Saturday assorted links


7. It's funny how Kling's "manias" (to explain what Kling euphemistically and ironically calls "adjustments") coincided with very high and increasing levels of inequality. Just saying.

I like Kling's framework, close to my own.

On inequality, sure but hardly damning. Tech led manias concentrate gains with technologists. Etc.

6. The downward assimilation idea reminds me on an NYT article about immigrants in France from about a decade ago. They interviewed a man who came to France from China and made himself a success in some traditional Chinese immigrant business that requires a lot of work and sacrifice (it was either a laundry or a restaurant). The asked if his son would follow in his footsteps. The man replied, "No, he's French."
My point is that rather than compare the children of immigrants to their parents, we should compare them to their peers. I grew up in a middle class suburb and most of my peers (myself included) were far less motivated than our parents.

16% of French citizens say they support ISIS. Who's assimilating who?

How much Muslims are in France again? I know, no statistics, but anyone has a guess?

I'll guess slightly more than 16%.

7. Avent: "Fiscal policy is subject to political constraints, and it may be easier to introduce a large stimulus in emergency situations if the pre-emergency public-debt burden is low. That suggests that prudence in normal times is a good idea". I wonder who Avent has in mind with this one. Of course, large tax cuts for the wealthy serve two purposes: they cut the taxes paid by the wealthy (duh) and they run up public debt making it difficult politically to implement fiscal stimulus in emergency situations. What's not to like. My shorthand for the difference between fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus: the former is re-distributive downward while the latter is re-distributive upward. Who you gonna call in emergency situations.

1. Who is Jeffrey Flier? - Dean of Harvard med school. A big deal is made of the fact there are no women deans, but the NIH had a women director ("She stepped down as director of NIH on June 30, 1993, to return to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Dr. Healy was dean of the Ohio State University Medical School and President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Red Cross.")

Also Flier closed the Harvard primate research center, and lost grant money, but probably wise as most such work can be done in vitro rather than in vivo. I have a pet rhesus monkey (I think it's rhesus, it's native to the Philippines however and may not be rhesus), and they are just like humans, meaning, if you lock them in a cage, no matter how big or comfortable, they go crazy (mine is a bit crazy, sometimes after a few days trip it acts like it does not recognize me, and reverts to the fearful teeth-chattering it used to do); even if you give them companionship. It's estimated the vast majority of captive primates have mental problems (and when they go berserk, they go the full 9 yards, and will do stuff like rip your body parts off). Dogs are happy to be walked once a day even if you chain them; but monkeys are not happy unless they are the center of attention, 24/7, and you cater to their whims, and even then they are finicky. But apes are quite adorable, it's like having kids.

Who is the bloke in the photo behind his right shoulder?


Of Pasteurization fame and key proponent of the germ theory of disease. It must be one of the most recognizeable French.

Thank you, I know who Pasteur is. It's only recognisable if your eyesight is good enough. Mine isn't.

I did not mean to sound patronizing, sorry. I mentioned his biographic facts to narrow it. This Pasteur, not that Pasteur
But I found amusing you could not recognize the most recognizeable French after Napoleon, but could recognize the 100 th or so British man (even Prince Charles beats Darwin at the old fame game).

For the Darwin photo I recognised the hat and beard. I'd not recognise even Prince Charles if the photo were comparable to the Pasteur one: just too hard for me to make out.

I'd think Napoleon might be the most recognisable Frenchman unless you count him, not unreasonably, as an Italian. Or have I overlooked someone else? Toulouse-Lautrec? de Gaulle? Asterix? The Phantom of the Opera? Colonel Wosname in Casablanca?

As I said, Pasteur may be the most recognizeable French after Napoleon (and Jean-Luc Picard maybe). Asterix, De Gaulle, maybe even Mitterand, Inspetor Clouseau, The Phantom of the Opera, Tintin and Babar (from the colonies) are strong runner ups. The rest is up for personal idiosyncrasies. Auguste Comte and Alan Kardec are easy for Brazilians. Jules Verne I can recognize. Camus, too, but I think it is not common. Sartre, but not Simone de Beauvoir. What Joan of Arc looked like? I have no idea. Dreyfus? Victor Hugo? Each and every King Louis? Some of those ladies and gentlemen lived in the age of photo and yet just draw a blank from the average people.
Famous British men (that is excluding iconic people like the late Queen Mother, Princess Diana, Elizabeth II, Nightingale, Elton John) are much more recognizeable: Darwin (old and young, but I confess the old Darwin's beard, the same color as his face, seems confusing, part of my amusement regarding you recognizing him, it could have been Tolstoi), Prince Charles (maybe his sons), Orwell, Keynes, Churchill, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Bertrand Russell, the Huxleys, Dickens, Stephen Hawkings, Dawkins, Newton, Gandhi and Nehru (from the colonies), David Beckham most Rolling Stones, some The Who guys, John, Paul, George and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The most recognizable French people for most would probably be Napoleon, Depardieu, and Zidane

Depardieu is unmistakable, but I don't know how famous worldwide he really is, but Zidane's look is not distinctive. He looks like a character from Grand Auto Theft.

Foch? Mme Curie (did she become a French national?). Pétain and Laval? Pompidou. Platini. Wenger.

Depardieu is Russian. Maurice Chevalier. Edith Piaf. Stéphane Grapelli and "Django" Reinhard. Johnny Hallyday?

Foch? I don't know, name-famous, but visually... Clemenceau, looking like a sealion, seems a better bet to me. Mme Curie maybe (yes, I am almost sure she became a French national, and Wikipedia supports it). Pétain, maybe. No one younger than 30 outside France knows who Laval and Pompidou were or what they looked like. Platini.? Famous, but I don't think most people knows what he looks like anymore. Wenger? It doesn't strike me as particularly famous, but it may be an idiosyncrasy of mine.
"Depardieu is Russian." Yet, once upon the time, he was France itself. "Maurice Chevalier. Edith Piaf. Stéphane Grapelli and “Django” Reinhard. Johnny Hallyday?" I particularly struggle to remember their faces.

Eric Cantona. Serges Gainsbourg. Alain fucking Delon.

"Serges Gainsbourg"? Outside France? I doubt. There must be more Brazilians who know what Kardec looked like than non-French who know what Gainsbourg looked like. Cantona probably, but Sartre even more. Alain Delon, yes, although I never understood all the fawning over here.

* over him.

"mine is a bit crazy"
You sure you're talking about the monkey?

4. Totally wrong. In equilibrium, $48.5 million in real resources will be consumed finding and creating the things entrepreneurs believe that eccentric billionaires will purchase in these types of transactions.

rio olympic games tickets cheapest now basketball soccer two good history paypal want?

good column by Noah smith.nativists are immune to opposing ideas.

So the "immigrants are selected for high IQ/entrepreneurship/etc and their children will revert to the mean" argument seems plausible, but that doesn't seem to jive with the data showing Asian/Hispanic immigrants' children earning more than their parents.

Perhaps the reversion to the mean does happen, but is overwhelmed by some other effect? What would that be? For immigrants from really poor countries early childhood nutrition seems like a good candidate, but it doesn't explain the Asians. I hesitate to name education because of all the evidence for the signaling view. Maybe it's language or soft interpersonal/cultural skills from having grown up in an English-speaking country?

"their children will revert to the mean" doesn't mean that they'll revert all the way to the mean.

Once you control for age, 2nd-generation black Americans are not "reverting to the mean" - they are overtaking both their parents and white Americans, as the second Rauh paper shows. But they're just not doing as well as they *could* do if more of them worked, more of them got married, and fewer went to jail.

3. Can you post that cop's name and address? If he's pulling people over for going too slow, I'd like to have my police department send him a job offer.

When I was young I drove aggressively and was irritated by slow drivers. Now I ride a motorcycle and view things differently. The aggressive speeders, lane changers and light runners are little better than the drunks.

Further policy note: I think stricter license requirements and easier rescission would be a good measure until AI takes over. If you suck at driving, you can ride a scooter or take the bus.

Do Google cars have names like Watson and Deep Blue?

7. I like Kling's model, but it is an economic model. Operating along side is a political model, with similar patterns of specialization (lobbying) and trade (log-rolling), adjustments (shifts in political power), and manias. Society comprises both "makers" and "takers", interacting; both must be taken into account.

Here's my macroeconomic framework:

You are pathetic.

Is that like a Sokal thing?

I think this comment is for Ray Lopez

Agree on every point you make. But somebody going 24 in a 35 is obstructing traffic; they need to be pulled over and ticketed. Somebody trying to merge in 70MPH traffic going 50 MPH is driving recklessly; they need to be pulled over and ticketed. Somebody who "blocks the box" at an intersection is obstructing traffic and possibly driving recklessly, and needs to be ticketed. If you drive a motorcycle you're well aware that the danger is unpredictability, not necessarily speed. You don't need to be an aggressive speeder/lane changer/light runner to be annoyed or even endangered by people driving inappropriately, or even dangerously slow relative to other traffic.

I mostly agree, but also find it strange that speed limits are regarded as a minimum rather than a maximum. And I don't love the resulting police discretion on who gets tickets.

I recall reading in one debate on bicycle/car interactions: "I don't mind sharing the road with bikes, but they should at least go the speed limit." (!)

The injuries Steve Austin suffered in his lifting body crash were based on real-life events. The rest of his story not so much...

Enough people mind sharing the road with bikes that I don't ride them on the road anymore, alas. Mountain biking is nice though. And safer.

As they say, people that drive faster than you are maniacs, people that drive slower than you are assholes.

It's a complicated subject. For instance, speed isn't as much of an issue on the highway as the interval between cars. If you're not right on the tail of the car ahead of you, you're driving too slow. More fundamentally, what's the rush? In this culture that's literally centered on automobiles, every form of behavior is subordinate to travel on four rubber tires at maximum allowable speed. In the US the most important daily goal of the average person is parking as closely as possible to their destination. That's why the employee of the month gets a spot next to the boss in the company lot. Handicapped parking spots are no favor to the handicapped, who need exercise just like everyone else. The spots are part of a warped hierarchical order that seeks to elevate the status of the downtrodden.

That was in response to "Honkie Please"; no idea why it wound up down here.

Comments for this post are closed