The renegade guru

by  Tyler Cowen in

For some non-obvious reason I thought of Bryan Caplan when I was reading this article:

As a toddler, he was put on a throne and worshipped as by monks who treated him like a god. But the boy chosen by the Dalai Lama as a reincarnation of a spiritual leader has caused consternation – and some embarrassment – for Tibetan Buddhists by turning his back on the order that had such high hopes for him.

Instead of leading a monastic life, Osel Hita Torres now sports baggy trousers and long hair, and is more likely to quote Jimi Hendrix than Buddha.

Yesterday he bemoaned the misery of a youth deprived of television, football and girls. Movies were also forbidden – except for a sanctioned screening of The Golden Child starring Eddie Murphy, about a kidnapped child lama with magical powers. "I never felt like that boy," he said.

The story is here.  Successive photos are here.  And:

At six, he was allowed to socialise only with other reincarnated souls – though for a time he said he lived next to the actor Richard Gere's cabin.

He is still revered by the Buddhist community although here is a bit more on the embarrassed responses.  I wonder how many gurus come to such realizations but do not speak up.  Does living in Spain have an effect?

Why aren’t more theatrical plays on DVD?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Many plays, such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, are made into movies and they end up on DVD in this manner.  But why don't they just film Tom Stoppard's Arcadia (recommended, by the way; it's playing at the Folger and it's one of the classic plays of our time).  A look at Amazon doesn't yield much.  Nor does a search on "Edward Albee."

I can think of a few possible factors:

1. It wouldn't be very good.  (This doesn't stop most of what is put out on DVD.  Furthermore the highly complex genre of opera on DVD works just fine and has become the industry standard.)

2. There wouldn't be much of an audience.  Yet you could sell memento copies to people who saw the plays, a few plays on DVD might hit it big, and in any case they wouldn't cost much to produce.  There are plenty of niche products on Netflix.

3. It would squash the demand for live performance.  Really?  Most people don't go to the theater anyway.  Those who do, in this age of 3-D cinema and TiVo, presumably enjoy live performance in a manner which is robust.  It is more likely that DVD viewing would stimulate demand for the live product.  Besides, they put these plays out in book form and no one thinks that is a big problem.

None of these answers seem to work.  So, to repeat the question, why don't they put more theatrical plays out on DVD?

Addendum: Could it be they are holding out for the sale of movie rights and that profit is maximized by restricting alternative viewing options?

Eduardo Barreiros and the Recovery of Spain

by  Tyler Cowen in

That's the new and interesting Hugh Thomas book about the leading Spanish businessman of the 20th century, Eduardo Barreiros.  Barreiros entered into car manufacturing, but with the Cuban government as his business partner:

Luis Morente, more subtly, thought that the Cuban government wanted to use Eduardo to see whether Communism could collaborate with capitalism as it has done in recent years in China.  Businesses that were half-private, half-state-controlled (empresas mixtas) followed.  But there were innumerable difficulties: first, the government would select personnel to work with Eduardo according to their political position; second, the "second-rank executives" often found themselves being analysed by their subordinates; absenteeism was not denounced and indeed not considered as such; in Pinar del Rio, workers had to be allowed off to work in the tobacco harvest; incentives and productivity played no part.  The party, the Bank of Cuba, the unions, the provincial government were always intervening; energy supplies were irregular; parts were delivered very slowly; no one cared if supplies deteriorated before delivery; and in 1988, after a hurricane, the factory was flooded.  All these things needed Eduardo's continual attention.

It should be noted that, relative to the standards of the Cuban economy, the venture was a success.

Auctions and Politicians

by  Alex Tabarrok in

David Warsh has an excellent column on economists, auctions and the politicians who oppose them: 

…the US Department of Transportation earlier this month canceled plans to auction landing slots for New York’s three busiest airports. The Bush administration had sought the measure, hoping to cut delays at the chronically congested airports (and, of course, raise some much-needed cash). The airline industry lined up against the proposal, so did Democratic congressmen. Incumbent airlines will continue to profit; frequent travelers will continue to suffer delays.

Similarly, the banking lobby, among the nation’s strongest interest groups, has so far successfully opposed Treasury Department attempts to put up for bid banks’ questionable (now “legacy”) assets. The reason is simple: when the asking price is, say, 90 cents on the dollar and the bid is closer to 40 cents, no manager will willingly take part in an auction that seems certain to lower book values.

[Similarly]…President Obama campaigned on a promise to auction the [carbon] permits. But a coalition of Midwestern and Southern Democrats teamed up to alter the bill, and when its language was released last week it turned out that fully 80 percent of the permits would be given away at first to electricity utilities and their big industrial customers…

Nevertheless, Warsh is optimistic about the ability of economic engineers to create value with more sophisticated and widespread auctions.  Read the whole thing for developments on the academic front.

Divorce and Crime Victimization

by  Alex Tabarrok in

While paging through the statistical tables of Criminal Victimization in the United States I found some interesting data on victimization, marriage and divorce.  The rate of victimization for violent crimes (per 1,000 persons aged 12 and over) for never married and married males is as follows:

  • Never Married Males: 45.0
  • Married Males: 12.3
Clearly, married males are older and they have settled down, usually in places away from crime hot spots.  Thus the fact that the rate of victimization for married males is much lower than for never married males is no surprise.  What did surprise me is that divorced males have rates of victimization about as high as for never married males:
  • Divorced or Separated Males: 44.2
The same pattern is even stronger for females:
  • Never Married Females: 38.4
  • Married Females: 10.3
  • Divorced or Separated Females: 49.4

The patterns are suggestive of how large a difference one’s choices can make for criminal victimization.  That is, one hypothesis to explain the data is that singles congregate in urban, high crime areas and they go out at night to bars and other high crime locations.  Married individuals move to low crime suburbs and stay home with popcorn and Netflix.  The divorced, however, move back to the cities where the singles are and they head out at night to try to mate again.

An alternative hypothesis is that the individuals who tend to get divorced have personalities or behaviors which make them more likely to get divorced and more likely to be victims of crime: a drug user, for example, is likely to have a higher probability of divorce and a higher probability of being a victim of crime than a non drug-user.

How many other hypotheses can you think of to explain the data?  What tests would you suggest to distinguish hypotheses?

“A movie lover’s movie…”

by  Tyler Cowen in

When I see this phrase in an ad, as I did for the new film Bloom Brothers, I respond negatively (although I still will see it).  But exactly why?  After all, I am a movie lover by virtually any objective standard.  Shouldn't I read this description and jump for joy?

But no.

1. Perhaps this description signals pretension and, ultimately, stupidity.  Truly good restaurants don't advertise that they appeal to "gourmets"; rather the relevance of that quality is taken for granted.  See my discussion of counter-signaling in Discover Your Inner Economist.

2. Perhaps it is a sign they have nothing better to say about the movie.

3. Perhaps it is a sign that the movie is full of insider jokes about the movie business.  Movies of that kind do not generally excite me.

4. They are using the phrase because they think it will appeal to relatively large numbers of people.  Perhaps I am slightly insulted, as I feel that my love for movies deserves a more exclusive designation.

Update: I was conned.  The datum provides evidence for #1.

Betting markets in everything

by  Tyler Cowen in

A Buckinghamshire man diagnosed with terminal
cancer is to collect a second winning payout of £5,000 after betting he
would stay alive.

Jon Matthews, 59, from Milton Keynes, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos, in 2006 and
told he had months to live.

He placed two bets, each with a £100 stake at odds of 50/1, that he would be alive in June 2008 and in June 2009.

A third wager will earn him a further £10,000 if he lives until 1 June 2010.

The widower will collect his second lot of £5,000 winnings on Monday.

The full story is here and I thank Leonard Monasterio for the pointer.  Of course you are implicitly betting on your life each time you make an investment or a long-range plan.

Ask Marilyn: IQ vs. the economists

by  Tyler Cowen in

Marilyn vos Savant has (supposedly, read the link) the world's highest recorded IQ at 228.  She is now fielding questions on economics.  Here is one example:

Question: Why has the income disparity
grown so much in developed countries? – Matthew Cencich, Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada

Answer: I think the disparity is
a normal result of overall economic growth. The bottom incomes (zero)
can’t go lower, but the top incomes can go up and up. And so they do,
of course.

Here is another:

Question: Do you think that government
actively encouraging people to borrow money (and spend it) is the right
way to resolve the recession? – Caroline Kelly, Hendon, London

Answer:
No. I think that more consumer activity could be modestly helpful to
the economy in the short term. And in better times, it would even
masquerade as growth. But in the current climate, increasing the family
debt would cause added personal financial problems. So I doubt that
it’s useful for government to advocate shopping as a form of national
service unless elected officials are perhaps a tad more interested in
shifting a little of the burden away from themselves than they are in a
lasting solution.

She also explains the financial crisis. ("First, an economy based on growth is bound to falter now and then. A
whole sector could collapse. It’s a house of cards. Eventually, it must
morph into a system that functions on stability, or it will fail –
meaning a fall large enough to cause an unstoppable breakdown and
widespread hardship.")

Question: on these problems, does she do better or worse than leading economists?

Addendum: Here is Marilyn on YouTube.  Oddly (look just past the 4:00 mark), she can't define IQ properly. 

How to learn about everything?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Eric Drexler offers some tips:

  1. Read and skim journals and textbooks that (at the moment) you only half understand. . Include Science and Nature.
  2. Seldom stop to study a single subject with a student’s intensity, as if you had to pass a test on it.
  3. Don’t drop a subject because you know you’d fail a test – instead,
    read other half-understandable journals and textbooks to accumulate
    vocabulary, perspective, and context.
  4. Notice that concepts make more sense when you revisit a topic, and note which topics provide keys to many others.
  5. Continue until almost everything you encounter in Science and Nature makes sense as a contribution to a field you know something about.

The three-word version of that is "Get context first."