Monday assorted links

1. “…the values of more extreme (left-wing or right-wing) supporters are usually more heterogeneous than those with more moderate views.

2. New results on anti-discrimination statements (The Economist).

3. The Emperor of Japan still publishes (even though he has tenure).  He also usually gets his name first.

4. New economics discussion forum set up by AEA, first question from Olivier Blanchard.  In the comments you will find Jeremy Stein, Claudio Borio, Ricardo Cabellero, and Larry Summers, kind of like the MR comments section.

5. Has the abc conjecture been proven?

6. “Pursuit of T5 [top 5 joiurnal] publications has become the obsession of the next generation of economists. However, the T5 screen is far from reliable. A substantial share of influential publications appear in non-T5 outlets. Reliance on the T5 to screen talent incentivizes careerism over creativity.”  Link here.

7. Details on the new NAFTA.


Staying out of the fray on Atiyah's suposed proof of the Riemann hypothesis, I see...

Cthulhu, just let the ones that aren't dragging go, let em go.

Lately, I've been low. Things been moving slow..."cause us to recover" vs help us to recover, you sir, Charles, are no son of mine.

1) The log to glory, glory, halleljah!

#1 I see this as being a high-trust vs. low-trust issue. I.E. the extreme tail is already filled with extremists, so therefore extreme views about everything, and everyone knowing it.

#2 Duh. Just like all CYA legalism. Duh.

#3 One of the best and weirdest decisions post WWII was the preservation of the Japanese Royal family and their status. When you look at it in hindsight it seems so wildly out of place and unbelievable that after killing north of 3 million Japanese and dropping 2 nukes the Royals would have been allowed to survive, much less keep their status. This is an often misunderstood and under appreciated aspect of American hegemony in the 20th and 21st century. We did it. And everyone around saw us do it.

#6 What we need is less careerism, less focus on perfection, and less focus on box checking and more on innovation and creativity. Every field needs this.

#7 "China". Yes, and rightfully so.

#7 Also, apparently Wyoming's biggest international trading partner currently is

#3 - wasn't the idea that the US wanted the Japanese royals to be a unifying and uplifting institution for a decimated populace? Makes sense to me.

#7 - I would guess that's natural gas and coal exports, right?

#3 As I understood it, it was more pragmatic than that, but that was a piece. The refusal to guarantee immunity and a requirement for even abdication would have caused the Japanese to walk away from unconditional surrender, necessitating an invasion of the 4 home islands. It seems absurd to a non-Japanese, but the preservation of the 2500 year old dynasty was absolutely worth the lives of you, your family and your friends even in the dark days of 1945. Furthermore I recall MacArthur and Truman being adamant that surrender wasn't enough. That the emperor would need to work and act "in good faith" and in accordance with US policy (including foreign policy. later key) basically forever.

#7 "5th. Parts and attachments for NESOI for Derricks." This is the only thing I can see that somewhat makes sense but they have so much of this in Brazil already. I've attended POWERGen for several years and the organic Brazilian and S. American industry supplying Petrobras is already very strong, and more strategically located (and more competitive on price, esp against US Dollar). Still doesn't make sense to me despite their strength in oil, mining and gas. Gotta be something else.

#6 I agree but those who focus on their careers get ahead of those who make attempts at innovation and creativity, generally speaking. Also creativity gets massive lip service in press releases, but the real message being sent implicityly is to know your place.

Ah the old A student vs. C student argument. "C" as in C Suite. I've always thought the "C" in C suite suit stood for something else though...if you know what I mean...

4. The "answered" questions and comments are deadly dull. The "unanswered" questions are interesting. I predict this orderly politically correct garden for supervised discussion will wither away.

Yeah, using your real name will do that (make the conversation dull), since speculative stuff is filtered out.

Bonus trivia: I have Blanchard's 1999 Econ 101 Macro book. I go through it once in a while, just to refresh my memory. It's amazing how simplistic the assumptions are, and people believe this stuff, viz, 'employment is directly correlated to GDP', seriously? Nobody heard of machines replacing people? Stuff straight out of the 1830s economy.

This is the first time I've visited (or even heard of) EconSpark -- is it the alternative to Econ Job Market Rumors that IIRC the AEA was trying to set up? It'll be interesting to see how it does; I was not super-impressed with my first visit, although mainly due to a user interface that's either not very good or that takes some getting used to. EJMR though is such a cesspool of low or even negative signal-to-noise ratio that I check it out less than once a year, and only when there's some other discussion that link to EJMR.

#3 The world would be much less interesting if Japan were a republic.

TPP is now USMCA.

Presumably, it will be built into future agreements as well.

How so? Are you talking about the IP protections?

Maybe they can rename TPP something like Japan-Canada-Mexico-Australia-and-friends agreement.

I'm understanding that Canada used it's TPP position to negotiate access terms, but I certainly overstated the idea based on early economist talk this morning. Time will tell. It seems this is a NAFTA with a few small twists, like penalties to member's who do trade deals with non-market economies like China.

correction: NAFTA + TPP = USMCA

NAFTA + TPP + the auto and dairy deals.

#1. I went to the link, but it only had the abstract. Let me see if I understand in context: So "far right" would include both a libertarian and a supporter of the president. One is OK with immigration, the other does not like it. Does that fit the paper?

How could a libertarian be "far right"?

1. “…the values of more extreme (left-wing or right-wing) supporters are usually more heterogeneous than those with more moderate views.”"

Is this supposed to be shocking? Don't most people agree that extremists are .... extreme? Frankly, this result is a dog bites man story.

Take the NYT. Today, Mr. Krugman brings up a valid question.

White-working class people voted for Trump over Clinton by 2:1. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans believe American culture and way of life has deteriorated since the 1950s. The question isn't about rage, but how can someone be against immigration and not be racist? Here's a better question. How come a black leader who appeals to black pride is a civil rights leader, but a white leader who appeals to white pride is a racist? Are white-working class people who feel cultural outrage different than privileged white people who feign outrage in an effort to acknowledge "they ran with the nerds?" How low is low?

Yep. It would be shocking if political opinions didn't follow a normal probability distribution. But sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.

#7. No information on online commerce? I thought they were negotiating to make it easier to buy things over the internet from Canada.

#1. Id be interested to know how the authors define extremely “right wing”

Free market libertarian?

Cultural conservative?

Trumpist-neo natationalist

Neo feudalist-racist-neo nazi-let one race and ethnicity rule us all kind of far right?

Just seems like “far right” can mean a lot of things where as far left is pretty much just socialist,
Communist or anarchist version of those two.

7. In other words, Trump folded like cheap lawn furniture. Canada gets rid of a class of milk that barely existed 18 months ago in exchange Canada keeps Chapter 19 and along with Mexico gets tons of exemptions for tariff free vehicles. No wonder Trudeau was so quick to accept. Sad day in the USA when Mr. Art of the Deal gets outplayed by a Backstreet Boy.

Centre-left is almost only social-democracy ("liberalism" and "progressivism" for Americans)

In the centre-right you could have European-style liberals, Christian Democrats and mainstream conservatives; there are some differences, but not much (specially today when many christian democrats and conservatives accept cultural liberalism).

In the far-left you could have big-C-Communists, anarchists, Trotskytes, autonomous, Maoists, and an infinity of "ultra-left" sects (impossibilists, bordiguists, council communists, left communists, etc.)

In the far-right, you could have welfare chauvinists, neofascists, throne-and-althar reactionaries, third positionists, authoritarians pro-free-market Pinochet-style, religious integrists, etc. (and, in the USA, perhaps some libertarians also consider themselves as far-right).

Fascism is more a thing of the political left than political right, and was created by French socialists.

Name of the Italian neofascist party during several decades - Movimento Sociale Italiano - Destra Nazionale (Italian Social Movement - National Right); and it was created by the attempt of some Frenchman of sytetize the national integralism of the Action Française (monarchist far-right) with the revolutionary syndicalism (far-left) - the roots are both in the left-wing and in the right-wing, but they were operationally right-wing, in the sense that they were usually allied of conservatives and even classic liberals against socialists, communists and anarchists.

The left includes the Greens, some of whom are more radical in rejecting technology (rather trying to develop it further).

#5 Count me among the skeptics. Serious flaws have been identified and also, at a philosophical level, a proof is only a proof is someone else can follow your reasoning.

I'm not a mathematician, but compare and contrast the statements for and against -

>“No expert who claims to understand the arguments has succeeded in explaining them to any of the (very many) experts who remain mystified..”

>Mochizuki sees things very differently. In his view, Scholze and Stix’s criticism stems from a “lack of sufficient time to reflect deeply on the mathematics under discussion,” perhaps coupled with “a deep sense of discomfort, or unfamiliarity, with new ways of thinking about familiar mathematical objects.”

#3 is further made worse by the fact that a large portion of anti-discrimination regime measures two things: resources expended and net demographic results.

The first results in the silliness of Harvard sending me recruiting letters that based upon my MCAT performance I should apply to Harvard. My odds of actually getting in were between nil and zero ... but Harvard needed to demonstrate that it had put forth enough effort reaching out to minorities that it definitely was not racist. I had the luxury of knowing what sorts of stats would make me competitive for Harvard and that actually applying would most likely be a waste of my time. When this happens often enough you eventually decide to stop wasting your time interacting with "recruitment" that is less about hiring you and more about burning enough time & money to demonstrate diversity bona fides to the inquisition. I certainly know I have been "interviewed" for a position when the in-house guy is a lock, but they need to demonstrate a good faith effort at diversity before doing what they would do anyways. Giant waste of my time, but that is the racket.

On the other end you may well end up as the only [X] in the department or company. Which invariably means that you will be called upon to bless random stupidities as being "inclusive"; if you actually like your real job; having to de facto work part time as a "diversity enforcer" sucks. It means more meetings. It means coworkers get worried around you. It means being held responsible for idiotic "diversity" policies even when you disagree with them.

If you are secure enough to get the job you want without this sort of diversity outreach then you would be an idiot not to discount this sort of thing. The odds that you will get to actually do what you enjoy rather than spending a good portion of career rehashing [X]ism Studies forever.

In contrast, if you go work for a firm where everyone is an [X] minority you either actually get the job or you don't. You actually can spend most of your professional life doing what you chose the profession to do. If you work for some "anti-identitarian", again you have more enjoyable work with less BS paperwork.

Some folks like the trade, after all being a "diversity officer" comes with nice perks and not a bad salary. But I suspect most people do not; it is certainly vastly more fulfilling to believe you won your position by beating out every other contender. I highly suspect that people who actively seek out places meeting legal diversity requirements only apply for the job when they have exceeding poor odds of anything else comparable working.

#3 The article mentions that black and asian names on CVs get less call backs than "white" names. Is it really true that asian names get less call backs? This would be surprising to me given that Asian's overall have higher incomes than whites. It would suggest that lower call back rates do not automatically result in lower incomes. This is perhaps consistent with the view that "racist" companies do not affect overall wages in a competitive market economy - essentially if a good person is available to work then their wages get bid up anyway to the market rate as long as there is a few companies who prioritize making money vs racism. It is sort of like investment in unfashionable stocks, as long as a few people are buying and selling they will be efficiently priced, it doesn't need the entire market.

"Asian's overall have higher incomes than whites"

But Asian also have much higher educational levels than whites, e.g. 52% have bachelors degrees compared to 34% for whites.

I haven't looked at the statistics recently, but for decades Asians had lower incomes than whites of the same educational level.

There's also the question of per capita vs household income: Asian households tend to be larger, and so the same household income implies lower per capita income.

it doesn't really surprise me that much, though I would guess it probably varies by field. I'd be shocked if there was that much discrimination against Asians in STEM, including in medicine. There are plenty of Asian doctors. Asians seem to make up for prejudice by working their asses off.

"Good post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I
stumbleupon everyday. It will always be helpful to read content from other authors and use a
little something from their websites"

Comments for this post are closed