Thursday assorted links

Comments

Just Another Playback Show?

3.b. I have an undergraduate degree in economics from a large public university, which had not a single female faculty member. Sure, it was a long time ago, but women did study economics back then, didn't they? Of course, the most famous female economist, although she wasn't actually an economist, is Ayn Rand. Indeed, she may be the most famous economist, male or female (if by famous one means influence). I'm no Ayn Rand expert, but I don't recall any female economists in Rand's circle of friends. In fact, my recollection is that Rand was something of a misogynist herself. Rand (from the Appendix to Atlas Shrugged): "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." One may recall Rand's description of Dagny Taggart (the heroine in Atlas Shrugged) as having "the look of being chained". Sure, female admirers of Rand have done all manner of contortions in an effort to find a "hidden feminist potential" in Rand's writings, but it isn't there absent the contortions. So what's my point? Economics today is dominated by Rand's ideal of the strong, virile, independent male, the builder of business, the creator of jobs, willing to diverge from the masses and go his own way, the rest be damned. Not exactly a feminine view of the world and one's role in it.

"I have an undergraduate degree in economics from a large public university, which had not a single female faculty member ... Economics today is dominated by Rand’s ideal of the strong, virile, independent male, the builder of business, the creator of jobs, willing to diverge from the masses and go his own way, the rest be damned. Not exactly a feminine view of the world and one’s role in it."

Well evidently it didn't discourage rayward.

Rand is not an economist.

Nor do her ideals dominate economics.

Some people are working tirelessly to change that.

Instead of going Galt, unfortunately.

And you might be the only man capable of stopping them, prior! Keep those wikipedia copy-and-paste jobs comin', buddy!

Speaking of folks who should go Galt . . .

No question - there is nothing like buttressing an argument.

Here is a somewhat well known Rand acolyte, and to spare your tender feelings, just the link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan#Objectivism

One hopes you can stand actually quoting someone's words - 'Ayn Rand became a stabilizing force in my life. It hadn't taken long for us to have a meeting of the minds -- mostly my mind meeting hers -- and in the fifties and early sixties I became a regular at the weekly gatherings at her apartment. She was a wholly original thinker, sharply analytical, strong-willed, highly principled, and very insistent on rationality as the highest value. In that regard, our values were congruent -- we agreed on the importance of mathematics and intellectual rigor.' https://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/turbulence.html

"sharply analytical, strong-willed, highly principled, and very insistent on rationality as the highest value."

Hate to have that.

Not exactly a feminine view of the world and one’s role in it.

What exactly is "a feminine view of the world" ?

You claim to have a degree in economics, but haven't the foggiest idea what an economist is. Huh.

Reading is an acquired taste.

but blathering on about subjects you know nothing about comes naturally to some people

Rayward, Why do you hate paragraphs?

I too studied undergrad econ in a smaller private college, graduated in May 1972. We had two women PhD's who were excellent teachers. One was also a financial consultant (cash management) to states, counties, and municipalities. It was a small department, six or eight.

Possibly, women economists are too much economists. It could make more economic sense to earn millions day trading, in private enterprise/Wall Street/the Fed/FNMA/FHLB, or [I apologize] marrying a rich millionaire that owns a liquor store.

The attrition rates for women are higher in every profession due to child birth and rearing.

2. A prediction on lesswrong, at the time when bitcoins were worth .91$, was that:

"After thinking about it and looking at the current community and the surprising amount of activity being conducted in bitcoins, I estimate that bitcoin has somewhere between 0 and 0.1% chance of eventually replacing a decent size fiat currency, which would put the value of a bitcoin at anywhere upwards of $10,000 a bitcoin. (Match the existing outstanding number of whatever currency to 21m bitcoins. Many currencies have billions or trillions outstanding.)"

http://lesswrong.com/lw/4cs/making_money_with_bitcoin/3ljd

They are now that valuable but haven't come anywhere close to replacing a currency, and are barely used by any legitimate businesses as a currency. It's a bubble.

#6 A bitter parable about business in Trump's Age.

I wonder what Venezuela is like to visit as a tourist destination? With your foreign currency can you live like a king or is it all ruined, poor service and too dangerous? Anyone been recently?

You can be like a king among the ruins of his palace.

As any dangerous place, it takes money and local contacts that won't betray you. The second one is the largest problem.

3. What utter, self-serving nonsense pretending to be scholarship.

The most obvious explanations for failure of the percent of women to grow in the profession is their failure to produce sufficient quantity and quality of research and the choice of women to not enter the profession. Look at the fields women gravitate towards in large numbers - All non rigorous, non mathematical fields relying on rhetoric. It's little wonder since women generally score higher in English aptitude than math.

Women are now a majority of college graduates, and their degrees are increasingly worthless.

As for citations in textbooks, again pure gibberish. To be cited, you have to have done something important. And even if we submit that discrimination kept women suppressed for centuries, the paucity of accomplished women in the past is a better explanator than discrimination in the future. Put another way, as an example, if it takes 20 years to develop a CEO, ending discrimination today won't begin to substantially correct underrepresentation for up to 20 years.

Let's face it, women and minorities only care about statistical parity, not actual fairness. And they only care about parity for liberal minorities and women. And once they get into academia, it helps these liberals to control department hiring and firing, tenure, faculty committees, and curriculum. It's a political racket of an ideology taking over the commanding heights of indoctrination.

There are many kinds of people in the world, and a reasonable response to that [true accurate use of the word] diversity is to welcome it, and not put roadblocks in anyone's way.

"Let’s face it, women and minorities only care about statistical parity, not actual fairness."

Do you see what you did there? You played the sane game as the few unrepresentative activists who do demand statistical parity, you treated women and minorities as monolithic groups rather than diverse collections.

Only some women want to be economists, and there is no reason to oppose them.

There is no opposition. That's the point.

And I'm not talking about all women and minorities, but the ones whinging about non existent unfairness and the need for affirmative action.

A parallel argument is taking place here:

https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/951562471403347968

"The most obvious explanations for failure of the percent of women to grow in the profession is their failure to produce sufficient quantity and quality of research ..."

And once they get into academia, it helps these liberals to control department hiring and firing, tenure, faculty committees, and curriculum."

But it is OK because if one is not hired or is fired, it is because one doesn't "produce sufficient quantity and quality of research". We should never second guess department committees.

Liberals in academia outnumber conservatives like 8 to 1. That's a lot stronger evidence to reject the null hypothesis of fairness than a 3 to 1 ratio.

And the publication records of women are easily observable. People don't have their political affiliations attached to their names.

It's comical how petty the complaints are:

"She became interested in the topic as a graduate student, she said, when watching a male friend teach a course and noticing the difference in how students reacted to him compared with how they reacted to her.

“When you’re teaching something, when you really nail an explanation, the front row just lights up,” she said. But she watched her friend’s class light up, “even though he wasn’t nailing it.”"

Exactly. This is what passes for scholarly opinions? A discrimination complaint taking this fact as true and drawing all inferences in their favor would be instantly dismissed for failure to state a claim.

"Look at the fields women gravitate towards in large numbers – All non rigorous, non mathematical fields relying on rhetoric. It’s little wonder since women generally score higher in English aptitude than math."

This is not a choice by women. This is what the patriarchy FORCES women to do. Read up on the femiNazi literature.

Lol. Until your last sentence, i couldn't distinguish feminist argument from sarcasm.

This could be a major civil rights issue in this century.

A modest proposal: In 2019, when Dems seize control of Congress, they immediately should enact legislation. Let's call it the College Researchers' Act . It should require institutes of higher learning to make available econ faculty positions to low-to-moderate quality/quantity researchers. Then, federal grants would be tied to performance.

They can model it on the Community Reinvestment Act.

1) The article says that it is Brexit's effect on the EU's budget that makes a rethink of the Common Agricultural Policy's farm subsidies necessary. ("Britain’s departure from the EU is set to blow a €12 billion annual hole in the 2021-2027 budget cycle — a funding shortfall that is forcing a significant strategic reconsideration of the bloc’s spending.") A point on the pro-Brexit side of the ledger for economists? (Even if it doesn't change the overall views of most.)

1) Just like in the US, EU farm subsidies protect white business owners from minority competition abroad - in the case of EU it is African farmers who must continue to live impoverished lives because they are prevented from selling product in EU. It is similar to the white daddy that won't let his white daughter marry a black man out of pure prejudice.

"Just like in the US, EU farm subsidies protect white business owners from minority competition abroad – in the case of EU it is African farmers who must continue to live impoverished lives because they are prevented from selling product in EU. "

This is actually a valid point. Anyone who says the E.U. is about "free trade" is lying or simply ignorant.

"It is similar to the white daddy that won’t let his white daughter marry a black man out of pure prejudice."

Two different things. Food is food. It's interchangeable and temporary. In contrast, one's bloodline is forever.

"It is interchangeable and temporary". Jobs and skills are not and Americans should have learned that after losing their manufcture sector. Apparently, Black people should be able to take Westerners' jobs as long as they don't move to next door. Enlighted!

"Jobs and skills are not and Americans should have learned that after losing their manufcture sector. "

Strategic sectors should be safeguarded, which is where I disagree with the libertardians, but this stuff about America losing its manufacturing sector is silly. Ag is pretty low on the "jobs and skills" totem pole. There's no reason to safeguard it. If the money sent overseas stays there, then Europe is getting food in return for pieces of paper it can print at will.(Note this is not true for developing countries, and one reason why protectionism is more beneficial for them.) If it comes back into Europe, jobs are created elsewhere.

99% of Americans used to work in the agrarian sector. Then the robots came and tuk er jawbs. Durk a durk!

Food from Africa is dangerous. Poisonous. Unsanitary. We must protect our white farmers.

One must protect one's countries. Or one ends up like Amrica where the Middle Class's life gets worse but, hey, they can buy really cheap underwear.

"the Middle Class’s life gets worse"

Unsourced claims. Got to love them.

We must protect our rural heritage! That;s the usual argument.

Your bloodline will probably die out.

All it takes is having fewer kids and then one of them decides to not have any themselves or they can't.

Roman emperor's bloodlines have died out. Why not yours.

3. "She also noticed that her specialties, labor and gender economics, were viewed as more associated with women, and thus less rigorous."

The percentage of women in a field does have a strong correlation with how non-rigorous it is.

Only some supply curves slope upward.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/williams-wahlberg-pay-gap-opinion-alaimo/index.html

"To achieve pay equity, women in Hollywood need to band together. Right now, it's hard for any one female actor to insist on being paid the same as her male co-stars. If she demands a big salary, she runs the risk of losing the role to a woman who will work for less."

This of course implies "Right now, it's EASY for any one male actor.... If he demands a big salary, he DOES NOT run the risk of losing the role to a man who will work for less".

Hollywood female actors are inferior and easily replaceable. They shouldn't be highly paid.

#5 TL;RD The attack involves injecting crafted noise at such a low level that a human listener would not notice the difference. It succeeds brilliantly in turning one sentence into any other of choice.

4.b. The majority of "gender economics" is way too light on the economics and way too heavy on the gender. (Tyler's "Why women succeed, and fail, in the arts" from 1996 is a happy exception.) Here is a quote from the article:

"Ninety percent of the economists cited in those textbooks are men, Betsey Stevenson, a University of Michigan economist, told the panel on gender issues in economics, based on a paper she is about to complete. When women are mentioned in textbook examples, they are more likely to be shopping or cleaning than running a company or making public policy."

This factoid is kind of interesting, but what should standard economic theory have to say about it? I think the answer is: Nothing. Various other (more economics-relevant) sub-population statistics are reported, especially "gaps", as if they are meaningful just because they may be true. The suggestion seems to be that all sub-populations of current social/political interest "should" have the same distributions of all statistics (at least the good ones). I guess they will have to stop before the relevant sub-population size is 1, although I would be very happy if they don't. So we get suggestive statistics, and meanwhile the revealed preference approach--imo the most compelling idea in economics as a way to think--is usually complete missing. 'Some people buy big houses and save less, while other people buy small houses and save more!' 'Apples are $2.50 a pound, but bananas are $0.59 a pound!'

Gender economics seems to rely on some underlying normative claims which are never made explicit; in particular, even if differences in statistics *are* due to differences in preferences, this is no real impediment if as the field suggests "some preferences are better than others" and furthermore preferences are malleable rather than intrinsic/fixed. It's not really the fault of gender economics that they do not address this, since economists in general have failed to make or defend normative claims about what preferences should be. However, many economists acknowledge this and work on questions that economics is well-equipped to answer instead (e.g. what are good allocations)

I think a good normative theory of preferences will require more thinking about what a preference actually is. Is a preference really something separate from a budget constraint (I am skeptical) or maybe they are inherently intertwined? What is the difference between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" (if Ann's skills happen to be highly valued in world W1 and worthless in world W2, and Bob's skills highly valued W2 but worthless in W1, do Ann and Bob have equal opportunity in either world? Opportunity to do what?)

Mostly I think gender economics ignores the interesting and nontrivial questions and settles to make low-insight observations which currently carry a high social reward.

The fact that even a bitcoin conference will do this shows how bitcoin has become useless for payments. Transaction fees get to be over 3 figures when denominated in dollars: It'd be cheaper to wire transfer. Along with that, the volatility is so high, and the liquidity is so low, that even someone trying to go back to dollars immediately you are opening yourself to a big risk.

The fraudsters are already not accepting bitcoin for the same reasons. we'll also see low level blackmailers, like the ones that encrypt your drives and demand ransom, doing the same thing.

This doesn't make bitcoin utterly useless, but this is gives us a lot of valuable information on both economics and the problems of the "physics" of blockhains.

Comments for this post are closed