space than in Africa. Maybe that fact is partly responsible for the big Africans/small Indians puzzle. India is a low middle income economy now, with substantial urban populations that live in tiny apartments, while Africa is a low income economy were the population usually stays outdoors.

Anyway, the relation between body height and economic development is not monotonic.

I don't see the risk that a site like commodifies companionship in principle, it seems like it only commodifies the value of a first date. (?) (Although that particular site looks a lot like a front for an escort service.)

NYTimes a liberal newspaper. Shocking revelation!

Yeah, but previous evidence was anecdotal. Now we have a proper study to prove it.

While the New York Times would not wish to alienate Republican readers needlessly (after all it is not indifferent to sales), there is no question that its sympathies lie naturally with the Democrats.
When an interviewer quoted an adverse comment from the Times to Ronald Reagan, he asked, "What is new about that?" The paper he took to readily was the Washington Times as it was during his years in the White House.

Using Gallop polls as a proxy for NY Times readership seems kinda silly. I mean, Times readers are probably wealthier, more educated, and more likely to live in New York. Seems like the readership could certainly be a bit left of center, especially considering that the WSJ is picking up the conservative part of that demographic.

Comments for this post are closed