Sentences to ponder

Female economists are at some notable points less convinced of market solutions and have more trust in the government in serving the public interest.

Here is the full research, by Hendrik P. van Dalen, mostly focusing on other features of economist opinion, with respect to the Netherlands.  Via Robin Hanson.

Comments

What's next? Water is wet?

Agreed, this is dog bites man territory.

A good study would be :

Give volunteer women economists anabolic steroids for 6 months, give the survey. Then give the survey every 3 months as the effects wear off and compare to a baseline of women who never took steroids.

You don't like female economists. We get it.

How do you come to that conclusion?

With science, reason, and logic.

"Female economists are at some notable points less convinced of market solutions and have more trust in the government in serving the public interest."

[

'Most economists are at some notable points less convinced of market solutions and have more trust in the government in serving the public interest.'

What do you mean?

Really, the ideal adult human society would be a gigantic day-care center/petting zoo.

There was a reason we didn't give them the right to vote. Now this.

Ha! Take THAT, stupid women!

Well, they are the weaker sex. So while the men-folk are off fighting real and imaginary wars at the office, the women-folk are stuck at home worrying, worrying about the mundane parts of life, like cleaning the toilet, caring for the youngins, paying the bills. The men-folk don't worry about such, having an inflated view of not only their anatomy but the salaries they bring home. It's a shame that the women-folk might look to gov'ment for help when the men-folk take to drink and drugs and stupid ideas about economics. Those women-folk just don't know how good they have it, and that gov'ment wants to take it all away from them. Yes, they are the weaker sex. They need protectin by the strong men-folk, especially those that have stupid ideas about economics: they don't understand about clean toilets.

I couldn't agree more.

You’re old.

Women are outpacing men in education and earnings in their early 20s. Which is fine.

+1, rayward's comment definitely dates him.

Hmmm, are you an idiot? Do you not get parody? Sometimes I have the sense that readers of this blog are idiots.

No, we all understood the parody.

The parody was just 30 years out of date.

I’ve exposed myself to a lot of people, often in public parks. What’s it to you?

Hmmm is an idiot. Definitely an idiot.

The Anti-Gnostic is an idiot. Definitely an idiot.

every one who posts here is two or three standard deviations below the ideal, with a few exceptions

and most people reading this in 2019 have no idea who the exceptions are

I do

and anti-Gnostic, who has insulted me in the past, is one of the exceptions.

That being said the poor guy has no idea why I know that he is an exception.

And he will never know.

But he is not "definitely not an idiot".

it is so easy to understand this world.

God created everyone whom you hate.
God created everyone whom you love.

And there are people like me who are (or who used to be, we got tired of not being asked) more than happy to explain why you should be kinder sometimes, and more full of love sometimes.

But even people like me got tired of the fact that you never fucking asked,
we would have told you but you did not fucking ask.

Thus ends my attempts to say what needs to be said.

It is now your job to understand, I am so tired of trying to help, and it is now your job, and yours alone.

I tried to help and make this clear but nobody cares about anybody all that much, until they realize

that they do care.

You care, and I don't care about all those times when you pretended you did not care.

trust me. you care.

I'm not sure a sample of "Dutch Female Economists" is meaningful to broader pictures, though.

Whereass a sample of US economists is perfectly general ;)

Nice to see female economists expressing their trust in Donald Trump in this way.

+10

"The election of Donald Trump is proof that the Government should have more power." -- Every Dem 2020 Candidate

You in trouble now!

Duck!!!!!

I'm wondering how this measured difference in attitude between male and female economists might possibly have influenced some of the results in the AEA report from a few days ago.

The geniuses who created that "genderless voice assistant" could turn next to devising a genderless economist

Some fields such as psychology identify authors of papers as J. Robinson or J. M. Keynes so that the reader will be less knowledgeable about the gender of the author. I don't know how well it works, e.g. to say an author is A. Krueger is probably too indefinite and I have seen citations that say AO Krueger or AB Krueger so readers know whether it's Anne or Alan -- but as a result the gender identity is easier to figure out.

Will the real libertarian female economist please stand up?

Straussian reading: Tyler is less sympathetic to the "women in economics" issues he posted earlier this week.

Some people "have more trust in the government in serving the public interest" because they expect the government to be run by people like themselves with similar ideology. And they are typically right. In other words: I trust people like myself over the market.

Other people have more trust in market solutions because they expect the government to be run by people quite unsympathetic to themselves. And they are typically right. In other words: I trust the market over people who are hostile to me.

rewritten version:
Everyone would agree with:
- I trust my allies over the market
- I trust the market over my enemies.

If you expect the government to be run by allies, you want it to have more power than the market. If you expect the government to be run by enemies (or at least unsympathetic leaders), you want it to have less power than the market.

Indeed. I find it alarming that female economists are so market-phobic.

But there should be a reason for such gender-effects. I conjecture that females are more market-phobic because they are more risk averse than men: markets are by nature uncertain, and there is a widespread (although mistaken) belief that government command and control reduces risks.

“there is a widespread (although mistaken) belief that government command and control reduces risks.”

What do you mean mistaken? It probably does reduce risk (and noise), but the cost is a high one!

This is a Taleb point. Don't confuse smoothing returns for the elimination of risk. Command and control appears to reduce risk by smoothing everything out, but in reality it bet everything on black. Market's bet some on black, some on red, some on 00. It appears more chaotic, but more chaotic inputs paradoxically lead to a more antifragile system; robust inputs lead to a fragile system.

"less convinced of market solutions" is pretty far from "market-phobic".

There is a widespread acceptance of several types of market failures and I imagine most economists would agree that "not all problems are solvable with 'market solutions'".

To me it seems that both market phobia and market fetishism lead to sub optimal outcomes. "Less convinced of market solutions" sounds solidly in grey area in between where good solutions will be found.

OK,

What are you trying to prove?

That

Female economists are

Smarter?

Big Government is like the Daddy who never hugged them when they were little girls.

I would like to go back about 150 years and have all these trust fund babies live on a farm. The man was always out plowing the fields and planting in Spring, fixin' the house in summer and managing livestock and buthcherin' hogs in the summer, shoe-ing horses the rest of the time. Then cleaning out the barn and shoveling hay and manure always. Harvesting in the fall, storing grain and silage, and turning the field residue under in the fall also. Women cleaned, cooked and sewed all the time. Burned wood or coal for cooking and heating, may be with a wood burning stove if they could afford it. Made bread and pies. Washed clothes by hand!!!. Milked a cow or two. Got the eggs from the chicken coup each mornin', picked fruit and canned in the fall. Pumped water from the well or a kitchen hand pump. Took care of the kids. Both would ride a horse or wagon into town for other goods at the general store. If they were lucky their house had a wood floor and maybe a separate bedroom. If they could afford it, they might build a brick house eventually. All the while they still had time to go to Church and visit the neighbors and teach the kids. Today, all people can do is whine.

That luxury. Me and tribe go out hunt mammoths every day sometimes we no get one and hungry for days. Women pick berries but not enough. We teach kids hunt and sew and forage but so many die we have to keep making them. Ice come, many of us die. Mammoths leave and we follow.

Today all people do is whine.

You can do that today but I'm not sure the Amish want you sullying their community.

Excellent comment jorod. Every time things go not quite my way at work I try to remind myself of how good i've got it.

Why government? What do women think they know?

If I were my mom, I wouldn't trust government knowing my sons and daughters are voting. On the other hand, knowing my sons and daughters are rabble rousers, I might need government.

I dunno, can't quite model it.

This reminds of the afternoon of 9/11 in on our office, where all the women employees wanted more security from the government (with almost no regard to liberty) while the men talked about whether investing in Boeing was a good idea or not (the need to build four more airplanes vs reduced flying demand by consumers).

I was in Malaysia on 9/11/2001, and within days, the Malaysians told me that no Jews showed up for work that day, and thus no Jewish lives were lost on Wall Street.

And my first impulse was to withdraw as much cash as i could, in case the yellow belly Americans were going to shut down the banking system over the attack. Instead they started molesting us courtesy of TSA, and blew a few trillions on useless wars, without eliminating significant fraction of rivals to resources.

I guess a female economist came up with the TSA. A market oriented person would increase the liability per airplane, thus nudging the private businesses (airlines or their insurers) to do the security inspections, which is then constitutional, and not a warrant-less search by government.

More likely economists working for airlines came up with the TSA.

Viking--before 9/11 the airlines provided private security just as you are proposing and planes were regularly hijacked. Under TSA no planes have been hijacked.

Maybe your proposal is no so great.

I don’t remember planes being hijacked in the US on a regular basis before 9/11.

I remember in the 70s It seemed Cuba was a destination hotspot, but it got better in the US.

I can’t prove this, but I understand that the attack was supposed to happen on Rosh Hashanah, which is a major Jewish holiday when many Jews would in fact not have shown up for work. It in fact occurred exactly a week before Rosh Hashanah. I understand that there was some sort of leak, causing the conspirators to move the attack up a week, but it was planned around the Tuesday air schedule so it had to be moved exactly a week.

-dk

I can't prove this, but I understand my doppelganger Dick King is a grand wizard of the (dic)kKK(ing). I understand he has to obscure his identity or he will be fired from the counter at the Burger (dick) King in Shreveport.

Mostly just seem more left wing and pro-communist. They have greater trust in authoritarian right wing developmental states, a la NE Asia or Greece/Spain? I doubt it.

Similar to the lack of women in tech, maybe it's just that smart women have more options and choose better things to do than go in to economics. What's left over think government is cool.

Please, science, not bias.

Consider.

Are there evolutionary reasons for women to be more risk-averse than men? I think yes, based on vulnerability related to pregnancy and motherhood. I bet that those who are averse to risk are more favorably inclined to welfare state politics. The government is an insurance agency.

Second, also rooted in evolution. Women always know who their children are. Men don't. A woman can have a child with another man by cheating. The result is that men are less committed to children (who might not be theirs) than women. That makes men less willing to vote for policies to support children than women.

Finally, from economics. A lot of talk about women earning less than men. The reasons are complex, but the data are real. As a rule, those with lower incomes will support a large welfare state with higher progressive taxation. So women vote more on the Left than men. Implication is that high income women are more likely to be on the Right than low income men.

Finally, can we break down male and female economists by field? For example, I have noticed that development economists tend to be the most leftist, and finance economists the most rightist. Labor tends to be center-left. If women are more likely to be in fields that tilt Left, it may be a spurious correlation. It may be that the field is the driving factor, not the sex.

RE: Evo Pscyh

Risk aversion is directly related to mating payoff. Male payoff has much greater variability than female payoff. Tons of data here. 99th percentile male get dozens of offspring, 30th percentile males don't reproduce at all, historically. For women, well, not so much.

Men are totally incentivised to take risks because mean offspring is much, much higher than median offspring. For women they are about the same.

A couple things

The study survyed Dutch economists who are patently non representative.

The survey questions (and most arguments of markets vs government) don’t make any mention of civil society. Only government vs market.

Just to start...

Comments for this post are closed