More on the economics of the decisive Senator
There's been a lot of moralizing about the holdout strategies of Lieberman and Nelson, but under some game-theoretic accounts it is a blessing in disguise, a blessing for Obama at least. For instance Rahm Emanuel can now say to the House: "look, we just can't renegotiate this any more or the coalition will fall apart. You'd better get on board with the Senate version of the bill" A lot of these legislative games don't otherwise have a core, or it takes so long to find the core that the deal falls apart in the meantime.
The holdout behavior of one decisive Senator decreases the need to cut bargains with other members of Congress. The key words here are "credible precommitment to no further renegotiation." The more anxious or wavering Nelson and Lieberman were/are, the more credible this precommitment.
Often it's easier to trade with one or two guys than to suffer death by a thousand cuts by having to appease the larger group, yet again. Keep in mind that Obama probably needs this bill more than do most of the Democrats in the House, so he can't just stonewall and win the staredown. In addition to his other roles and effects, Lieberman arguably serves as Obama's "bad cop" enforcer.
Yet more evidence for Austro-Chinese business cycle theory
Zhao says Wang charges up to $30,000 per breeding session with Obama.
The full story is here. Get this bit:
Last month, a Nanjing breeder paid $234,000 for his purebred pooch, reported the Yangtze Evening Times. In September, a young woman in Xian paid $600,000 for her pet, according to the Xian Evening News. Both led airport welcomes with long convoys of pricey automobiles.
For the pointer I thank Daniel Lippman.
Assorted links
1. Kim Peek has passed away; here is a tribute.
2. David Brooks on Kling and Schulz.
4. A new model of the block universe.
5. A critique of the critique of The Phantom Menace.
How to win in Afghanistan
It's all in this military powerpoint, apparently official. On the positive side they are aware the problem is complex.
Hat tip Chris Coyne at The Austrian Economists.
Pricing Copenhagen
U.S. President Barack Obama said the climate-change accord he reached with China and most of the 193 attending nations on Dec. 18 was an “unprecedented” first step to slow global warming. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth called it a failure…
And the market says?
European and United Nations carbon prices fell the most since February after the Copenhagen climate accord didn’t set targets that would boost demand for permits.
European Union carbon-dioxide allowances for delivery in December 2010 declined 8.3 percent to close at 12.45 euros ($17.82) on the European Climate Exchange in London. Today was the first day of trading since the summit concluded Dec. 19.
The agreed targets in the Copenhagen deal amount to a “bunch of negotiation ranges” that investors had already factored in, Trevor Sikorski, an emissions analysts for Barclays Capital, said in a phone interview after returning to London from the Danish capital. “It seems to be below even our modest expectations.”
Both quotes from Bloomberg. Hat tip to Tyler in Nicaragua.
No Give, No Take in Israel
In January, Israel will become the first country in the world to give people who sign their organ donor cards points pushing them up the transplant list should they one day need a transplant. Points will also be given to transplant candidates whose first-degree relatives have signed their organ donor cars or whose first-degree relatives were organ donors.
In the case of kidneys, for example, two points (on a 0-18 point scale) will be given if the candidate had three or more years previous to being listed signed their organ card. One point will be given if a first-degree relative had signed and 3.5 points if a first-degree relative had previously donated.
In Entrepreneurial Economics I argued for a point allocation system like this–which I called a "no give, no take" system–as a way to increase the incentive to sign one's organ donor card. One advantage of a no-give, no take system over paying for organs is that most people find this type of system to be fair and just–those who are willing to give are the first to receive should they one day be in in need.
The new policy will be widely advertised in Israel and will be transitioned into place beginning in January. I think this new policy is very important. If organ donation rates increase in Israel, I expect that other countries will quickly follow suit.
By the way, is it peculiar that the two countries in the world with the best organ donor systems are now Israel and Iran?
Hat tip to Dave Undis whose Lifesharers group (I am an advisor) is working on implementing a similar system in the United States.
How the penalties will work
This has changed a number of times and I've been wondering where it was at. Ezra Klein now reports:
If you don't have employer-based coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, or anything else, and premiums won't cost more than 8 percent of your monthly income, and you refuse to purchase insurance, at that point, you will be assessed a penalty of up to 2 percent of your annual income. In return for that, you get guaranteed treatment at hospitals and an insurance system that allows you to purchase full coverage the moment you decide you actually need it. In the current system, if you don't buy insurance, and then find you need it, you'll likely never be able to buy insurance again. There's a very good case to be made, in fact, that paying the 2 percent penalty is the best deal in the bill.
The racial politics of *Avatar*
Chris Hayes pointed me to this article, with this good passage:
Think of it this way. Avatar is a fantasy about ceasing to be white, giving up the old human meatsack to join the blue people, but never losing white privilege. Jake never really knows what it's like to be a Na'vi because he always has the option to switch back into human mode. Interestingly, Wikus in District 9 learns a very different lesson. He's becoming alien and he can't go back. He has no other choice but to live in the slums and eat catfood. And guess what? He really hates it. He helps his alien buddy to escape Earth solely because he's hoping the guy will come back in a few years with a "cure" for his alienness. When whites fantasize about becoming other races, it's only fun if they can blithely ignore the fundamental experience of being an oppressed racial group. Which is that you are oppressed, and nobody will let you be a leader of anything.
I also enjoyed Ross Douthat's take.
How to limit filibusters
Requiring fifty rather than sixty votes is one obvious response, but let's say that either isn't possible or is for other reasons undesirable. That is, you still might want a high threshold for new legislation, yet without so empowering the sixtieth legislator or for that matter the fiftieth legislator.
One (non-practical) option is to randomize the number of votes held by each Senator, with the number being revealed only after the vote is held. That way Joe Lieberman wouldn't know in advance that he is the decisive Senator. One problem of this is that to ensure passage of the now-riskier bill you might have to spread around pork more generally.
Another (non-practical) solution is to give more votes to Senators who precommit in advance to supporting (or opposing) whatever comes out of the process. Of course that can also backfire, by making it harder for the non-Liebermans to threaten defection.
Then there is bribery and log-rolling and yet more pork.
What other options are there for limiting holdouts, either practical or purely theoretical?
Are Old Scientists Less Innovative?
Paul Romer is interviewed in From Poverty to Prosperity, an excellent new book from Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz. When asked about threats to progress Romer says the following:
One factor that does worry me a little is the demographic changes. Young people, I think, tend to be more innovative, more willing to take risks, more willing to do things differently and they may be very important, disproportionately important, in this innovation and growth process.
And then he gives an example of his worry in practice:
…instead of young scientists getting grant funding to go off and do whatever they want in their twenties, they're working in a lab where somebody in his forties or fifties is the principal investigator in charge of the grant. They're working as apprentices, almost, under the senior person. If we're not careful, we could let our institutions, things like tenure and hierarchical structures and peer review, slowly morph over time so that old guys control more and more of what's going on and the young people have a harder and harder time doing something really different, and that would be would be a bad thing for these processes of growth and change. I'd like to see us keep thinking about how we could tweak our institutions to give power and control and opportunity to young people.
Here is a graph from Jason Hoyt showing how much the average age of NIH grant recipients has already increased.
Hat tip for the graph to Aleks at Statistical Modeling…. Data here.
Assorted links
1. Appreciative thinking, an underexplored virtue.
2. Markets in everything, wet nurse Baumol cost disease edition.
3. The transformation of Chile into a developed nation.
4. Proof that intercourse is special.
Managua
With over 600 barrios, a definitive breakdown of Managua safety is a book in itself. As a general rule, don't ever walk more than a few blocks anywhere in Managua. There are almost no police during the night time and with no centre there are few places where the streets will be busy. The Metrocentro area is safe, but it's still best not to walk alone. The only place that lends itself to walking is the malecón and central park area of old Managua, but do not walk here at night under any circumstances. Even during the daytime take precautions, don't carry any more than you need and avoid walking alone. Be careful when visiting the Catedral Nueva, which is next to a barrio with many thieves. Having said all of this, in comparison with other Central American capitals Managua is safe for the visitor, although theft is common at bus stations and outside the more affluent neighborhoods
That's from my guidebook. It seemed fine to me.
Critique of *The Phantom Menace*
Despite some moments in poor taste, I thought this was one of the funniest productions I've seen, ever. It's the only 70-minute video I've ever watched through, if that gives you another measure. That said, I don't think he actually understands the movie he is criticizing. Nor does he see fit to mention which famous economist Palpatine most resembles.
I thank Scott Cunningham for the pointer.
Assorted links
A very interesting paragraph
Andrade said more research is obviously needed to find out how doodling helps us maintain our attention. However, her theory is that by using up slightly more mental resources, doodling helps prevent the mind from wandering off the boring primary task into daydream land. This study is part of an emerging recognition in psychology that secondary tasks aren't always a distraction from primary tasks, but can sometimes actually be beneficial.
There is more information here.