Wednesday assorted links


#4 All of these were very good although I disagree on the drift to "Corbynomics". I foresee the "No Bregret" combining with the "sense of betrayal" potentially starting a long-term reversal of this drift.

#6 Two things leapt out at me. "Unlike other sessions, the audience was mostly female" and, "Can Economics Explain the Problem?"

I think it just did.

6. From the link: "Betsey Stevenson, who chaired the panel, recalled hearing male economists suggest that "women's ability to trade sex for career advancement" is an advantage they have in the marketplace." Good grief! I suppose she was asking for it by wearing that short skirt and tight shirt. Economics has a male bias in the sense that males are the self-confident gender, such self-confidence never greater than when they are wrong. With women, it's shades of gray. Ayn Rand, the female exception, proves the rule: would males be drawn to Rand absent her self-confidence?

I don't think many men find self-confidence attractive, in and of itself.

You are right: men dislike confident women. Too bossy. Males are drawn to Rand's self-confidence because she acts like one of them: not only wrong but creepy yet totally self-confident.

"You are right: men dislike confident women."

This sounds like you are projecting your own feelings on to younger cohorts.

Let me guess, you are a male feminist?

99% of men couldn't pick Rand out of a lineup. 100% of them could pick out Stormy Daniels. And it isn't the face, the confidence or if she is strong or weak.

3) In economics, more generally, it refers to any situation where there is no out-of-pocket cost to store the product so that the only storage cost is the opportunity cost of waiting longer to get your money when the product is eventually sold. In economics, more generally, it refers to any situation where there is no out-of-pocket cost to store the product so that the only storage cost is the opportunity cost of waiting longer to get your money when the product is eventually sold.

Take Grp55 and the cellular signaling system.

4. Interesting use of the word "anorak."

That whole thing runs counter to my "populism is busted," and it is true that I view Europe from a great distance. But I'm going to stick with the idea that self-harm is becoming apparent, and the politics of self-harm cannot last in the long-term.

Nobody's really paying much attention to how much money farmers are losing due to the trade war with China, or how the government shutdown is affecting their ability to apply for federal assistance.

I expect there to be a lot of angry farmers in the midwest next election.

Probably not so much 2019 down $2B ($141B) from this year, up $2B from 2017.

That is kind of like speaking to rust belt workers and saying "when you average in computer programming salaries, everything is fine!"

Trump is creating specific harms with specific people who may remember their pain, long after the averages.

Layoffs from Trump tariffs are piling up. So are calls for more bailouts.

Low-end wages are rising for the first time in a long while, and black unemployment is at record lows. The Trump economy thus far has been helping the most vulnerable.

Only true if you think all agricultural products are substitutes for each other. They aren't

What did he say about the new Manafort filing?

What does he look like, a dentist?

I just zoomed my screen very large to make sure :-)

5. Advice to Chinese traveling to America: don't. Arresting the daughter of the founder of Huawei set a horrible example. Huawei, the producer of the most popular cell phone in China and a very popular cell phone in Europe, has become Apple's biggest competitor, even though Huawei phones cannot be sold in America (there's an indirect ban: any company selling their phones cannot quality for U.S. subsidies). The justification for the arrest is that Huawei does business in Iran. Well, America keeps company with a few unseemly regimes, Saudi Arabia being one of them.

There's something about Chinese made cell phones: most of them have dual SIM cards. Why? So the user can have two different providers: one for voice and one for data. Why didn't Apple et al. think of that innovation?

Leave that to us Brazilians. We have comparative and absolute advantage.

No we do not. Stop impersonating me.

Chinese companies are increasingly finding that what helped them grow huge in the first place (strong ties to the CCP) is exactly what is going to hinder them from further growth internationally.


> The panelists kept coming back to implicit bias, which is how psychologists talk about unrecognized feelings and attitudes that affect our judgement and actions.

I have a major issue with this. Measures of implicit bias *do not* predict judgments or actions. The idea that implicit association measure implicit bias which predicts subconscious actions has been thoroughly debunked.

There are a small number of bad actors. They know what they're doing. Good people bumbling around and pointing fingers at each other and themselves isn't productive.

As economists shouldn't they be looking at revealed preferences rather than "implicit bias?"

Are there really megaloads of women longing for a career with some economics faculty, consultancy or statistical bureau but being rudely denied the opportunity?

And these economists may also be too narrowly defining their profession, overlooking the many women in related fields of finance, banking and so on. This may point to some actual preference, not discrimination.

4. This sentence encapsulates the absurdity that is Brexit - 'Leavers might not have changed their minds about Brexit but they have become visibly more dissatisfied both with how Brexit is being managed and its overall direction.'

Basically, the Leavers expected to get whatever they wanted, and when that did not happen, were ready to blame the EU. Except as it turns out, the people in charge of Brexit (who just happen to be Brexiters) are so incompetent that one can almost imagine a certain satisfaction on the part of the EU in letting the Brexiters take back control - as quickly as possible.

'This is the reservoir into which a new pro-Brexit populist party could yet jump.'

How quickly (and conveniently) one forgets all about UKIP, the Brexit populist party.

'the basic message of the anti-Brexit camp has not really changed at all'

The fascinating part of that observation is the idea that reality is about messaging. The truly bizarre thing is how Operation Fear is now seemingly official government policy, such as beginning to stockpile food and medicine due to anticipated shortages. Though Dad's Army will undoubtedly find a plucky way to use pleasure craft to carry lorries across the Channel. Particularly as Seaborne Freight, one of the companies given funds by the UK government to handle anticipated bottlenecks, does not own any ships. (No, really - you just cannot make this stuff up -

I wouldn't take #3 too seriously. Researchers know better than to simply input the thing they want to learn about in a search engine; often you have to approach a problem sideways, using multiple search terms. So while this may present an interesting 1:1,000,000 perspective, the devil is very much in the details.

#5 is interesting, anyone know what happens if you dont do that stuff? What are these guys trying to avoid?

It's a concern about giving the Chinese authorities any excuse for detainment. It is very easy to technically break a law in almost any country (even more so in China), and they have the added element of constant omnipresent government monitoring of communications. So one little slip, one little comment or joke on a messaging app, can be used to justify detaining you. They are concerned about this as a retaliation to the Huawei CFO arrest, because China has already done it with several Canadians in China. But mostly it's an overreaction to a relatively low level of risk.

6: You can tell how serious a field of study is by how its members perceive its own priorities.

Put 1000 of the top cancer researchers together at their biggest annual conference, and they will tell you which avenues for cures should be focused on, what practical and regulatory hurdles exist and need addressing, and so forth.

A conference of anti-nuclear-proliferation experts would develop a similar list of promising avenues and challenging hurdles. Hell, even a convention of stamp collectors would be talking about the importance of new preservation techniques and how to spot counterfeits, etc.

But put thousands of economists together, and what does their top speaker say is their #1 Priority and Concern?

That they are not diverse enough. No joke. Bernanke: "I think this should be our top priority."

Says it all, doesn't it?

"Betsey Stevenson, who chaired the panel, recalled hearing male economists suggest that "women's ability to trade sex for career advancement" is an advantage they have in the marketplace. This led her to ask the panel, "Do the tools of our profession fail us when it comes to understanding workplace sexual harassment?""

Im a bit confused here, are they mad because the claim is false or because he made the claim at all?

The ability to "trade sex for advancement" cut both ways. It can also mean "no sex, no advancement".

True, and the attractive ones get the benefits while the less attractive get left behind. Overall, it probably works to the women's benefit. At least in the past 20 yrs, I don't there's much trading of sex for promotions. a lot more women getting hired because of their looks, especially in sales positions.

I wouldn't mind trading sex for promotions. But nobody wants to have sex with me.

True, and the attractive ones get the benefits

Or they get the "no sex, no advancement" demands. If one is a person who does not want to have to trade sex for advancement, it's better to be ugly. Again, it cuts both ways. Why are you assuming that an attractive woman is the one with the power? The woman has the ability to offer sex, but the man (manager) has the ability to offer, or deny, a promotion. Considering the long-term value of a promotion compared to the momentary value of sex , I'd say the manager has more power in this negotiation. "Fuck me, or else I won't promote you." is a lot more coercive than "Give a promotion, or I won't have sex with you."

You are correct, but I think that situation is pretty scarce. Too easy to sue for it, and men know this. The places where women have advantages seem to outnumber the disadvantages considerably.

#2: Yeah, but Lambda adopt the Harvard plan and cap Asian admissions to 20%? It is impossible for their students to get a good education if they have too many Asians.

Even better we can deport those slanty-eyed devils and build a wall to keep the vermin from ever coming back in.

6) FWIW, Stevenson is married to Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, and a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Didn't we just have a post here about the earnng power of professional couples? Is economics as romantically incestuous as my old newspaper profession?

3) Neil deGrasse Tyson can't feel good about coming in five places below bed-bug bites in 2017. But aided by harassment allegations he upped his Google game considerably last season -- while bedbugs faded from contention, beset by injuries, costly miscues and locker-room turmoil.

3. I note that Climate Change has fallen from 4 to 8.

#3. The chances that anyone in an oncology-related field would search for "cancer" is about zero. I don't know what to make of the Pythagorean Theorem - which any grade schooler learns - is a top Google search phrase. I find it curious that "diversity", "gender", "bias" as well as "misconduct" and "fraud" AREN'T among the top terms, and then there's "anti-science" and "alternative facts"...

A lot of those HN links were interesting. A really nice dose of nostalgia. Not enough to make me go back and get accused of being a shill by someone who knows how to write a website in Rust, though.

6. 47% of the postsecondary teachers in the United States are female, a share precisely matching that of the working population as a whole. It isn't a problem that aspirant college teachers on the distaff side prefer some fields more than others. Our professoriate is a collection of collection of status-signalling putzes.

#6, this is an attempt to destroy any economists with non-standard views. Diversity is just a another word for econ becoming sociology. The elites can't stand that their is still a field where men can voice opinions. Tyler thinks he will be eaten last, but he has a target on his back for his occasional flirtations with heterodox opinion.

6 we apologize
There is no ending to it.
If you keep feeding this energy, then it’s going to grow. You’re not getting no more of my energy from it. I’m not giving no more, because it’s endless

Comments for this post are closed