Friday assorted links


"1. Are female doctors really better?" They will be with a couple of aspirin and a few days in bed.

I don't see a bright future for James Coyne. He should have taken the trail blazed by Ashish Jha and others trumpeting the causes of the left. James could have been invited to Harvard if he played ball. Heck, if he really went at it with both guns blazing, I bet he could be Nobel track, like others.

Alas, he will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

I can't wait for the shocking followup study, that shows that class room fights are far more prevalent among male teachers than female teachers.

Eww, I can't imagine letting a woman put her finger up my butt.

Me, too! I never imagined having anything run up the wrong on the "Hershey Highway."

If I need it, I use my wife's male urologist.

I've refused the manual test for 20 years. At 66 y.o., I opt for P.S.A. blood tests.

"4. “By the Book,” by the excellent Chelsea Clinton": she must get very fed up with being confused with Hellary's daughter.

Poe's Law is really striking me, here.

Yes, either a parody, or she is just reading from lists from her neighborhood private school or maybe a local culture-signaling book club. Tyler Cowen's erudition is somehow convincing, but Chelsea . . . ? Is Chelsea a millennial? Wait a minute, I thought millenials were not supposed to be Strivers! Maybe the .01 millenials. I'd love to know if Tyler believes her answer.


It appears you've been busy:*

Except she was the PR-move baby of a small-state governor facing a difficult re-election bid (who still got voted out of office for his trouble that year), not an emperor's child.

I'd think more of Chelsea if she would (at age 36) settle on a vocation and make it a point to stay away from her parents' grift (and persuade her husband to find a less shady line of work).

Politics is the smart move for Chelsea. Her husband is rich and she will inherit $100 million+ herself so he has enough money. She has credentials but no apparent special ability or drive in anything else..

Election in the right state/district will be a mere formality. Then she can look forward to a life filled with constant fawning articles like the cited NYT book interview.

I do wonder what PR firm selected the list of books and writers she drones on about.

His mother and father have 11 children between them and neither had a lucrative career. Not sure where this money of his is supposed to have come from. More than one of the funds he managed went tits up.

"Smart move" toward what end?

The smart move for her is to figure out what her own life is and live it.

#6. The overwhelming majority of "fortunes" I get in fortune cookies these days aren't really fortunes.

No clue if I was ever a patron of this guy, but I hope his protege steps up his game.

What, nothing form the Post about how dolls now listen to everything, and not only Samsung TVs?

Not to mention how that fits into the culture that is Germany, as noted in the Post article?

Such fleeting interest in a long running subject blasts a floodlight on this web site mirrors the elephant in the brain, if one is excused the atrociously written metaphor.

So now you're upset that Tyler didn't link to the articles you wanted him to link to? What a life you must lead.

1. "We assigned each hospitalization to a physician based on [who] accounted for the largest part of Medicare Part B spending..."

Perhaps this study simply reveals that oncology is a disproportionately male field

I thought Trump had finally driven a stake through the Clintons.

What would you expect from a newspaper whose management philosophy is nepotism?

The NYT has high trust, but somewhat surprisingly the old big 3 television networks come out on top.

(Chelsea has a positive vocabulary compulsion.)

... and the Whitehouse just banned the NYT from press briefings.

You know, sometimes you all call me a pessimist, and then things surprise me, to the downside.

"Reporters from The Times, CNN and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer allowed in reporters from only a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed to attend."

"… and the Whitehouse just banned the NYT from press briefings."

Spicer is getting better at his job.

Some of you are just trolls, who liked to say "nobody believes the Times," for years.

The trolling became a kind of received wisdom in a minority of the population. The numbers are that 53% of Americans see the Times as credible, 34% see it as not credible,

Trump is doing this in the hope that the trolls and the minority will support him. I hope the hell not. Democracies die in darkness.

Not allowing the press in press briefings is a violation of the First Amendment!!!!!!!! Literal Hitler! When Obama banned Fox it was okay.

Got a link Thomas? My search says that there was no Obama thing, only confusion in a Treasury Department thing.

a PPP poll? Ok, any port in a storm I guess.

In 1992, I thought the Clintons had finally driven a stake through the Bushes.

"In 1992, I thought the Clintons had finally driven a stake through the Bushes."

You mean the 1 term George Bush who had the best average approval rating since JFK? Umm yeah sure.

'George Bush who had the best average approval rating since JFK'

Wow - no wonder that everything in America has been renamed after Bush, and not Reagan. And really, today, who would ever imagine Reagan National Airport in place of Bush National Airport?

Well Obama's average approval is lower than Richard Nixon's and yet I expect to see his name on a lot more schools. But that's politics for you.

That's the politics of teachers' college graduates and inner-city school boards.

No, the one who failed to get re-elected because his whole term was swalled by recession and inept policies. That one.

"the Bushes"

In 1992 there was only one Bush in politics.

George and Jeb entered the field later, after the loss.

His father and his grandfather were politicians, too. But I was thinnking more about crusjgng the the serpent's egg...

No, his father (Prescott Bush, Sr) was an avocational politician (town meeting, school board) up until he was 58 years old. He was in Congress for 10 years. Neither Prescott Bush's father or father-in-law were in politics. As for his children, only one ever held public office. The others volunteered in party politics and one ran for office just once (when he was past 60). The Bush family is business first, politics second if ever. George Prescott Bush is the only (partial) exception

Quick Thiago, squirt him with an obscure and irrelevant Brazilian reference!

1. Female Doctors have just about destroyed the NHS:

In the US we have a shortage of primary care physicians. Females choose primary care more than males because of lifestyle. They work less hours but go into a field desperate to attract physicians, so there is a tradeoff.

Primary care practitioners generally work longer hours than specialists.

That all depends. Call can be difficult for specialties that treat medical emergencies, such as cardiology. Surgery obviously has terrible hours. There are few medical emergencies in primary care so no coming in at 2am. Keep in mind that specialties require long periods of training that extends well into women's child bearing years. Of course, there are lifestyle specialties such as dermatology and endocrinology.

Here are survey data on the subject

5) I have always disliked cyclical theories of history, and the more formal they are, the more I disliked them. Like stock market technical analysis in the old "chart the market" form, they look too hard for patterns, and give themselves too may outs when an event does not arrive on time. They rely on biased and haphazard data reduction to fit the theory.

That said, I can accept milder forms. Populations who forget mistakes can repeat them, but that is never the only probability on the table, and that is kind of the key.

As we look around our world we should look at conditions we face, not filter them to fit a stock reduction.

Cyclical theories can be good for trying to make ideas a little more concrete when saying things like "it kind of goes up, and then down, but generally more up than down, but pretty much up and down".

Say, cycles between more democracy and more autocracy/oligarchy . Generally speaking, it's probably not worth trying to be too specific as a matter of abstract theory, something that can be generalized, etc. But awareness of some cyclical conception can be useful when it comes time to identify that things are moving in one direction, and that many previous instances suggest that it could go very far in that direction befroe coming back somewhat. If multiple groups are thinking tha tway, the tension can be construction is some institution(s) can keep them away from each other's throats in the meantime.

#1 Completly anedoctical, but, recently, a Brazilian TV host revealed he had been treated for (and chred from) cancer and, among nine doctors she consulted with, only two women recommended the course of action the treatment with the best suffering to benefit ratio. I don't know who are the other seven and their genders, I know the mentioned doctors are women because the names and pronound used are female ones.

7. I remember when Clinton policy was called "catch and release". Border patrol would round up immigrants and bus them to Mexico after feeding them dinner and giving them a rest so they could run back across the border.

So many crossed at a time, many got away, so if you couldn't get into the US after three times bussed back, you just couldn't run fast enough.

For all the people shipped back to Mexico while Clinton was president, the rate of immigration was the highest when Clinton was bussing millions back to Mexico. It was Clinton who built border walls to keep out Mexicans.

Obama's policies were holistic and targeted the root drivers of immigration violations and controlled unauthorized immigrants the most of all the presidents analyzed.

Clinton policies actually worsened the problem. Instead of coming to the US for a few weeks or months to work and then returning to family, Clinton policies made movement so costly, people crossed and stayed for long terms, and then cut off from family, established new families in the US.

Who knew it was Clinton as Deporter In Chief? However I am not completely sold here as:

1) The Clinton years had the highest the increase of illegal aliens of any of the Presidents. I think deporting new illegal is a lot easier than ones that have been here 5 years. Obama low totals are simply a function of the Great Recession slowdown.
2) In California we had a nasty recession 1990 - 1994 and we had Prop. 187 campaign and victory in 1994. So I think border patrol was more in tune with California early Trumpism/Steve Sailerism back then. By 2000 we hated the 187 campaign and learned to look the other way with our landscapers.
3) We forget that NAFTA knocked out a lot of Mexican corn farmers and this cross border stuff was common.

Economic situations and job prospects are major determinants.

When you are ready to credit Clinton with delivering all that growth in the 1990s, please come back and also complain about how he also caused the immigration that occurred during that time.

there's no end to the things mulp can analyze incorrectly...immigration rates from Central America fell under your St. Obama because the construction industry collapsed. If you want to call that addressing the root cause, I think you have to credit the great evil G.W. Bush.

He must have been pretty serious about deportations, considering the sheer volumes in the face of reduced incomers.

Even if the female doctor thing is a real finding and not a statistical artifact, how about more recent schooling as a factor? Younger doctors have almost certainly been exposed to more recent and helpful techniques more thoroughly. (I'd guess that for routine things experience and recent exposure to new techniques work in opposite direction with age--experience helps but distance from exposure to new techniques hurts)

Have their been important treatment advances in disciplines other than oncology?

The method of assigning a doctor to a case is very weak (by highest biller), where the average highest biller for a patient is usually only around 50% of the physician bills. I can't see anything related to that as being very robust.

5. Several of the comments to Hanson's blog post wondered how Hanson and Cowen could be such good friends when Hanson makes such critical remarks about Cowen's work; Hanson even responded that he is honored to be Cowen's colleague and friend. My answer is that a true friend is honest, even brutally honest. Hanson contrasts Cowen's thesis about complacency and cycles with Turchin's thesis about inequality and cycles (Turchin is an evolutionary anthropologist). The contrast is a good one, if for no other reason than Turchin predicts calamity while Cowen predicts a return to greatness. Hanson's criticism is directed at Cowen's (unconvincing) prediction: things are awful and getting worse, but greatness lies ahead. That is a head scratcher. I would point out that many, Cowen included, will find all manner of causes for financial and economic instability and slow economic growth, other than inequality. Complacency is an interesting explanation, especially when the current president and his cast of lunatic advisers scare the bejesus out of many of us.

It's been awhile since I mentioned it, but markets are the answer, even to excessive inequality (or complacency?). What? Markets correct excesses (return to the mean?), including excessive inequality. How do I know? I can read, including history. Another Cowen colleague, Peter Boettke, promotes the idea of letting markets be markets and letting them do the work they do so efficiently. And that includes correcting excessive inequality. How's that? If asset prices collapse, don't intervene and prevent markets from doing their efficient work. How does that correct excessive inequality? Duh. Now, I'm not so enamored with efficient markets that I would risk another great depression, but we may not have a choice the next time - which isn't far off.

Remember, things are getting better, especially on a global basis.

The affliction of our times is to see improvement as confirmation of despair.

It was only a couple of years ago that Cowen was all in on globalization, pointing out in an interview in the NYT that global inequality was falling even as it was rising in developed countries, that global poverty was plummeting, with millions being lifted out of poverty as the result of globalization and trade. To repeat Hanson's point, in his book Cowen describes things as awful and getting worse, then predicts greatness ahead. Cowen is at heart an optimist.

This is important, because of a certain pessimistic tone in the US. Even(?) here I don't think one can find a statistic that was better in 2010 than it is today.

The great recession produced a moody hangover even into numeric recovery.

That is an interesting one. A cause for concern, without being a direct measure of hardship.

Some in it, early retirees like me, anything but.

Lifespan of white Americans was longer in 2010.

That one might be true careless.

Needs programs, not a wall with Mexico.

The outsized importance of "inequality" is the most overrated idea around.

"7. Who is the real “deporter in chief”? Also recommended, a revelation of sorts."

So, while the economy was thriving in the 1990's, deportations were the highest they've been in 40 years, and while the economy was in the doldrums the last 10 years deportations were at their lowest.

Perhaps, Presidents haven't changed the policies all that much, but when the economy is high you get a high flow of illegals and tend to have a high amount of deportations and when the economy is low, the flow of illegals is reduced.

3 Nothing guarantees they have sex during the breaks. I actually find it unlikely Swedish men would have any desire at all. It'd be more effective to lock a woman in a room with an immigrant, maybe multiple immigrants to ensure the best seed fertilizes the egg.

It's too bad dipshittery is heritable. There's a positive feedback effect where you were bound to be shitty, and then your father's regular beatings only made you worse.

Keep your BBC Cuckolding porno in Tumblr where it belongs.

7. According to an LA Times article I haven't been able to find (I think it was from 2014), those who were counted in the statistics were also changed, and if that same expanded definition had been used under prior Presidents, the number of deportations would have been much higher. An example being (if I am remembering correctly) that those caught near the border and returned to Mexico by bus had not formerly been included in the statistics at all.

Why can't you stop talking about Presidents!

It's shameful that everyone isn't aware of this by now.

And McArdle disgraced herself a couple of weeks ago by pretending she didn't know that, which was incredibly disappointing.

She likely wasn't pretending. As a rule, she's the best in the business at her trade, but sometimes she hasn't done her homework.

1. Are female doctors really better?

Better adapted to certain subdisciplines or certain sorts of patient, perhaps.

The problem with medicine today is that primary-care providers are fixated on their electronic medical record and an appointment with one consists of you sitting there while they enter data. I had a 'physical' in 2011 that was about 10 minutes long (and the 10 minutes included the data entry). He later went into hospital administration. And, of course, they behave like this because practice managers insist. Volume volume volume.

Another sort of problem you have is doctors who prescribe with abandon. A visiting nurse shows up at the apartment of an elderly relation (subsequent to an emergency room visit) and ends up later reaming out her primary care physician over the phone. Your paitent, she tells him, is on 27 different medications of which 9 cause mental fogginess and she's called the building staff 3x in four weeks (with a medical alert button) to rescue her after falls.

And nothing can improve psychiatry. Succeeding generations of psychiatrists traffic in their own wretchedness-of-the-era.

“Workers in Sweden could soon be allowed to take paid “sex breaks” during the day – in a bid to improve low birth rates and promote healthy relationships.”

Ah, Sweden, always on the vanguard of the latest in gross. Ireland better start hiring and paying Slane girls if they want to keep up.

Surprised Hanson & Cowen don't spend more time addressing the effects of having a dominant population bulge (the boomers) arising at the time that interstate highways and TV created a national culture.
It strikes me that the baby boom explains a lot more of American culture (writ large) than it's usually given credit for. Such a numerically and thus culturally dominant demographic bulge has ossified American notions of what is "right," to the the detriment of the mobility that preceded it. (It doesn't help that the bulge coincided with the spread of technology enabling a more national culture, like TV.) Only today did the idea of the "American dream" as owning a house in the suburbs get superseded by milennials who are happy in walkable inner cities; the words "anti-war" still conjure up hippies, not rational adults opposed to destruction; the Trump election is plausibly seen as enabled by those seeking an economy (and society?) more akin to that of the 1950s and 60s; etc etc. There are surely other trends, but let's not forget that the boomers have dominated American culture for decades in a way no other generation had.

They weren't a 'dominant bulge'. The 1939-57 birth cohorts never made up more than 39% of the population.

Much larger than the normal share of such a cohort, no? Plus they're sticking around longer than prior generations (amassing more wealth & political & cultural pull), and as I mentioned, they came about at the time that technology made culture nationwide.

Much larger than the normal share of such a cohort, no?

No. The Gen-X cohorts (1958-79) made up about 35% of the population at their peak in 1980. Not too different.

Huh. Interesting. I feel a strong urge to stick to my alternative facts.

If you do your paragraph as technology waves rather than fixed generations, it still works. Newspapers made national cultures, with slow connections and much difference city to city. National radio networks unified things, and for the first time synchronized culture. Enabled ratio evangelism, etc. And then network tv took to full the culmination of mass culture.

We now live in a more fragmented, post-mass, culture. Social networks are the thing that will be decoded by the next generation as their history.

18 years compared with 21 years and a 4% difference ?That's substantial.

That's the equivalent of 30% to 39% over the same time period.

Not a whole lot. The figures for the Boomer set are derived from the cross-sectional count offered by the 1958 Statistical Abstract and are inflated to a small degree by including juvenile immigrants. The Gen-X count is the sum of the live births over those 22 calendar years, with a small fudge factor for juvenile deaths, so excludes the immigrants.

Overtornea story. Before reading my thought was this is a further step in the Swedish quest to take all the fun out of sex.

But having read it I think it she have been titled: The culture that is publicity seeking social democratic town councilors in Norbotten border towns. If you don't have time for sex in Overtornea in winter adding an hour isn't going to help.

3. LOL. I thought it'd be a woman, but it's even more hillarious that a man's proposing it. Have you tried "not being a total emasculated cucold?"

7. Nooooo! The lying Obama administration changed the definitions.

7. During the Clinton boom, Mexicans couldn't get to America fast enough. During the Bush great recession, even Mexicans left. I suppose the upside of Republican recessions is that the Mexicans go home. [It's called irony. Mexicans work on Sundays. And nights! Without Mexicans, we'd really have a labor shortage in the construction industry.]

And according to the article, Clinton sent them back to the home country as fast as he could. But he felt their pain.

I don't think this Jacobin magazine is going to catch on. That read like a first year political science student's essay.

It assumes that Haiti's traditional elites are evil but does not explain how or why we should assume so. They tar everyone they do not like with the Papa Doc brush. It prefers to deal in "my tribe, your tribe" attacks rather than any particular regard for policy differences.

In short, it makes Thomas Friedman look like Kissinger.

I don't think your going to be able to make the case that Haiti's elites have a history of being the least bit able or worthwhile. The one curio about the place since 1915 is that the bosses have been civilians, the period running from 1950-57 and from 1986-94 the exceptions. The crew who have run the place since 1994 may be the most congenial and public-spirited the country has ever had.

Haiti doesn't seem to be showing any signs they are any better or any worse than previous governments.

The American left has a thing for Aristide, but it is hard to know why. He wasn't exactly an outstanding leader either.

Haitians will be Haitian. Whether they claim to be on the Left or on the Right. At least the old oligarchs promise stability and continuity.

The country hasn't been peculiarly 'unstable' the last 20 years. There was a brief insurrection in 2004 in which Aristide was sent packing and replaced with officialdom according to succession rules established in law. Neither has the degree of 'continuity' been notably less apparent since 1994 than previously. You had three long-term bosses during the period running from 1915-94 - Stenio Vincent (1930-41, fairly benign) and the Duvaliers, father and son (1957-86). The Duvaliers were rapacious and gruesome; you do not want that sort of continuity.

For fear of not promoting more of what I think would be better ... maybe take a little of your own advice about the "my tribe your tribe" stuff and really focusing on policy?

I know you don't say the words "Democrat" and "Republican" a lot, but beyond that ...

#1 Trying to understand why Coyne feels it is important to point to the large sample size and the small effect. A small sample size would be better? I'd guess he's left unsaid that large studies like this almost always suffer from (systematic, non-random) differences in processes, metrics, and reporting across the population. While I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out the 0.4% "improvement" in outcome (30 days?? why not 60 or 120?) is just noise, I don't think he's made a very good case for it. Seems to be more of a justification for his knee jerk reaction (back-filling) than a good unbiased analysis of the question and method the authors used to answer it. ... I wonder if the authors filed the experimental design/protocol prior to starting to gather the data?

Any thoughts on how to encourage women to get more active in politics?

You could stop being involved in politics on the internet and in real life. You know, put your money where your mouth is, have the courage of your convictions.

Testosterone injections?

No. There's nothing preventing women from 'getting involved' that does not also prevent men from 'getting involved' and no indication that the quality of political life suffers from a deficit of women. The most obtrusive women in American public life of late have been Hilligula, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Dole, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Kathleen Sibelius, and Janet Napolitano. The doings of Palin, Dole, an Feinstein may have improved American public life.

Well, if you completely ignore everything that women say about the things which make life disproportoinately difficulty for women in politics as compared to men, then I guess it would seem that way.

My understanding is that sexual harassment and double standards are major causes deterring women from getting into politics.

So ... the comment was initially in response to a comment that got deleted, which included sexually offensive statements related to the recent female presidential candidate. The point was that that was precisely the sort of thing that works in the wrong direction.

Well, if you completely ignore everything that women say about the things which make life disproportoinately difficulty for women in politics as compared to men, then I guess it would seem that way.

I'm not obligated to pay attention to your fantasies.

My understanding is that sexual harassment and double standards are major causes deterring women from getting into politics.

No, that's your imagination, not your understanding. Different faculties are involves.

which included sexually offensive statements related to the recent female presidential candidate. The point was that that was precisely the sort of thing that works in the wrong direction.

Imagining Hilligula in sexual congress really is offensive.

Comments for this post are closed