Thursday assorted links

Comments

5. Globalists like Thiel, who is also a Bilderberger, just don't understand why people hate them. This is why Trump will win the next election and populism will rule the next century.

What does the seminar have to do with German? Is it a typo for Berman?

Respond

Add Comment

Um. Thiel announced in November that he was onboard for Trump 2020.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-01/peter-thiel-praises-trump-pledges-to-support-his-2020-campaign

I found that particularly bad timing, considering what was already known at the time.

"...what was known ..."

That you suffer from TDS?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

4. Bad transportation. A very poor city without mass transit is always “walkable”

Respond

Add Comment

3. Does economics have a problem or do women have a problem?

C'mon, Dick, you know the answer to that. Women always have a problem, even the ones we love. It's up to the man to smooth things over.

That Dick isn't me. But, it is a reasonable question; probably a little of both.

Re: "even the ones we love.", unrequited love is a bore.

Respond

Add Comment

Women have the problem. I've been listening to the CSWEP nonsense for decades. Their reports make fallacious statements that any first year statistics student should easily catch.

I can't say enough good things about your moniker.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If economics is a science (albeit a social science), and science is based on discovering natural laws and how they interact with the physical world based on theories of what works vs. what doesn't (what is true and what is false), then discoveries and practice of economics is meritocratic.

If economics is meritocratic, then economics has no "woman problem."

I agree.

Economics should solve its gender problem in the same way that the female dominated advertising industry should solve its gender problem.

I have no idea if either industry has a gender problem, rather than a gender imbalance, and i have no idea how to solve either if they do exist.

But I do know the solution is the same.

Septic tank pumping has a problem - there are few women pumping septic tanks. It's the patriarchy!

Same for construction (roofers), plumbers, logging, commercial fishing, ... The patriarchy is everywhere!

Men suffer more than 90% of workplace fatalities.

After controlling for stupidity and bravado, they are still disproportionately killed on the job. :)

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The AEA sure seems to be cruising into left-wing social justice issues. I hope they are able to maintain integrity of scholarship and not succumb to the pressures of activism.

I wonder what percentage of economists are employed in academia. The universities have been thoroughly corrupted, and it will be difficult to remove the tenured ticks - they are dug in deep.

The existence of "Heterdox Academy" gives one hope, hopefully not a false hope.

https://heterodoxacademy.org

Then there's this:

https://www.nas.org/articles/a_crisis_of_competence_the_corrupting_effect_of_political_activism_in_the_u

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

5. Here's an interesting article on South Korea. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/business/south-korea-economy.html SK is the flip side to globalization. There, the problem with globalization is that it has made SK's economy too dependent on trade (exports): exports account for 43% of SK's GDP (as compared to 20% for China). It has locked SK into a low wage, low domestic consumption, and high inequality economy. While globalization has resulted in rapid economic growth, the bulk of the benefits are concentrated at the top. Now, with globalization in retreat, the consequences to SK's economy are felt most acutely by small business and labor. Too much of a good thing, in this case globalization, can be harmful to economic health. That's why I am an Episcopalean: our guiding principle is moderation.

China's problem is too high of a savings rate (nearly 50%), which translates into a low level of consumption (in the globalization context, a low level of imports). If China's savings rate were more like that of the U.S. and Europe, China's imports would be correspondingly higher, putting less political pressure on globalization. So why is China's savings rate so high? The absence of social welfare benefits is one reason: the universal cradle to grave benefits of pre-1980s economic reform China were largely abandoned. Of course, up until recently, the high level of savings in China has been partly absorbed by the high level of consumption in the U.S. The astute observer can see that stable globalization (I suppose that's a non-sequitur) depends in part on a world that is flat (i.e., economies that are similar).

China has a high savings rate because of the nation's Export Promotion policies including suppression of domestic consumption.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You're an Episcopalian because your parents were. Same as almost every religious person.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

3. With one exception, everyone of the speakers (women all) blames women not men, the exception being Janet Yellen. She is much older than the other speakers and, hence, has a different (more aggressive) view of gender discrimination (because in the 1960s when she was in school women's liberation was more aggressive and the discrimination more overt). While women always seem to blame themselves (even in cases of sexual harassment), men blame women (family first, for example); indeed, many men believe women in economics have an advantage over men because women can use sex for career advancement. Women really are different from men: women are more self-reflecting. Combine that with all of the alpha males who seem drawn to economics, and it's a marriage not made in heaven.

The “alpha males drawn to economics”? Seriously?

Unlike engineering, economics is inherently uncertain (it depends on human behavior). But that doesn't stop many male economists from insisting that their views have the same certainty as engineering. Women are more comfortable with uncertainty: unlike most men, women don't equate uncertainty with weakness. And let's face it, most public policy is guided by economists, even health care. Do I need to name names, the male economists who are always wrong but never lack for confidence or a job.

I'll grant you there are a lot of "often wrong but never in doubt" types in economics. But alpha males? Krugman?

Respond

Add Comment

"Women are more comfortable with uncertainty."

rayward, have you ever actually met a woman?

Respond

Add Comment

"...male economists who are always wrong but never lack for confidence or a job."

That pretty much describes the entire profession.

I suppose some day, in the distant future, most people will come to realize that future behaviour of the economy is unpredictable, a la Lorenz. Right now it's all hindcasting and ego fueled fortune telling.

However, it's a good gig if you can get it - you get your money for nothing and the chicks are for free ...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Can they? I would posit using sex is a double edged sword. After you used it, I would expect your advancement perspective to be less not more.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"alpha males who seem drawn to economic"
If you drew a Venn diagram of alpha males and the field of economics, you would find vast empty space in the middle. Economics is full of beta men who read too many self-recommending books.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#2 It is sad to see how Americans try to make their totalitarian allies look good while America refuses to support President Captain Bolsonaro's leadership.

Respond

Add Comment

Seeing the graphics in #4 reminded me of this graphic:

https://bigthink.com/1000-words/bangladesh-vs-russia

Respond

Add Comment

#4: scary. considering there's practically not vertical development, all people is packed at terrain level.

Respond

Add Comment

2. There are 350,000 illegal aliens in American prisons. So one million Uyghurs in Chinese prisons doesn't sound implausible. The Uyghur population in China is as low as 11 million, so that's 9%. Using the high estimate of 15 million, that's a 6.7% incarceration rate.

In Oklahoma, the state with the highest Black incarceration, there is a 6% rate. Eleven states have more than a 5% rate of Black incarceration. So 9% is really darned high but not implausible in a police state like China with massive unrest from Uyghurs. And a 6.7% rate is on par with our highest state.

So one million is plausible. High but not epic proportions.

Dispensing with due process helps to boost the numbers too.

Not necessarily. There is no particular reason why a lack of due process in general would lead to a disproportionate share of minority incarcerations. It would have to be lack of due process dependent upon ethnic factors.

General or specific lack of due process could also result in lower incarceration rates. If you know you are less likely to be treated fairly, you might commit fewer crimes than you otherwise would. This assumes though that they are not merely making up crimes as a pretext for arrest.

But my main point is that the claim of one million incarcerated Uyghurs is highly plausible.

The minimum figure of 892,000 seems to be based upon relatively hard evidence.

"The first estimate, from Adrian Zenz, a social scientist at the European School of Culture & Theology, is based on an accounting of the detention camp populations totalling some 892,000 individuals in 68 Xinjiang counties as of the Spring of 2018. These numbers are from a document leaked by Chinese public security authorities to Istiqlal, a Uighur exile media organization based in Turkey, and also later appeared in Newsweek Japan."

And it's based upon a partial count:

"As Zenz points out, these numbers are not complete. Several major population centers are missing from the leaked data. "

So, yes, the million figure is highly plausible.

And is it significant if the true figure is only 900K?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

3. Does Economics have a gender problem? Would it ever be acceptable in a just society if men continued to make up enduring, stable majorities in any white-collar professions (like Economics or Computer Science)? And would it ever be unjust if women continued to make up stable majorities in white-collar professions (like teaching, pharmacy, therapy, psychology or nursing)? Would the injustice of male-majority professions be remedied if those professions were all lower paid than female-majority professions? Or is maximum social justice achieved only when at least 50% of all workers in every profession are women (and most men are consigned to morlock jobs)?

Good points.

When you follow the postmodernist "logic" you end up painted into a corner.

I doubt there is any industry, role, or profession closed to women. That was not true in the past, so I suspect some inequities in the present are due to holdover effects from the past. For example, maybe if more women studied industrial engineering in the 1980s there would be more female CEOs in manufacturing today. Just conjecture on my part ...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Re: #1 - "I never buy at the bottom and I always sell too soon." ~ Baron Nathan Rothschild

If he said, "buy when the blood runs in the streets" that sounds like trying to buy the bottom to me.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Academic settings seem very different from the rest of the world. At the place of work of someone I know well, the number of women has steadily grown under 10 years' of female leadership (the director had always been a man during its existence prior, it being a profession kinda associated with the masculine) from perhaps 50% or less of staff to about 80%, and fill all but one executive role. The women have also successfully "nested," taking up all the headquarters' office space, leaving most of the men to work in the conference room if they want to pay to park somewhere (passes provided only to the nesters), or from home, coffeeshops, or the library.

In general, the men tippy-toe around the women, naturally.

Maybe women used to tippy-toe around men in the workplace. Some women I know who were in the mid-century banking world have some toe-curling stories about their male colleagues, especially when the latter were drunk. Their stories also convinced me that maybe bankers didn't used to have enough to do.

I wonder if there was a brief period in this transition, though, when no one was tippytoe-ing around anyone - the 80s, maybe?

"I like your top": he mentioned once he is left out of the chitchat, as it often revolves around clothes and shoes. Who cares? I said. Well, they don't greet me* when I walk in before a meeting, but when one of the women comes in, they often say something like, "I like your top."

"Don't you even think of ever saying, I like your - "

He said, of course he wouldn't, I didn't have to tell him that. I explained to him that "I like your top" is something women say to another woman who is not quite as attractive, is maybe plump ... it's "encouraging," a little bit "sweet-and-low," in other words. A really gorgeous woman walks into the room, other women are not going to comment on her top.

He's always worked with plenty of women, likes women, was raised by a woman - but - perhaps this is purely local - there's now a cult around the idea of "Mean Girls," and he doesn't fit in very well.

*He's a "feeler," ironically - when they were once helpfully sorted, at work, into those personality categories, it was him and one other person in the corner.

My experience was (I'm retired four years in May) similar, men were becoming the minority, especially among the ascendants.

I enjoyed a favorable situation. I worked in NYC for a manager in Boston, MA. I was sharp and had no problem. Being an old guy and versed in old-time courtesies (holding doors, etc.), I infrequently would say something "nice" and melt her - seriously. If you can't beat them. Manipulate them.

Likely, the ascendancy of women will continue as boys fall behind girls in college admissions/graduations.

In conclusion, get with the program. And, it's all bull shit.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment