Hobbies in everything

by  Tyler Cowen in

Is this a Mengerian spontaneous order story, or not?:

Kisa, 28, a student and translator in Toronto, decided to create her
own language, something simple that would help clarify her thinking. 
She called it Toki Pona — "good language" — and gave it just 120
words.

"Ale li pona," she told herself. "Everything will be OK."

Kisa eventually sorted through her thoughts and, to her great surprise,
her little language took off, with more than 100 speakers today,
singing Toki Pona songs, writing Toki Pona poems and chatting with Toki
Pona words.

It’s all part of a weirdly Babel-esque boom of new languages.  Once the
private arena of J.R.R. Tolkien, Esperanto speakers and grunting
Klingon fanatics, invented languages have flourished on the Internet
and begun creeping into the public domain.

The website Langmaker.com lists more than 1,000 language inventors and 1,902 made-up languages, from `Ayvárith to Zyem.

The language inventors have, of course, created a word to describe what they do — "conlang," short for constructed languages.

Here is the full story.  Here is a word list for Toki Pona.  Here are general resources.  The language has only a few dozen proverbs but one of them is nasin mami li ike, or "capitalism is negative."  There are by far more words about sex than anything else ("Kisa created Toki Pona as an exercise in minimalism, looking for the core vocabulary that is necessary to communicate"), and here is how the countries have been renamed.

Sadly: "Some want to express complicated thoughts in Toki Pona, running counter to its design."

Suicide help lines

by  Tyler Cowen in

In 723 of 1,431 calls, for example, the helper never got around to asking whether the caller was feeling suicidal.  And
when suicidal thoughts were identified, the helpers asked about
available means less than half the time.  There were more egregious
lapses, too: in 72 cases a caller was actually put on hold until he or
she hung up.  Seventy-six times the helper screamed at, or was rude to,
the caller.  Four were told they might as well kill themselves.

There were 33 evident on-line suicide attempts, yet only six rescue
efforts, sometimes because the caller ended the communication.  In one
case, a caller who’d overdosed passed out, yet the helper hung up.

Here is the full story, by Christopher Shea.  I am curious how much of this problem is due to the non-profit structure of the institutions running the lines and how much is due to the behavioral quirks of human beings faced with the suicidal tendencies of others…

From the comments: "Also, how would a for-profit suicide hotline work? Call a 900 number if
you’re having suicidal thoughts? I find it hard to imagine that a
for-profit suicide hotline system would generate *more* suicide
prevention, though maybe I’m wrong."

Economics majors are rising

by  Tyler Cowen

I had not known the trend was so pronounced:

The number of smart kids studying computer science
peaked a few years ago and has dropped dramatically since. The number
of new computer science majors today has fallen by half since 2000,
according to the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Merrilea
Mayo, director of the Government-University-Industry Research
Roundtable at the National Academies, says the drop-off was
particularly pronounced among women.

Meanwhile, elite schools are reporting
that the number of economics majors is exploding. For the 2003–2004
academic year, the number of economics degrees granted by U.S. colleges
and universities increased 40 percent from five years previously.
Economics is seen by bright undergraduates as the path to a high-paying
job on Wall Street or at a major corporation.

Here is the full story.

Farewell to Alms, final session

by  Tyler Cowen in

The final section of Greg’s book has many fascinating bits, but I would rather conclude by summing up why the book is important.

The Industrial Revolution, or whatever it was that happened, is the
big question in Western history.  Yet most economists do not work on it
and I believe that most have never read a book on it or taken a course
on it.  Greg’s work puts this historical development back on center
stage where it belongs.  Furthermore he helps reconceptualize what the
Industrial Revolution really was and wasn’t; without that step further
progress is not possible.

But that’s not all.  When it comes to what happened, Greg brings two
new interrelated but distinct hypotheses to the table, namely labor
quality and downward mobility.  That’s two new hypotheses, and
he makes a good case for each of them.  That achievement holds up even if you are unconvinced by his
dismissal of institutions, or by his embrace of the Malthusian model.

As I read Greg, he wants to replace extant explanations with his story.  In my creative "rereading" of Greg, I want to add
his two factors to extant explanations.  Greg wants an explanation with
a Malthusian or a Ricardian rigor and logic.  I believe our
explanations will be more like those of history than of economics. 
That means lots of variables, lots of messiness in the causal chains,
unclear predictive power, and the accretion of knowledge bringing less
rather than more simplicity.

In short, Greg is more of an economist than I am.

Most of all, I’d like to thank Greg for his participation in this BookForum.  Here are links to previous MR posts on his book.

In sum, what did you all think?

Why did the Industrial Revolution come to England?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Michael H. Hart’s Understanding Human History is an objectionable book in a variety of regards, but it is another attempt to explain the broad sweep of human history using the concept of IQ.  Let’s see what Hart says (pp.365-6) about why the Industrial Revolution came to England:

1. England had a high average IQ

2. England had a relatively high population (compared say to the Nordic countries)

3. England did not have slavery

4. England had intellectual ferment

5. Colonies added to the intellectual ferment of England

6. Unlike Germany or Italy, England was not politically fragmented

7. England had abundant iron ore and coal

8. England had relatively secure property rights

Hart stresses that in Europe only England had all these factors operating in its favor.  For our purposes, Hart’s more pluralistic explanation is testament to how large a role the Malthusian model plays in Greg Clark’s book.

Advice for Graduate Students

by  Alex Tabarrok in

In a video at Freakonomics Steve Levitt talks about the genesis of the idea for his abortion and crime paper with John Donohue.  The key sentence, "and so I spent the first couple of years of research…".

In a unrelated post he also tells us this, "back in grad school, I had carpal tunnel problems from entering too much data…"

Learn from the master, grasshopper.

Social cooperation

by  Tyler Cowen in

People from northern New Jersey are brought up believing this sort of thing happens frequently:

LOGAN, W.Va., Sept. 11 – A 20-year-old woman was held captive for more
than a week in a mobile home, where she was raped, stabbed and tortured
by at least a half-dozen people, the police said…

[There are further truly gruesome details, which I will spare you, but see the link if you must]

Six people, including a mother and her son and a mother and her daughter, have been charged in the case.

The bottom line?

The Brewster family and their trailer has a history of violent crime, the police said.

Sentences to ponder

by  Tyler Cowen in

Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending.

Here is the paper.  I’m all for the view that the Bush Administration has been fiscally irresponsible, but I never thought the prescription drug bill was the ideal target.  If there is one category Medicare should be supporting, it is prescription drugs.

On a related note, Robin Hanson believes that half of all medical care spending is a waste (do read the whole thing).  I’m not sure what mechanism will get rid of the bad half, but Robin’s claim deserves to be taken very seriously.

The virtues of inegalitarian American philanthropy

by  Tyler Cowen in

This fascinating article raises the question of whether charity is worthwhile and how charity — "imposing" the desires of the rich on social priorities and wealth redistribution — fits a theory of social justice.  In particular, why should the charity of the wealthy receive such significant tax breaks or even be seen as morally legitimate?  Henry Farrell adds much more.

I am a fan of the tax break for American philanthropy for several reasons:

1. Organized religion is the biggest beneficiary.  Religious organizations help poor people, help shape a unique and vital American ethos, and encourage people to have more children.  The demographic effects alone probably makes this self-financing. ($40 billion in foregone revenue is one estimate.)

2. The arts receive about five percent of U.S. charitable donations.  I am more than willing to stomach this degree of anti-egalitarianism in the non-profit subsidy, and yes we do get more beauty for it.  Furthermore the alternative of more direct government arts funding would not work out well in the relatively Puritan United States, even if you think it has worked well in Europe.

3. Philanthropy for higher education is a major reason for American strength.  Note that American higher education a) benefits the entire world, and b) is a major reason why we are richer than Western Europe (wasn’t there a recent NBER paper on measuring this effect?)  The tax break is a politically acceptable way to subsidize elite intellectual activities — which benefit virtually everyone — yet without having government control those activities.

4. Allowing and encouraging people to give away their money causes them to work harder.  Demonstration effects spread the power of this subsidy by creating social networks which favor philanthropy.

5. The general proliferation of non-profit institutions makes America a much more innovative and diverse place, intellectually and otherwise.

6. Relying so much on private philanthropy chips away at the dangerous attitude that there are clearly defined social priorities to which everyone must pay the same heed.

But do read the NYT article and Henry’s post for very different perspectives.

I thank a loyal MR reader for the NYT pointer.

The Fed’s Dirty Laundry and Yours

by  Alex Tabarrok in

Not content to kill people with CAFE standards the Federal government is now messing up our laundry.  So called "energy-efficiency" standards have severely reduced the cleaning ability of new laundry marchines.  Who says?  Here is Consumer Reports:

Not so long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes
very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance
differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly
as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to
spend $900 or more. (italics added)

What
happened? As of January, the U.S. Department of Energy has required
washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly
support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders, those
with the familiar center-post agitators, are having a tough time
wringing out those savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the
main reason you buy a washer. 

I too support the goal of having washers use 21 percent less energy.  Hell, I support the goal of having washers use no energy at all.  Let’s pass a law.

Energy efficiency sounds so nice.  Who could be against efficiency?  Tradeofs, however, cannot be avoided.  Thus, energy-efficiency really means that the government is going to choose how white your shirts are gonna be.

Ironically, the law could well reduce cleanliness and increase energy use.  If the new washers are as bad as Consumer Reports say they are people will just start to wash everything twice.

Addendum 1: Prominent members of a certain political party often promote the theory that "if we make them build it, the savings will come"
but, as we all know, ignoring tradeoffs is a sure sign of discredited crackpot economics.

Addendum 2: CEI suggests you email some virtual underwear to the Secretary of Energy in protest.   

It is worse than you think

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is Marty Feldstein, through some vias:

[F]inancing additional government spending by an across the board rise
in all marginal tax rates would make the cost per dollar of government
spending equal to $1.76.

These two facts – that the actual revenue is only 57 percent of
the static gain and that the deadweight loss is 76 cents per dollar of
revenue – should be central to any consideration of tax policy.  And yet
they are not.

What is talked about even less is that most government programs are, for better or worse, irreversible investments.  They don’t fade away very easily, even if they have been proven ineffective or harmful.  Do you really think that the Departments of Energy and Education have to pass a market test every year?  In fact government programs, on average, grow almost automatically.

Do you know the literature on irreversible investment and option value?  Under plausible parameter specifications, you need a benefit-cost ratio of 3 to 1 or more before it makes sense to proceed with the irreversible investment.  Otherwise it is better simply to wait.  That’s not 1.3 to 1, that’s 3 to 1.

The main argument for not waiting is simply that the political process cannot do much useful with any new information that is generated by waiting.  But viewed more broadly, that is hardly an argument for proceeding in the first place.

The bottom line: Cram all those numbers together into your noggin’ and keep them there.

Dogs can, monkeys and wolves can’t

by  Tyler Cowen in

The researchers held two containers, one empty and the other
containing food, in front of chimpanzees and dogs. Then they pointed to
the correct container. The canines understood the gesture immediately,
while the apes, genetically much more closely related to humans, were
often perplexed by the pointing finger.

That’s not all. Many dogs were even capable of interpreting the
researcher’s gaze. When the scientists looked at a container, the dogs
would search inside for food, but when they looked in the direction of
the container but focused on a point above it on the wall, the dogs
were able to understand that this was not meant as a sign.

Puppies seem able to do this before they have been socialized with human beings.

Says one researcher: "The great advantage of dogs is that we can study them in their
natural habitat without any great effort," explains Adám Miklósi.

Here is the full story, hat tip to Mark Thoma.