What is the critical view on the lead-crime correlation?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is a report from Scott Firestone.  He does admit that much of the evidence carries some weight, but he is less persuaded when it comes to cohort studies:

It turns out there was in fact a prospective study done—but its implications for Drum’s argument are mixed. The study was a cohort study done by researchers at the University of Cincinnati. Between 1979 and 1984, 376 infants were recruited. Their parents consented to have lead levels in their blood tested over time; this was matched with records over subsequent decades of the individuals’ arrest records, and specifically arrest for violent crime. Ultimately, some of these individuals were dropped from the study; by the end, 250 were selected for the results.

The researchers found that for each increase of 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, there was a higher risk for being arrested for a violent crime, but a further look at the numbers shows a more mixed picture than they let on. In prenatal blood lead, this effect was not significant. If these infants were to have no additional risk over the median exposure level among all prenatal infants, the ratio would be 1.0. They found that for their cohort, the risk ratio was 1.34. However, the sample size was small enough that the confidence interval dipped as low as 0.88 (paradoxically indicating that additional 5 µg/dl during this period of development would actually be protective), and rose as high as 2.03. This is not very convincing data for the hypothesis.

For early childhood exposure, the risk is 1.30, but the sample size was higher, leading to a tighter confidence interval of 1.03-1.64. This range indicates it’s possible that the effect is as little as a 3% increase in violent crime arrests, but this is still statistically significant.

I don’t have any particular view on this matter, but if you wish can you read Drum’s response here.

Addendum: Andrew Gelman comments.

Law and Literature reading list for 2013

by  Tyler Cowen in

The New English Bible, Oxford Study Edition

Billy Budd and Other Tales, by Hermann Melville.

The Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, and Other Stories, by Franz Kafka.

In the Belly of the Beast, by Jack Henry Abbott.

Conrad Black, A Matter of Principle.

Kate Summerscale, Mrs. Robinson’s Disgrace: The Private Diary of a Victorian Lady.

Glaspell’s Trifles, available on-line.

Sherlock Holmes, The Complete Novels and Stories, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, volume 1.

I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov.

Moby Dick, by Hermann Melville, excerpts, chapters 89 and 90, available on-line.

Year’s Best SF 9, edited by David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer.

Running the Books, by Avi Steinberg.

Death and the Maiden, Ariel Dorfman.

The Pledge, Friedrich Durrenmatt.

The Crime of Sheila McGough, Janet Malcolm

Errol Morris, A Wilderness of Error.

Leslie Katz, “John Keats’s Attitudes to Lawyers,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1307146

Some additions to this list will be made as we proceed, mostly a few short articles.

We also will view a small number of movies on legal themes. You will be responsible for obtaining these or for viewing them in the theater.  These include:

Capturing the Friedmans

Anatomy of a Murder

A Separation

Memories of Murder

MRU videos live

by  Tyler Cowen in

That last two sections of MRU’s Economic Development course (“Migration” and “Population and environment”) are now live, you will find them at the site here.  Michael Clemens has been one big influence, as you can see in our video on whether there is a brain drain problem.  Here is our video on remittances.  Here is our video on the evidence for and against the Malthusian argument.  There is more at the site.

Our final exam will be posting soon.

p.s. We will be starting new courses later this month!  More on that soon…

The Illusion of Central Bank Independence

by  Alex Tabarrok in

In 2009 a number of prominent economists signed a petition arguing for central bank independence. I was less enthusiastic writing:

There is nothing magical about independence that makes for low-inflation.

…The primary reason that independent central banks are better at controlling inflation is that absent direct political control the default selection mechanism favors bankers, i.e. lenders, people whose interests make them more favorable towards lower inflation.

Thus, independence is a political decision that favors lenders in the decisions of monetary policy. Now, depending on the alternatives, there may be good reasons for making this choice but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we have depoliticized money. We should not be surprised, for example, that “independent” central banks tend to make lender of last resort decisions that protect banks and bankers.

Joseph Stiglitz recently made similar remarks

“[The crisis] has shown that one of the central principles advocated by Western central bankers- the desirability of central bank independence-was questionable at best…In the crisis, countries with less independent central banks-China, India, and Brazil-did far, far better than countries with more independent central banks, Europe and the United States. There is no such thing as truly independent institutions. All public institutions are accountable, and the only question is to whom.”

From Business Insider, which adds:

[Stiglitz] believes that in the run-up to the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve was accountable only to Wall Street, and singles out New York Fed President William Dudley for some especially harsh criticism. He claims Dudley was “a model of bad governance” because of his inherent conflict of interest: he bailed out the very banks he was supposed to regulate – the very same banks that enabled him to gain his position.

*Bleeding Talent*, the Tim Kane critique of the U.S. military

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is a review from The New York Times:

In “Bleeding Talent” (Palgrave Macmillan, $30), Mr. Kane gives us a veteran’s proud, though acutely critical, perspective on the American military. He offers an illuminating view of the other “1 percent” — not the privileged upper crust, but the sliver of Americans who have accepted the burden of waging two of the longest wars in our history.

The military is perhaps as selfless an institution as our society has produced. But in its current form, Mr. Kane says, it stifles the aspirations of the best who seek to serve it and pushes them out. “In terms of attracting and training innovative leaders, the U.S. military is unparalleled,” he writes. “In terms of managing talent, the U.S. military is doing everything wrong.”

The core problem, he argues, is that while the military may be “all volunteer” on the first day, it is thoroughly coercive every day thereafter…

ACCORDING to Mr. Kane, “the root of all evil in this ecosystem” is the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, enacted by Congress in 1980 to standardize military personnel policies. But the system has defied efforts by successive defense secretaries to bring about change.

That act binds the military into a system that honors seniority over individual merit. It judges officers, hundreds at a time, in an up-or-out promotion process that relies on evaluations that have been almost laughably eroded by grade inflation. A zero-defect mentality punishes errors severely. The system discourages specialization — you can’t expect to stay a fighter jock or a cybersecurity expert — and pushes the career-minded up a tried-and-true ladder that, not surprisingly, produces lookalikes.

Tim is a frequent (unofficial) member of the GMU lunch crew, and you can buy his book here.  Here is Tim’s Wikipedia page.

Should we mint the platinum coin?

by  Tyler Cowen in

The economics of such a move would work fine, and I understand the game-theoretic rationale, but still I agree (strongly) with Kevin Drum’s “no” answer.  I don’t know if the courts would uphold such a move, but I do know they would not uphold such a move instantaneously.  The uncertainty would in the meantime whipsaw and shut down the markets and the shadow banking system.

And let’s say that — somehow — the whole thing miraculously worked out well from start to finish.  The testier Republicans would in fact get exactly what they want.  They would receive isolation from any negative consequences from brinksmanship, and a new narrative about how President Obama is a fascist incarnate.  Keep in mind that since the coin would bear the sparkling image of Sayyid Qutb, there are even some members of the American electorate who would find such charges plausible.

This is a bad idea, and Obama has been wise to try to take it off the table from the get go.  He knows that Congress actually needs to sign off on a solution, as indeed they have twice in the last year.  It also confirms Paul Krugman’s view that he would not in fact make a good Secretary of the Treasury.

Addendum: Felix Salmon has good comments.

Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics

by  Tyler Cowen in

That is the new paper by David Card and Stefano DellaVigna, here is the abstract:

How has publishing in top economics journals changed since 1970? Using a data set that combines information on all articles published in the top-5 journals from 1970 to 2012 with their Google Scholar citations, we identify nine key trends. First, annual submissions to the top-5 journals nearly doubled from 1990 to 2012. Second, the total number of articles published in these journals actually declined from 400 per year in the late 1970s to 300 per year most recently. As a result, the acceptance rate has fallen from 15% to 6%, with potential implications for the career progression of young scholars. Third, one journal, the American Economic Review, now accounts for 40% of top-5 publications, up from 25% in the 1970s. Fourth, recently published papers are on average 3 times longer than they were in the 1970s, contributing to the relative shortage of journal space. Fifth, the number of authors per paper has increased from 1.3 in 1970 to 2.3 in 2012, partly offsetting the fall in the number of articles per year. Sixth, citations for top-5 publications are high: among papers published in the late 1990s, the median number of Google Scholar citations is 200. Seventh, the ranking of journals by citations has remained relatively stable, with the notable exception of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which climbed from fourth place to first place over the past three decades. Eighth, citation counts are significantly higher for longer papers and those written by more co-authors. Ninth, although the fraction of articles from different fields published in the top-5 has remained relatively stable, there are important cohort trends in the citations received by papers from different fields, with rising citations to more recent papers in Development and International, and declining citations to recent papers in Econometrics and Theory.

The paper is here, and an ungated version is here.

Retrying Socrates, in front of Judge Posner

by  Tyler Cowen in

Star litigators in Chicago are preparing to retry a controversial 2,400-year-old free speech case that famously resulted in the death of Socrates, now considered the father of Greek philosophy, when he drank a cup of poisonous hemlock.

Dan Webb of Winston and Strawn and plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Clifford, a former chair of the ABA Section of Litigation, will represent Socrates at the Jan. 31 proceeding, which is being held as a fundraiser by the National Hellenic Museum in Chicago. The case for the City of Athens will be made by former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, now a partner at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, and Patrick M. Collins of Perkins Coie.

Judge Richard A. Posner of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will head a three-judge panel that also includes his federal appeals court colleague William J. Bauer and Cook County Circuit Judge Anna Demacopoulos.

Here is a bit more, and for the pointer I thank John C.A.K.  I suppose Socrates is now in exclusive company with Conrad Black.

Assorted links

by  Tyler Cowen

1. Charles C. Mann reviews Bernard Bailyn.

2. Becker and Murphy on whether we have lost the war on drugs.

3. How loud should religious announcements be?

4. A paper on lead exposure and crime, internationally (pdf), and some predictions here, including that Latin American crime will fall sharply.

5. Is it too easy to meet someone new?

6. What will induce nostalgia in 2033?

7. Is Social Security in worse shape than we think?