Results for “age of em” 15642 found
Paul Krugman, pussycat
The Conscience of a Liberal is um…not that polemic. It’s not that shrill. There is an argument, to be sure, but the book has much more economic history than I had expected, and much more political history.
I’ve already blogged on The Great Compression; Krugman’s more detailed account in the book does emphasize the role of war, wage and price controls, and very high rates of taxation. Normative questions aside, Krugman’s positive analysis isn’t as far from mine as I had been expecting from his blog post.
Some claims in the book are simply wrong: "…if there’s a single reason blue-collar workers did so much better in the fifties than they had in the twenties, it was the rise of unions." (p.49) Of course it was instead greater capital investment per head and better technology; if Krugman means relative status he needs to say so. This conflation of relative and absolute magnitudes is a running problem throughout the first part of the book.
Most of all, today’s world — or even an extrapolated version thereof — isn’t nearly as like the Gilded Age as Krugman suggests. Absolute standards of living really do matter, and most Americans today live very fine lives, or if they don’t the economy is not at fault.
Krugman writes of "the vast right-wing conspiracy" repeatedly, and in these moments he verges on the shrill. But Bush receives virtually no attention; perhaps Krugman is simply sick of writing about the guy.
Conservatism rose in the 1980s in large part because the mid to late 1970s were such an economic mess and because American had lost so much relative status internationally. Krugman won’t face up to that; instead he blames the Republican manipulation of "the race card," even though at the time racial tensions arguably were lower than ever before. Of course in a relatively close election any single factor can be called decisive but I found this discussion well below the standards of the political science literature, even the popular political science literature.
Krugman calls for single-payer health insurance, tax hikes, and raising the minimum wage. He doesn’t come off as all that radical.
His theory of government failure is that wealthy right-wingers hijack the state to redistribute wealth to themselves, and that’s all we hear on what’s wrong with government. That’s the part of the book I find hardest to swallow, but if you’re asking "should I read this?" the answer is yes.
My prediction: For lack of red meat, this book won’t sell nearly as well as Naomi Klein’s latest. At my Borders, circa 4 p.m., they hadn’t even unpacked it. "Yeah, we have that in the back somewhere, I haven’t seen it yet." was what the guy said.
My question: Is Paul Krugman willing to come out and simply pronounce: "Margaret Thatcher turned the UK around and for the better"? If so, how does this square with his broader narrative? And if not, why not?
Addendum: Here is Ed Glaeser’s review.
The economics of malaria net distribution
In 2000, a world health conference in Abuja, Nigeria, set a goal: by
2005, 60 percent of African children would be sleeping under nets. By
2005, only 3 percent were.
It turns out that handing nets out for free works much better than branding them, marketing them, and selling them, albeit at subsidized prices. And when there are enough insecticide-laden nets in a village, mosquitoes avoid the place altogether (after the very first net, however, the mosquitoes simply move on to another nearby hut).
The sad fact is that the best insecticide-filled nets last no more than three to five years. And is this good or bad news?
…sales of malaria pills were way down.
Here is the full and fascinating story. Eternal vigilance is the price of foreign aid, or something like that…
More on health insurance mandates
Megan McArdle writes:
Tyler wonders what will be done
with people who are required to by health insurance, but don’t. The
answer, I think, is "they’ll get treated". The object is not to play
chicken with people; we can’t make a credible committment not to treat
people without insurance (and thank god for that.) The object, as I see
it, is to force the people who care about things like legality to get
insurance rather than rolling the dice. The people who don’t care about
such things will continue costing us some fraction of the small amount
that caring for the uninsured currently costs us now. It may only be a
slight improvement, but it’s still an improvement.
"Improvement over what?" is my query. I prefer taking the needy (some would say more than the needy, not I) and having the government directly provide health insurance for them. I imagine a better and no-real-role-for-the-states version of Medicaid, at the expense of Medicare (lots of old people are wealthy) if it fiscally must be. If it’s worth forcing X to buy health insurance and then subsidizing X, it is worth giving X health insurance directly.
Avoiding the mandate keeps the private insurance market relatively "clean," as it were. Mandating private insurance means that the government has to regulate the content of that coverage and that private insurance will likely become more cumbersome and more contested and more expensive for everyone. It means we will never have true insurance deregulation; private plans should be free to compete, innovate, offer catastrophic-only plans, sniffles-only plans, and so on.
The benefits of the health insurance mandate are otherwise small. Many people care about "being legal" (the parents of uninsured 20 somethings?) but those people are probably the least likely to need the insurance. And I am leery of having a law that we know in advance we are not going to enforce. (It’s not as if you post a 25 mph speed limit knowing you will only pull over the young people who look like criminals; in this case we’re simply deciding on no enforcement or using some dubious bureaucratic tactic of differentiation across citizens.)
And aren’t mandates more generally a dangerous and over-used practice?
So I say no, let’s not do it. It might be better than doing nothing, but doing nothing is not the only alternative before us. Doing nothing is not even the likely alternative at this point. The mandates limit chances for better long-run reforms, though Matt and Brad will tell you this is single-payer, I will look toward insurance market deregulation. Only one of us has to be right.
Addendum: Here is Ezra Klein on same.
Why is American food getting spicier?
Here is one hypothesis:
…some food scientists and market researchers think there is a more surprising reason for the broad nationwide shift toward bolder flavors: The baby boomers, that huge, youth-chasing, all-important demographic, are getting old. As they age, they are losing their ability to taste – and turning to spicier, higher-flavor foods to overcome their dulled senses. Chiefly because of degenerating olfactory nerves, most aging people experience a diminished sense of taste, whether they realize it or not. But unlike previous generations, the nation’s 80 million boomers have broad appetites, a full set of teeth, and the spending power to shape the entire food market.
I’d be surprised if that explained more than five percent of what is going on. Younger people are also preferring spicier food. Western Europe has an older population, but I don’t see them (UK aside) falling for spicy food at a comparable rate as are Americans. Nor does Naples, Florida have much spicy food outside of its Haitian community. Instead America has more immigrants, and more restaurants run by immigrants. Spicy foods are addictive. Most importantly, spicy ethnic food is often better than what we had before, which indeed was usually horrible. Sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one.
I might add that what is eaten is hardly very spicy at all, at least not to my palate.
Thanks to Michael Makowsky, a loyal MR reader, for the pointer.
Resume normal programming
I’m now done with my week guest blogging. The week has flown by.
My final observations are about econo-blogging:
- It has been fun. Thanks for listening.
- The intertubes can be an interesting and challenging place for discussing ideas and economics. This might be obvious to you, but for many of us in the ivory tower, the seminar room and the printed page remain our primary fora. Not coincidentally, they are also where the strongest career incentives lie.
- I’ve loved being welcomed and challenged by the Pareto Optimists here at MR.
- I’ve been amazed by how much work blogging can be. More than anything else, this past week has simply increased my admiration for the work that Alex and Tyler put into this site and our community.
I’m still thinking about how my experiences this week will shape my own future views about the who/what/when/where/why of both doing economics and communicating findings. I’ll be sure to report back if I figure out how one should deal with the (many) alternatives.
So, let me end on a personal note, albeit quoting:
I’m walkin’ down that long, lonesome road, babe
Where I’m bound, I can’t tell
But goodbye’s too good a word, gal
So I’ll just say fare thee well
Dylan movie. Sort of.
The new Dylan biopic, starring Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Marcus Carl Franklin, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger and Ben Whishaw – all as Bob Dylan – is starting to get some coverage. As a lifelong Dylan fan, I’m excited to see the movie. The film is currently doing the rounds of the film festivals, and is going into wider release slowly from September through March (depending on your country).
Early reports only whet my appetite:
- A slew of trailers (both official and unofficial) on YouTube [HT: Cass Sunstein]
- This is Not a Bob Dylan Movie: a beautifully-written essay in today’s NY Times magazine
- A wrap-up of other reviews, from filmmaker Todd Haynes
- Some extremely high variance early reviews.
An aside: From many hallway conversations, I can report that Dylan is a surprisingly popular artist among the econ gliterati.
The end of angst?
|
% “Extremely important”
|
1970-76
|
2000-05
|
|
Being successful in my line of work
|
55%
|
62%
|
|
Having a good marriage and family life
|
72%
|
76%
|
|
Having lots of money
|
17%
|
26%
|
|
Having plenty of time for recreation and hobbies
|
24%
|
33%
|
|
Having strong friendships
|
61%
|
65%
|
|
Being able to find steady work
|
64%
|
66%
|
|
Making a contribution to society
|
18%
|
22%
|
|
Being a leader in my community
|
7%
|
15%
|
|
Being able to give my children better opportunities than I’ve had
|
51%
|
66%
|
|
Living close to parents and relatives
|
9%
|
17%
|
|
Getting away from this area of the country
|
11%
|
14%
|
|
Working to correct social and economic inequalities
|
10%
|
11%
|
|
Discovering new ways to experience things
|
20%
|
23%
|
|
Finding purpose and meaning in my life
|
64%
|
58%
|
Mandatory health insurance
Glen Whitman reports:
1. According to an Urban Institute study, uncompensated care for the uninsured accounts for only three percent of U.S. health care costs.
2. 47 states require drivers to buy automobile insurance, yet the median percentage of uninsured drivers in these states is 12%.
3. States should eliminate required benefits from insurance policies and allow the poor to buy policies for (relatively) cheap catastrophic care.
Here is the full piece, from Business Week; this is a topic deserving of more attention. I’m still wondering what — de facto — will be done against those poor people who are required to buy health insurance but don’t do so.
Here is Glen’s post on Joel Waldfogel, and here is Glen attacking restroom hand dryers.
Can computer failure cause a bank run?
Over the past few days, something strange happened to me: My debit card simply stopped working. This caused a sticky situation when I was traveling, and I was lucky that my cabbie took $27 plus a 20 euro note for a $37 cab fare.
My problem turned out to be a widespread problem with my bank’s computer system. This is a bank with a large internet presence and no physical branches in my state, so many customers really were stuck with a cash-free few days (which is less fun than being cash-flush, I assure you.)
So what will I do when the computer problems are solved? I plan on withdrawing $500 so that I’m not caught short if these problems recur next week. More generally, if account-holders fear that computer glitches tend to repeat themselves (computer failure is autocorrelated), then we will all be lining up (electronically) to make withdrawals. Some may even be so dismayed by recent events as to close their accounts.
Why haven’t I named the Bank? Because if enough people are aware of this situation, then these correlated withdrawals become a Bank Run. The possibility of online withdrawals certainly sped up the the recent run on the UK-based Northern Rock bank, and website problems raised anxiety. But my (new) fear is entirely a computer-glitch precipitated bank run.
I must admit, I’m not aware of any bank runs – to date – caused by computer problems. But here’s a forecast: IT problems will cause a bank run within a decade. Fortunately these sorts of runs are unlikely to cause widespread financial instability. My advice? If you work in IT at a bank: Demand a raise – your bank’s future depends on you.
Visiting Dartmouth
I’m spending a couple of days at Dartmouth right now, visiting friends and colleagues at the economics department. I’ll be trying to sneak in posts between meetings. But one thing I can’t help but notice: this department is a persistent overperformer. Click on just about anyone’s homepage, and you’ll find creative folks doing first-rate (usually empirical) research on important questions. And worse: They are all so damn friendly.
Dartmouth have also just hired one of my favorite economists and coauthors, Eric Zitzewitz. Look for creativity and colleagiality to continue.
How right-wing are journalists on economic issues?
Henry Farrell writes:
…there’s plenty of survey evidence (Jonathan Chait discusses this in his recent book) that journalists tend to have somewhat right-of-center views on economic issues.
From my experience:
1. Journalists are likely to be far more cosmopolitan (pro-free trade, pro-immigration) than is the general public.
2. Journalists are more likely to be suspicious of corporations and indeed more likely to be suspicious in general. People lie to them every day, repeatedly and often without shame.
3. Journalists are more likely to think that "good government" is in fact possible, if perhaps difficult to achieve. If they were complete cynics, they would not become underpaid journalists.
4. If anything, it is the odd mix between cynicism and idealism that defines the journalistic political point of view.
5. Most journalists work in a declining sector — newspapers or TV — and this does not augur well for their belief in progress and the virtues of economic growth. They are not well-positioned to enjoy "creative destruction."
6. Not many top journalists are "far left Democrats." But most are Democrats. I also do not think many journalists would endorse the economic proposals of the rational wing of the Republican Party, say Greg Mankiw or Martin Feldstein. Journalists are likely to think those proposals do not show enough concern for the poor.
7. Journalists tend to favor visible stories and neglect invisible opportunity costs and invisible hand mechanisms, which often but not always puts them against the side of the market.
8. Chait cites evidence that journalists are more likely to support cuts in Medicare and Social Security. This comes on p.142 though it does not seem to be matched to a particular footnote. I am willing to hear more but I am not convinced. I wouldn’t be shocked if a Pew survey showed such responses, but when push comes to shove the self-image of "defender of the downtrodden" is more important to many journalists than "advocate of fiscal responsibility."
In sum, the left-right spectrum is not the best way to understand the economic views of journalists. But, when it comes to economic issues, it is hard for me to put journalists on the right side of that line.
Addendum: I am indebted to Russ Roberts for a useful conversation on this topic, though of course he is not responsible for these views.
Assorted links
1. What is up with SCHIP?, and a response by Jason Furman.
2. The economics of dating and gift-giving: "If I bought my wife the complete DVD set of Battlestar Galactica, she would suspect me of selfish behavior rather than dedication to her, even if she grew to love the show." Which she hasn’t.
4. The marriage market, simply explained, via Megan McArdle.
Tyranny of the Majority, Tyler Cowen Edition
Two different Tylers talk about the Tyranny of the Majority.
Earlier today:
I like Joel’s book but I think he is far too pessimistic about the prospects for diversity in the modern world.
But when discussing the different flavors of economics:
The very existence of heterodox economics brings benefits. A
personal anecdote will suffice. My first two publications were both in
heterodox journals: the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and the (institutionalist) Review of Social Economy.
These articles lifted me into a top graduate school and financial aid
(can you imagine how confused the admissions committees were to see a
GMU undergrad with an apparently leftie publication record?). I would
not have had comparable success at Econometrica.This tale relates to the value of diversity more generally. We will
miss much of the value of diversity by simply listing a bunch of
diverse elements and evaluating them one-by-one. Diversity brings
broader benefits by allowing people to use niches as ladders to further
steps, frequently into the mainstream, or in my case into another
niche. Diversity is also a form of insurance, and of course it doesn’t
always pay off. Finally many excellent mainstream or sometimes even
right-wing economists started with an intense interest in social
justice, often gleaned from heterodox writings. Vernon Smith was once
a socialist, and George Stigler was early on a trust-basher.Yes the profession is getting better but we also are losing too much
diversity in terms of schools of thought. The diminution of the
Austrian School, as an organized and intellectually alive phenomenon
seems to me a shame, even though I don’t believe in a unique Austrian
method. Heterodoxies encourage the mainstream to be more philosophical
and more self-reflective.Sometimes intellectual inefficiency is efficient, and my remarks about heterodox economics should be taken in this light.
The emphasis is mine. As is the question: Isn’t the second Tyler describing the Tyranny of the Majority? If so, what are the Waldfogel-ian fixed costs that are preventing all the different flavors of economics from flourishing?
Optimal insults
A long story leading to an interesting question: I like to keep half an eye on heterodox economics. A lot of this work raises interesting questions about the methodology that is my bread-and-butter. I think of this as useful intellectual discipline: those who don’t school themselves in the limitations or ethical constraints of our frameworks, are likely to mis-use them. And that got me thinking about a particular sub-group: The Post-Autistic Economics Movement. Reading some (but not all) of the output of these heterodox economists can be quite illuminating.
But Post-Autistic? Really? What kind of insult is that?
Two answers:
- A pretty darn good insult. Some of the agents in our models would in fact rightly be called autistic. Those two words are pretty clever, and occasionally telling.
- A terrible insult. Post-Autistic" is designed to shock. It is a statement more about the insulter than the insultee. And as the subject of the insult changes, surely it loses its force. Based on titles alone, which critical journal would you rather read: Feminist Economics, or the Post-Autistic Economics Review? (Aside: Feminist Economics is, in my view, an excellent and underrated journal.)
But still, it got me thinking. What does an insult communicate? At what point does an insult switch from being an insult to a statement about the insulter? There must be a signaling story here, but I haven’t quite figured it out. And if signaling yields a theory of insults, what would the characteristics of the optimal insult be?
So with some trepidation, let me say, comments are open.
Thinking about Sports and Economics
I spent last Saturday at a very interesting conference on Sports Statistics, run by the Sports Stats section of the American Statistical Association. It was a fun day, involving academics, sports journalists, and those Moneyball-inspired quants working for various sports teams.
But at some point I asked myself: Why do economists work on sports?
- Sports provide unique opportunities to test economic theories. Cribbing from a New York Times article, this is the Thaler defense:
“‘My justification for doing this is that it’s the one really
high-stakes activity where you get to watch all of the decisions,”
Thaler said. ”If Bill Gates invited me to watch all of his decisions,
I’d talk more about that.” - Sports shapes broader national debates. Sports is a microcosm of our broader society and our national narrative on the important issues, from drugs, to race, to cheating, to sexual harrassment often play out on our sports pages. In honor of a particularly compelling example, let’s
call this the Jackie Robinson defense. - Professional sports are an important part of the economy. I call this the Dog defense, not as a dyslexo-religious statement, but simply because dogs raise an important question: aren’t pets a bigger part of the economy than professional athletics? If so, why are there so many papers on professional sports and so few on the economics of dogs?
- Sports participation is an important activity. It seems important to learn whether sports make us happier, healthier or more productive. For instance, it is important to learn, say, what the broader effects of Title IX were. Under this view, research on sports is part of the human capital agenda, leading me to call this the Gary Becker defense.
- Sports provides a useful teaching metaphor. Many of those teaching Sabermetrics-inspired courses argue that sports provides a useful vehicle for teaching something far more important – basic quantitative reasoning. When I teach my class on behavioral economics, I do so by analyzing anomalies in sports betting markets.
- Doing research on sports is fun. It was no mistake that the conference I attended was on a Saturday. Many of the academics in attendance were giving up leisure, not more important work. But for some, sports provides a chance to mix work with leisure; of course, if non of the above arguments holds, then it is just a chance to mix leisure with leisure.
Let me now translate this into advice, because I often hear from students wanting to write a thesis on sports. My first response is always: Don’t. Too often, we find our sporting heroes more interesting than other people do. (Yes, I have been guilty of breaking this rule.)
But if you must work on sports, make sure you have a defense to this charge. I find the Thaler and Becker defenses most compelling, because they speak to the broader economic issues or yield policy implications. The Jackie Robinson defense is also important, but not applicable often enough. The Dog defense is often raised, but rarely compelling; neither pets, nor professional sports, are really a big part of the economy (estimates to the contrary usually turn out to be more applicable to the Becker defense).