A lunch with Robin is better than an email from him, but at least I can offer you the latter:

Reasonable economic cases can be made for allowing people to sell their organs, and for allowing people to buy the ability to immigrate into our country.  Cautious people avoid such proposals, because they push too many emotional buttons.  Mischievous folks like myself, however, wonder what happens if we push all the buttons at once: what if people could enter the country if they give up a kidney, or similarly valuable organ?  Would those who worry about the loyalty of immigrants who just pay cash to come here be reassured by the symbolic loyalty of giving up an organ?  Would those who fear that organ sellers are exploited be reassured by the huge value immigrants gain from living here?  Impish minds want to know.

Here it is; excerpt:

But while I agree with much of Florida’s substantive claims about the real, I end up with doubts about his prescriptions for urban planning. Florida makes the reasonable argument that as cities hinge on creative people, they need to attract creative people. So far, so good. Then he argues that this means attracting bohemian types who like funky, socially free areas with cool downtowns and lots of density. Wait a minute. Where does that come from? I know a lot of creative people. I’ve studied a lot of creative people. Most of them like what most well-off people like–big suburban lots with easy commutes by automobile and safe streets and good schools and low taxes. After all, there is plenty of evidence linking low taxes, sprawl and safety with growth. Plano, Texas was the most successful skilled city in the country in the 1990s (measured by population growth)–it’s not exactly a Bohemian paradise.

Do look out for my first New York Times column tomorrow, Business Section, "Economic Scene."  I will alert you to future columns as they appear.

This is me, from Slate.com:

Many economists have suggested it is not worth rebuilding New Orleans
at all. But they belie their own discipline by not asking, "At what
price?" Hurricanes or no hurricanes, the devastated areas in New
Orleans remain more valuable than most parts of the world, if only
because they lie in a famous U.S. city. At some price, people will want
to work and live there. City planners simply need to acknowledge that
this price is lower than it used to be…

What is the advantage of turning wrecked wards into shantytowns? The
choice is between cheap real estate or abandonment. The land will not
sustain high-rent, high-quality real estate. Given the level of risk,
much of it will not even support bland middle-income housing. Imagine
that the government took a spot suitable for a McDonald’s but mandated
that subsequent restaurants should have fancy décor and $30 steaks. The
result would not be a superb or even middling bistro but rather an
empty spot. No one would set up shop because the market could not be
made profitable at that quality and price. A similar principle applies
to New Orleans real estate. If various levels of government try to
mandate higher values than the land will support, the private sector
will simply withdraw its participation, leaving nothing behind.

Read the whole thing, as they say, and look out for further Slate.com installments on Louisiana each day this week.

After 18 months and repeated promises from the journal editors, I had no referee reports and reluctantly withdrew my article.  I had never withdrawn an article before but this was the second time I had been ill-treated at this journal.  I thought about venting my anger here but remembering Ayn Rand’s dictum that justice is about rewarding virtue more than punishing vice I decided to take the high road and reflect on some truly great editors.

Top of my list is Sam Peltzman at the Journal of Law and Economics.  In my experience, JLE referees are very good but none better than Peltzman himself.  Peltzman reads submissions and usually returns his own comments.  Every paper I have ever submitted to the JLE has been improved because of Peltzman’s comments.

Aaron Edlin at the Berkeley Press Journals.  I’m a big fan of the BePress journals; referee reports in 60 days, submit once and be evaluated for four journals simultaneously, electronic submission and referee reports and an opportunity to ask the referees questions anonymously.  The technology wouldn’t work without a great editor, however, and Edlin writes very thoughtful, intelligent comments, he also has a good sense for quality and what is important.

Robert Higgs at the Independent Review.  No one helps an author improve not just the quality of argument but the quality of writing more than Bob Higgs.  Working with him is always a pleasure (note that I am assistant editor at the Review as well as a contributing author).  The Independent Review is not a top academic journal but it’s an intelligent blend of philosophy, politics and economics that is accessible to laypeople as well as to academics. 

Ed Glaeser, Robert Barro, and Lawrence Katz at the Quarterly Journal of Economics.  I’ve published several papers at the JLE, the BePress journals and the Independent Review but I have only rejections to show for my submissions to the QJE.  Nevertheless, I hold the editors in high esteem because they read submissions before they go to referees and they send back quick responses.  It’s one thing to be rejected with a stupid report after 12 months it’s quite another to be told, interesting paper but not for us, try at journal X after just 3 days (I have heard that Barro used to reject papers in hours but this made people mad so now he holds them for at least a few days).  The QJE is the most interesting journal in economics today.   

The great editors are productive and generate quick turnarounds and they share some other virtues.  The great editors have personality and verve and it shows in their journals – the journals I have mentioned are not just collections of articles they are a reflection of the editor’s vision about what economics is and where it should be going.  Finally, unlike many others, the great editors in my view don’t model themselves as bouncers whose job is to prevent the riff-raff from penetrating the sanctum sanctorum.  Instead, the great editors encourage bold ideas and work to raise the marginal product of their authors and of the profession. 

Comments are open if you want to nominate some of the other great editors.

Virtual reality games your pets can play with you, and also against you.