USNA "Spirit Spot" video

The Army-Navy football game is one of the biggest events of the year at those two service academies. During the game, several short videos (made by cadets or midshipmen) are played on the jumbotron. At Annapolis, if you are involved in making a video played during the game, you get a weekend free or someother privilege.

DRH and KLR have met my cousin, CRB, who is a sophomore at Annapolis. This is his second year having his "spirit spot" video played. Here it is-- he's the fella dressed up in the Army uniform (the main character).

Why the internet was created

Ever wonder what name they would give you if you played soccer for Brazil? Now you can know

Yours truly,

Doao

Breaking News from the Shaking Isles

Just in case you missed it, New Zealand made the NY Times today.

Sound Off Like You Got a Pair

If you haven’t seen this movie, then this will only be moderately funny. If you have seen FMJ, then expect stomach wrenching laughter. PARENTAL ADVISORY: explicit language! Really, this is not appropriate for work viewing, sensitive ears or expecting mothers (or any mothers for that matter).



If you haven’t seen FMJ and you want in on the joke, go here.

Christmas is Coming

Because Christmas is just around the corner, I thought I’d add my contribution to the Christmas cheer by listing my favorite and least favorite Christmas gifts received prior to age 12. It should be noted that this list is written in hindsight. This means that some of the gifts that may have elicited the strongest reactions at the time, but that then failed to live up to expectations (I’m looking at you Masters of the Universe Mutant Slime Pit), will not be included.

Let’s start with the worst of the bunch:

• Sweaters (various years) – Always (ALWAYS) my least favorite gift. Now, clothes in general were rarely a DRH-favorite come the holidays, but it always seemed that sweaters represented the greatest disconnect between what I thought was cool and what my parents thought I needed.
• Gifts From Certain Branch of the DRH Family That Will Go Unnamed (Annual) – every year I was presented with a gift from a certain distant branch of the family that was sure to cause me confusion followed by anger. The confusion began because it always took a really long time to figure out just what, in fact, they had given me. It was always clear that in a futile effort to interest me in science (or crap, not sure which) they limited their Christmas shopping for me to the remainder bin at the local science museum gift shop. Rightly or wrongly, once I discovered that the contraption they gave me was designed to illustrate the conversion of heat or light into energy (which is what they always did), I did not even attempt to hide my scorn. Even at that young age I knew deep down that these gifts were an affront to everything Christmas was about.
• Electric Slide album (1989) – this tape makes the list not because I didn’t want to own the song by Marcia Griffiths that spawned a dance craze; I did. Unfortunately, my parents bought me the wrong tape. I remember clearly the slow, but horrifying realization, as I made it through side 1 that this was not the Electric Slide (boogy, woogy, oogy) song I knew, but some inferior rip off. I was not pleased.
• Leather Jacket (1992) – This is an interesting one because it was actually a gift for my sister (KSHM), not me. Nonetheless, the fallout from this gift was so traumatic that it qualifies for this list. I have no desire to go into all the sordid details of this sad affair, but briefly:

1. October 1, 1992: Beloved sister sets heart on a her jacket for Christmas
2. November 5, 1992: Doting parents buy sister leather jacket for Christmas
3. November 12, 1992: Sister comes to conclusion that leather jackets are lame
4. November 12 – December 25, 1992: Sister fails to tell anyone of this change of heart
5. December 25, 1992: Sister is presented with leather jacket for Christmas
6. December 25, 1992 – March 1994: Crying, anger, and recriminations. Oh, the anger.

• Woman’s basketball (1993) – This one’s pretty straightforward. I wanted a new basketball for Christmas. Whilst shopping for this gift, it struck my father that regulation basketballs seemed a trifle large for a small boy of 12, while a women’s basketball seemed a little more manageable for my elf-like hands. Clearly, my father forgot one of the golden rules of Christmas gifts: no matter how well intentioned boys of 12 never (NEVER) want toys or other products specifically designed for girls.

Ok, that was a little longer than anticipated, so I’ll save the triumphant sequel (Favorite Christmas Gifts up to Age 12) for my next post.

It's been awhile

So I’m back. I know, it’s been a while, but let me tell you: studying 512 hours for a statistics exam that will be scaled so that no one gets lower than a B takes a lot of time out of your day.

First aside: I think a strong case should be made that my case shows Quant and Econ exams to be something of a false victory for testing understanding of topics at GPPI. My approach to studying allows me (usually) to do ok on exams, but that same approach indicates a remarkable lack of understanding of such concepts as opportunity costs, diminishing returns, increasing marginal costs, statistical outliers, the central limit theorem, and many more. So yes, I may get questions right on the exam, but the fact that I am totally incapable of applying any of those concepts to the real world makes you wonder…(about things other than my own mental health that is)

Anyways, there are many things I’d like to discuss, but the first thing I thought worthy of discussion is this post by the ridiculously prolific Joe Posnanski. Joe asks the question on many minds since the recent release of the Mitchell Report: What if Roger Clemens, and not Barry Bonds, had been the first big star strongly linked with steroids? Joe notes common arguments related to race and each player’s personality (rightly questioning the second argument), but chooses to highlight the relative statistical dominance of each player to explain public reaction. I thought this was a very interesting argument, and one that resonated with me.

Certainly I would argue that the backlash against Barry Bonds is motivated by race and media vendettas, but maybe more than anything else it was a backlash against numbers were simply impossible. People hated the fact that Bonds hit 76 home runs. They hated the fact that he walked more than 200 times in a season. Sure, Clemens had ridiculously good years in a great offensive error, but it’s not like no one’s ever had a sub 2.00 ERA before. It’s not like he won 35 games. I honestly believe that if anyone other than Barry Bonds had been heavily linked with steroids, this would be 1/20 the issue it currently is. Because he is so hated and the records he obliterated so hallowed, people reacted with an anger and sense of self-righteous indignation that has taken on a life of its own.

For Taste AND Effect

Or is it affect? Oh, hell, who knows?

Newsweek has an interesting article on drinking and hangovers. The bottomline is science can't fully explain the hangover. Is that true? Man can go to the moon and harness nuclear energy, but we can't quite figure why we aren't in tip-top shape the morning after poisoning our bodies?!? I've cut out the most interesting bits from the article.

While hangovers have plagued revelers since early hominids kicked back with some date-palm wine, science still doesn't have a good understanding of how your I-love-everybody yuletide cheer turns into such a biological bah-humbug.

The misery begins when blood alcohol levels start to fall. Some experts to believe the hangover is a "kind of mini withdrawal," says Robert Swift, professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University. Because alcohol is a sedative, your body reacts by releasing various neurochemicals to stimulate the brain. These chemicals cause a rapid pulse, nausea, tremors and light and sound sensitivity.

...Which leads to another theory that puts the blame for the hangover on pure physiology. Alcohol is first broken down in the liver into a toxic substance called acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is then further broken down into a harmless substance called acetate. At high doses, acetaldehyde causes nausea, vomiting, sweating and other symptoms akin to the hangover.

Congeners, by-products of the distillation and fermentation process, may also play a role in making holiday partiers miserable. Darker-colored liquors such as brandies, bourbon and red wine contain more congeners than lighter colored alcoholic beverages like gin or vodka.

Since alcohol is a diuretic, you'll wake up dehydrated. That dehydration explains some of the symptoms such as headaches and a dry mouth. Alcohol also plays havoc with the body's biorhythms, disturbing sleep patterns, despite it being a sedative.

Oddly, "some people can get a hangover from one or two drinks," Swift says. "And it's usually the moderate or light social drinker who suffers the most." At particular risk, though, are women. Researchers at the University of Missouri, Columbia, found that women experience worse hangovers than men, despite the amount of alcohol consumed.

There are also potential health issues that can be precipitated by a binge--acute pancreatitis, a painful and potentially life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas, or even "holiday heart syndrome," an irregular heart rhythm found in heart-healthy folks who have overindulged. "There's nothing funny, nothing good, about binging," Brewer says.

A couple thoughts:

1. I feel like I could have told you most of this by spring of my freshman year.
2. The article suggests anything over five drinks is a binge. A five-pack?!?! That's ridiculous...they only come in six. Which, of course, is because dolphins swim in pods of six.
3. And a hangover is a "kind of mini withdrawl"...remind me not to try meth.

Selective Freedom

Don Boudreaux has some excellent things to say about the ugliness of paternalism. Telling people how to live their lives is GREAT when you're in the majority (and it's easy to create a false justification), but its hard to stay in the majority for ever. Check out the full article for complete context.

In this sweet land of liberty it is surprising how readily we modern Americans let others rule us. I'm not talking about Americans letting some foreign government rule us. That won't happen anytime soon…I'm talking about being ruled by homegrown politicians who butt their noses into the sizes of our toilets, the amount of salt we consume and countless other provinces of our daily lives.

...

If I assert that I have a right to order my neighbor about for his own good, I thereby also assert that I am better than he is -- that I have more knowledge than he does about his life, or that I occupy a higher social rank that affords me the privilege of dictating his choices. Any such assertion is ethically anathema to a society of free and equal individuals.

NZ's most famous economist

Given that the other contributors to this blog either have an exam today or are in Hawaii, the responsiblity for today's post rests on my shoulders.

Since I have been in the US, more than one person (i.e. two people) have taken the time to discuss with me the contribution of NZ's most notable economist, Bill Phillips. The Phillips curve holds that there is an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment, which has admittedly been found not to be the case for significant periods of time in many countries. Allegedly, the relationship between inflation and unemployment in Canada more closely resembles a map of Canada than the Phillips Curve.

Nevertheless, Bin Bernanke and others still consider that the Phillips curve is still useful for policymakers.

I think the debate on the merits of the Phillips curve says something about the relationship between economic theory and empirics. Some empirical studies claim to disprove economic theories, but unlike the natural sciences, economic theory cannot be disproved by the observance of results that are inconsistent with theory. Particualrly in the field of macroeconomics, other factors may be driving particular results and the thoery may be generally valid but not in the presence of the other factors.

I have also found that many web sites refer to NZ's most famous economist as either British or Australian. Britain is in the northern hemisphere, and Australia is a continent that was originally settled by convicts (that is not a slur, but rather a fact). In contrast, New Zealand is a small nation to the east of Australia, and is also referred to as "the shaky isles" (a reference to the geographical outline of the country) or the land of the long whte cloud.

Christmas Present Ideas for KLR

Quant III exam

I expect to see this on the Quant III final:

A survey of 120 students at St. Lawrence University, a small liberal arts college in northern New York, found that students who have never pulled an all-nighter have average GPAs of 3.1, compared to 2.9 for those who have. The study, by assistant professor of psychology Pamela Thacher, is to be included in the January issue of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

"It's not a big difference, but it's pretty striking," Thacher said. "I am primarily a sleep researcher and I know nobody thinks clearly at 4 in the morning. You think you do, but you can't."

(1)That is a HUGE difference.
(2)This tells us absolutely NOTHING about the effect of all-nighters.
(3)This sleep research might consider pursuing other interests.

The Virtues of the Welfare State

Europe's unemployment rate, at 8.5 percent, is almost twice that of the United States. The European gross domestic product per capita at $29,400, versus $43,500 in the United States. In fact, the chief economist at one of Europe's leading governmental institutions has said, "At current trends, with demographics the way they are, the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as a Frenchman or a German in 20 years."

One reason Europeans have fewer jobs and are less wealthy than U.S. citizens is the burden of all the social welfare programs. A recent Wall Street Journal article on the Swedish disability program noted that Swedes are the healthiest people in the world – and yet the country has the world's highest rate of disability.

The problem is so widespread that the same article reported: "In Europe, roughly 20 percent of the working-age population – or 60 million people -- depend on various government benefits... compared to 13 percent in the United States."

The experience of Europe tells us mandated programs result in fewer jobs, declining families and eroding work ethics. The free market approach may not satisfy politicians' need to say they solved a problem. Rather, it works quietly, over time, creating multiple solutions, with some working better than others. Over time, the bad ones are rejected and the good ones are free to further evolve.

I think this article reaches the right conclusions, but the evidence is not as solid as the author might think. For starters, the U.S. and all of Europe is a little bit apples and a bushel of oranges. She also leads us to believe a paid family leave program in New Jersey will be the straw the breaks the camel. I agree the proposed program would lead NJ down the wrong path, but it is just one step—not the giant leap presented here.

I also reject her definition of work ethic. Work ethic stems from an inherent desire and satisfaction gained from working. What social programs erode is incentive based on the return to work. I would distinguish between the two. But relative to Europe, the U.S. has an abundance of both.

(HT: Cafe Hayek)

Marginal Tax Rates

CBO via Greg Mankiw provides some informative numbers. My question is: Do people not understand this or is "tax breaks for the wealthy" intentional demogoguery? Surely not all liberals are that bush league. And probably some Republicans are just dumb enough to really think "larger" cuts are going to the rich.

Piracy = good for sales?

Radiohead has tried out a novel approach to producing and distributing music in the Internet age. As I understand it, the jury is still out on whether or not their payday will ultimately be as impressive as if they had published their new album through a standard label. At least the way they have done it saves them from losing out huge portions of revenues to publicity and distribution costs (and the music industry is none too pleased about losing a cut). These they have gotten for free. And I understand that on average they are getting about five pounds per download.

Radiohead's unconventional approach fits the stereotype of their slightly hipster-tending fan base. It seems to me, though, that this model might work for them strictly because it's a novelty. I doubt that the next band to try this out will receive the same positive publicity, or the same largesse from loyal fans. My skepticism stems from the failure of the model for Stephen King, who abandoned his online distribution scheme when it failed to bring in sufficient donations.

Now there is an independent film that appears to have found success via publicity on sites linking to illegal downloads of the film ("The Man From Earth"). Again, I feel like this is working because it's the first of a phenomenon. I don't think it'll catch on, but I could be wrong.

I know DRH has looked into this a lot more than I have. What do you think the actual potential is for this to be a successful method of distributing arts media?

Read more >> Options >>

Ethics or Convenience

On the topic of farm subsidies in this and this post, my roommate asks the question:

So do you think it is wrong for Jimmy Carter to accept farm subsidies?

My answer is no. But I think it brings up an interesting ethical discussion.

I don’t see a problem with opposing a policy but not rejecting its benefits. So, by my ethics, its okay to want to do away with agriculture price supports, but still accept subsidies while that remains the current policy.

To provide another example, I think the home mortgage interest deduction is a bad policy, but I sure as hell am going to deduct the interest on my home loan as long as its in the tax code. And a different example, on occasion progressive democrates are berated for wanting higher marginal tax rates when they are not voluntarily writing a larger check to the IRS. It seems to me that this attack is the equivalent of monkeys throwing feces.

Though perhaps this could also be an ethics of convenience. Is there a stong argument for why it is never justified to oppose a policy while simultaneously accepting in benefits?

Hate it when that happens...

This would make a good scene in the next series of Flight of the Conchords

Exhibit A

Another example of why enthusiastic environmental policy and entrenched politics make poor bedfellows:

It's the extra demand for grains to make biofuels, spurred heavily in the United States by government tax subsidies and fuel mandates, that has pushed prices dramatically higher. The Economist rightly calls these U.S. government subsidies "reckless." Since 2000, the share of the U.S. corn crop devoted to ethanol production has increased from about 6 percent to about 25 percent -- and is still headed up.

Biofuels became politically fashionable because they combined benefits for farmers with popular causes: increasing energy "security"; curbing global warming. Unfortunately, the marriage is contrived. Not only are fuel savings meager, so are the environmental benefits. Substituting corn-based ethanol for gasoline results in little reduction in greenhouse gases. Indeed, the demand for biofuels encourages deforestation in developing countries; the New York Times recently reported the clearing of Indonesian forests to increase palm oil production for biofuel. Forests absorb carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

Changing Gears

Now healthcare. The CBO is testifying before Congress tomorrow on long-term budget predictions. Here is an article in WSJ where Peter Orszag says:

The fiscal gap does not arise, as many believe, primarily from the coming retirement of the baby boomers. Rather, the rate at which health-care costs grow will be the primary determinant of the nation's long-term budget picture.

And then:

Moving the nation toward a more efficient health system inevitably will be a process in which policy steps are tried, evaluated and maybe reconsidered. Beginning that arduous process now is essential to securing the nation's long-term economic future.

Arnold Kling at EconLog comments:

I agree. However, I think this makes government a poor candidate for leading health care reform. The government is not very good at trial-and-error learning. Politically, the survival of a system is likely to be related inversely to its effectiveness. If a system does not cost much and yet it pressures doctors to change their behavior, they will lobby to kill it. On the other hand, in the UK, a new incentive system generates large pay increases for doctors with little change in behavior. In that case, doctors will lobby to keep it.

With markets, "trial and error" works, because error gets killed off. With politics, error often survives.

I love the last line.

My fellow bloggers need to increase their productivity. Even I’m getting tired of the libertarian rants.

Confessions of a Skeptic

I double-dog-dare you to read this without any of the usual preconceived notions or prior conclusions. For a shorter synopsis go to EconLog.

My guess is that most people will dismiss this as bad science—as they do with most evidence that challenges their beliefs. I’m agnostic on the whole matter. I don’t know what to believe, so you don’t see me worshipping at the Holy Church of Saint Al every Sunday (twice on holidays). My opinions on the topic of global warming, and the environment generally, are defined based on the following assumptions and observations:

1. Human action has an impact on the environment.
   
2. Efforts to reduce human environmental impact are virtuous.
   
3. Reducing environmental impact is costly.
   
4. Human progress in the past several centuries has significantly reduced human suffering and improved the welfare and wellbeing of humans everywhere.
   
5. Efforts to continue improving the human condition are virtuous.
   
6. Science and society does not have a great track record for predicting catastrophe.
   

I think the average person expresses an unconcious partial understanding of (1) through (5) everyday by implicitly signalling through the decisions they make that reducing their own environmental footprint is too costly. Many actions are plain irresponsible, but many others are just a simple weighing of costs and benefits. Should we blame people? Efforts directed at changing people’s behavior will be most effective if they can get the incentives right. This involves appropriately pricing behavior and redesigning certain institutions. For starters, I think gas taxes are too low and garbage collection in D.C. is ass-backwards.

Popular media and the propensity of our culture toward self-despondency and consumer guilt perpetuates (6). Sometimes the results are innocent enough. Sometimes they are just embarrassing. And sometimes they are costly. An obvious response would be to say that not taking any action is just way too risky. I agree that some cautious measures are a safe bet. But, on the whole, I don’t buy the argument because I can’t think of a single case where society has acted collectively, effectively, or intelligently to rein in either human progress or mother nature. If you can think of one, let me know.

What is most surprising is that these views are considered extreme. Voicing them usually leads people to label you as either ignorant or an asshole*. To me, these views just seem level-headed and honest. Some others would rather hide behind rhetoric and then do nothing (or nothing productive, anyway). In practice, the policy that I would prescribe is only slightly different than that of [mainstream] global warming drumbeaters. It’s motivation, however, is less reactionary. I guess I prefer being peripheral over being careless.

Comments welcome.

*By “asshole”, I mean uncaring about the environment and overly sympathetic to business interests. In reality, business is the main beneficiary of overly enthusiastic environmental policy.

Update: My roommate offers up elimination of CFCs as an example of effective public action on the environment.

Wikipedia Protester

DRH at a rally.

More on Flying Squirrels

This guy is insane. Watch the video. The owners of the Empire State Building have filed a civil suit against him for trying to BASE jump the building. I got a parking ticket the other day!

Carter on Trade II

Carter’s op-ed that Mark points to is fantastically illogical. But the two amendments he boosters in the Senate will provide some improvement. Don Boudreaux recently wrote my favorite line regarding the farm bill in a letter to the editor at the Washington Times. Keep in mind that I come from a farm family.

“We should instead tell our "leaders" that the best farm bill is no farm bill. There is no sound reason for government to subsidize farmers or to protect them from foreign competitors. Any farmer or rancher too incompetent to produce food that consumers pay for voluntarily should find other employment.”

Demonstrating his ignorance in an op-ed was strike one against the former President. Admitting he was still one of the farmers who receives cotton subsidies…strike two.

Bic Amazon Review

These Amazon reviews are hilarious.

(link from Andrew Sullivan)

"Take it easy, Farva!"

“No Schlitz? Hell, whatever’s free!”

The open bar on Friday at the GPPI Holiday Party provides a fantastic experiment in human behavior and an interesting example of what happens when a good is made universally available at zero marginal cost. Here are a couple of the most obvious observations.

Costs always have a sneaky way of escaping people when they hear “open bar”. You can be sure the holiday party and the food and beverages provided were not free. The cost is distributed among all students and hidden nicely in your tuition. If anything, we students are paying for a nice evening out for the faculty and their families…the only cost to them is putting up with us. No free lunch here.

There is no way to opt out of the Holiday Party. Even those who don’t want to attend end up paying. So, if you have a test the next day or have other plans or if you are just antisocial…tough luck and thanks for the drink.

The average student is paying a price greater than the benefit they receive from attending the Holiday Party. The D.C. Arts Club is a very nice venue, but definitely not cheap. Because the planning is done centrally and students don’t see the costs directly, the choice is made more liberally. That is, if students saw the cost or participated in the decision they would likely pressure the school to be considerably more frugal. To estimate this inefficiency consider the difference in the amount of fun you would have if the party were held at the Carbarn (or any other less extravagant venue) with less professional catering and consider the potential difference in cost. My best guess of the excess spending is something on the order $15 to $20 per student.

The event is over attended. (“Is” as in “it is a fact”; this is not a subjective conclusion.) The cost is sunk, so students will show up even if they get the equivalent of $1 net enjoyment from attending. This disassociation of cost creates the inefficiency described above, but it also exacerbates it by making the event more crowded and further reducing the benefit for those who otherwise would be willing to pay to attend. Just ask yourself how much you would pay for the evening to be less crowded, loud, hot, and sweaty and for there to be shorter lines at the bar, etc. I doubt the amount is zero for anyone. For me, it’s about $10.

Moral hazard* causes people to drink more beer than is optimal. This is not to be confused with too much beer…obviously there is no such thing as “too much beer”**. With an open bar, the marginal cost of one more beer is zero. This is part of the appeal of an open bar and I enjoy getting drunk with no financial regret as much as the next guy. But beer isn’t free. Knowing that the costs are spread among all students gives everyone an incentive to drink as much beer as they can and in the end everyone pays what the average person drinks. This drives up the total cost of the evening, creates crowds at the bar, and basically ensures they will run out of good beer. What is the optimal amount of beer? Exactly the amount that would be consumed if students had to individually pay for each drink. In this way, not a single person will have to pay a cost greater than the benefit they receive from each drink. An open bar guarantees either a shortage or that most people will end up paying MORE for their last beer than what it is worth to them

Granted there is a public goods aspect to the event—camaraderie, boosted morale and whatnot. But I have absolutely no doubt we could design something that maintains the level of the public good without sacrificing nearly as much efficiency. To provide a quick example: Suppose we charge people some fraction of the cost at the door (say $20), immediately refund that fee in food and drink vouchers, and then charge cash for drinks when the vouchers run out. The $20 will deter a few of the people who would get the least enjoyment from attending*** and it will reduce the cost for those who can’t or don’t want to attend. The people who don’t want to drink as much can give away, trade or sell their drink coupons. The vouchers will initially maintain the illusion of an open bar while still communicating a price for drinks. By the end of the night, prices will reflect the true cost. Voila! Fewer people, better atmosphere, lower costs, shorter lines at the bar and more fun for everyone (and more drinks for me)!!! I would also expect that having fewer people show up and associating some of the cost of attending would help provide more incentive for the organizers to satisfy people’s preferences in terms of choosing the venue, caterer, and so on.

I would estimate the total waste to be about $20 to $30 per student. Seems large? Just think about it: The whole thing probably costs at least $50 or $60 per person. Would you be willing to pay more than $30 for a ticket? More than $35? $40? What about all those who don’t attend—how much would they be willing to pay***? I wonder how many sanitary pads a person could buy with $20 or $30?

I will admit the consequence of all of this inefficiency is minimal—students are not going to come to GPPI based on the quality of a party (two parties, maybe) and they aren’t starving by having to waste a few dollars on the shindig. But we are trying to teach policy. The real confusion for me is why anyone would support government institutions or programs with HUGE consequences that build-in the same inefficiencies illustrated here when the examples of how that sort of planning fails are so accessible.

There must be a lesson in here somewhere.

*Yes, moral hazard does exist.
**No joke. Just like there is no such thing as “too much healthcare”. There is such a thing, however, as healthcare with associated costs that exceed the benefits.
***And, by the way, those people would prefer to be deterred.
****Huh, probably close to zero!

Jimmy Carter on trade

I was studying in the 4th floor conference room this morning, off in one corner while a review session for the International Economics course was having a review session. It was fun to take a break every once in a while and listen in on what they were discussing. After they disbanded I had an interesting conversation with Steve Caldwell about the virtues of free trade, and about how the platitudes coming from various Presidential candidates regarding trade tend to be off the mark in terms of economic principles. Here is link to Free Exchange's discussion of an OpEd in today's WashPost from Jimmy Carter, one who actually won his (first) election, but who still appears not to fully understand the impacts of trade protections.

I would like to have taken that International Economics class.

Keep Your Church Out of My State

Okay. I know this is late, but it remains interesting. Here is the speech Romney gave last Thursday. In my judgment the speech was a success. Mitt had two constituencies to please: those who fear a devoutly religious leader would threaten the separation of Church and State (especially when his particular religion is unfamiliar to them) and those who question Romney’s Christian credentials. Both messages he delivered were compelling. I have no doubt Romney could sell a pair of binoculars to a blind man. He ought to take his speech writers out for a drink…Mitt, of course, will have a Roy Rogers, hold the cola. Grantedt the two ideas he presents almost directly oppose one another, but this is political campaigning we are talking about, not political philosophy. We can all agree the timing of this speech was more of a political ploy in response to Huckabee’s recent success. The question is: Is Romney’s speech in vain? Given that Mitt outspent Huckabee 20 to 1 in Iowa and Huckabee is now out-polling everyone….probably.

It’s also fascinating to compare Romney’s speech to JFK’s speech. Kennedy’s was far less contradictory and comes across us much more of a necessary response to religious prejudice and skeptics. Also, notice that if you replace “communism” with “terrorism”, Kennedy’s speech could be given today—we’re still debating the exact same themes!

Also, check out this NYT op-ed that compares Huckabee to Obama and then both of them to JFK. Surprising that just days after Romney’s speech, his opponent is the one being compared to Kennedy.

Are Good Intentions Enough?

In keeping with the title of this blog, I am going to go ahead and make a few comments on this project. I will try to keep the jokes to a minimum.

“Tomorrow is the last day to donate boxes of sanitary pads for the girls in Kenya.”

First, let me just say that I have no doubt of the importance of the need that this project is trying to fulfill. I commend the good intentions behind it and hope they collect mounds (mountains even) of pads.

I would like to join in the generous giving, but that requires that I (1) go to a store, (2)find a product I have never purchased before, (3)wait in line with femine products, (4)pay for the products, (5)pack them to campus, and (6)parade them around school before depositing them in the “labeled” box (no pun intended). In order for me to contribute to this project I must incur a cost considerably higher than the actual value of the sanitary pads. I will be the first to praise those who overcome those costs, but should I feel guilty if I find the costs to be excessive? Can you blame me?

I think two lessons can be learned here:

1. Inkind transfers are not an efficient means of raising donations. There are exceptions to this rule—for instance, Kinkos may be more likely to donate $100 worth of printing to a project than $100 cash. But this project is certainly not an exception…unless you are soliciting Tampax.


2. Even the most well-intentioned plans can yield poor results. Good intentions are often a necessary condition for positive outcomes, but rarely suffient.

You Can't Make This Up

"It was revealed that human flesh may have been ground up and mixed with pork from the farm. This pork was never distributed commercially, but was handed out to friends and visitors of the farm."

This guy from British Columbia has finally been convicted of six murders. If you've never heard the story, then you should check it out. It is unbe-freakin-lievable. Warning: it is REALLY disturbing. At one point he claimed to have murdered 49 prostitutes and transient women in Vancouver. He'll be eligible for parole in 10 years. That's only about a year and a half for each of the murders he was convicted of. Less than 90 days/murder if you count them all.

In cod we trust

There is a reference to successful collusion in the NZ and Australian fishing industry over at Free Exchange, an Economist blog (alas, I pilfered their clever title). The article asks whether collusion can be used to protect the environment. It looks like yes, at least in the short term. As with all commons problems, there is an incentive to cheat.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting concept that might hold some promise if there is a way to enforce cartel control (and prevent cheating).

Incidentally, Free Exchange is one of my favorite blogs.

Quote of the Day

Mankiw on selective inference:

"The economist ends up using theory like a drunk uses a light post--for support rather than illumination."

I know what your thinking...if I love him so much, why don't I just marry him?! Sadly, he is happily married.

Indiv. Rights v Public Good

Before I took Stuart Butler's Ethics class, I expected that class to be more or less useless, kind of like Policy Process-- just another required class to get through, blocking out space from my schedule for a more substantive class that I would otherwise rather take. I have to say, though, that I've really enjoyed it.

We spent the bulk of the semester evaluating policy dilemmas in terms of individual rights and the interest of the community. Which should trump the other? Last night there was quite a discussion about Christian Science and the rights of children. If a 7 year old strict Christian Science child has a ruptured appendix and a simple procedure will cure her 99% of the time, should the government be allowed to intervene over the parents' objections? Or should the parents' right to make decisions for their child trump in this case? Without treatment the child will certainly die.

I should note that my knowledge of Christian Science is limited to wikipedia. According to that entry, the faith does not specifically forbid practitioners from receiving medical treatment, although some do deny it. So for the sake of this post, let's assume our hypothetical parents are strict and devout-- they would choose to pray with and for the child and not pursue medical treatment. Is that OK, or should the government intervene?

It's a tough call. I tend to agree with John Rawls that the right is prior to the good (and I suppose that consistent with this, one could argue that the government is acting to protect the right of the child). But I'm all for protecting children, too. Separate from this engineered scenario, there are surely others that would trip up my framework.

What do people think?

Cap & Trade v Tax (again)

In a comment last week KLR mentioned the Greg Mankiw axiom of carbon mitigation proposals:

Cap-and-trade = Carbon tax + Corporate welfare

Here is a short slideshow from Holmes Hummel**, a Stanford PhD. It gets to Mankiw's point and lays out the basics of the Cap and Trade proposals before Congress at the moment. It is a really great short intro.

** Here is a bio for Holmes Hummel. Would you look at the vest on that guy! What are the odds he's a LARPer?


Update: I should have mentioned that I got the link to the Slideshow from Grist.org.

Incredible!

This video is intense. I peed a little.

Okay. Back to work.

They hired her

Check out this clip. This is the one I was talking about at The Tombs. Who knew Jesus predated the ancient Greeks? Evidently Sherri Shephard.

Look for the link on the bottom to the clip of Ron Paul on abortion. He's obviously many watts brighter than Ms. Shephard.

(link from Andrew Sullivan)

Please Help!!!

I've got a crisis I need help with. Will someone please explain to me why it makes sense to condemn this and then propose this???

Not only is this a wholly BAD idea, the people who will end up paying for a mortgage bailout are exactly the people it is intended to help. If you want a case study for unintended consequences, here it is!

Polygamists for the Planet!

This post at Cafe Hayek made me laugh until I almost cried. Reading about others' ignorance transforms Russ Roberts into the Incredible Hulk of economics.

I really do have work to be doing today. I just choose not to do it. I turned my semester thesis paper in yesterday...so, Wednesday starts the weekend!

This is too much fun...

Yesterday, a friend forwarded this WSJ article about some of the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance being passed onto employees. The friend asks the question:

"Is it fair to make those people [with poorer health] work harder to meet (potentially impossible) benchmarks?"

Without getting into the meat of the article, I had the following gut reaction:

Would you agree that intelligence is partially genetic? Leadership ability? What about physical talent? Do you think it is inappropriate to make people who lack those genes work harder? Said another way: What's wrong with rewarding people who possess favorable genes? I see no reason to differentiate between any of these genetic traits. There is no way to level the playing field entirely. If we try, we will only be arbitrarily discriminating against people who lack some gene that we don't subsidize. Above a minimum, people should be free to use what was endowed to them in pursuit of their own best interest.

It is also important to note that a firm is not penalizing employees by passing on the cost of health insurance. On the contrary, if employees are pooled into the same insurance plan and still paid their marginal productivity then people in good health are subsidizing those with poor health. So, by providing everyone the same health insurance you are effectively penalizing people who are in good health by giving them a smaller total compensation package. So instead of saying:

“Employees at some companies who are overweight, smoke, or have high cholesterol, for instance, and who don't participate in supplementary wellness programs, will pay more for health insurance.”

It would be more straightforward to say that employees are paying closer to the true cost of their own healthcare rather than having their co-workers help pay for their smoking-habit and Taco Bell cravings. Essentially, workers are just compensating the company because it costs more to hire someone who has a fat ass or chain smokes (or blogs too much)....not counting the cigarette breaks and trips to the vending machine.

Then...this morning, I woke to see this post from Greg Mankiw. The point is that there are benefits associated with being good-looking. If you find it absurd to subsidize ugly people (or short people) then it makes it easy to punch holes in the logic and reason behind a lot of progressive policies. I’m not saying that great minds think alike, but…you know, whatever.

Keep Your Pants On

Current economic theory says that maximizing economic output means that there will be some inequality and that inequality will grow over time. This means that for everyone's wealth to grow in absolute terms, some individuals' wealth must shrink in relative terms. Egalitarians throw up their arms at the thought of allowing this social injustice to exist for the sake of economic efficiency. What an outrage to have a values system based on a math equation!

But here is new theory out of MIT that claims the long-run efficiency maximizing policy requires that we limit inequality through redistribution.

"Werning found that the models at the core of these judgments were incomplete. Allowing inequality to grow, unfettered, is economically optimal only if one looks at just the first generation. His paper shows that the transmission of wealth should be regulated to prevent an accumulation of luck—that children should essentially be insured against the family into which they are born."

Specifically,

“Werning discovered that the best approach would be to encourage parents to leave bequests to their children, and that government should, through subsidies, help the poor pass on money to their heirs.”

If this theory is right, then it is economically optimal to take what A has earned and wants to pass on to her children and give it to B's children. What an outrage! How dare we use a mathematical equation to justify confiscating a person's earnings.

There might be some sarcasm laced in here...I'll leave it to you to guess where. I imagine we could come up with an economic theory that predicted it would be efficiency maximizing for everyone to walk around with no pants on. I don’t know about you, but I intend to keep wearing pants.

HT: Greg Mankiw

The more things change

I thought I'd join my fellow bloggers in adding my thoughts on the NIE report:

In order to consider how to take the conclusions contained within the report, it's important to consider the Administration's track record:

1. Administration assures us that Iraq has WMD's.
2. Administration assures us that we will be treated as liberators in Iraq.
3. Administration assures us that Karl Rove knew nothing about the Valerie Plame leak.
4. Administration assures us (or at least each other) that waterboarding is not torture.
5. Administration assures us that humans do not contribute to climate change.
6. Administration assures us that President Bush is an able and effective leader.

Hmm...I'm beginning to sense a pattern. Personally, I think there is no greater indication that Iran DOES have a nuclear weapons program than a report from the Bush administration assuring us they do not.

Not So Fast

I agree that this development is interesting and, well, good. But I think the pundits' analysis and the anticipated response overshoots the mark. As I see it:

All we're doing here is substituting faith in one intelligence report for faith in another....intelligence report. The fact that the new report contradicts the previous report should only serve to erode our confidence further—all the more reason to proceed with cautious skepticism. Disappointment over intelligence erring in one direction needs to be balanced with the realization that it can err in the opposite direction. Can we not see the hypocrisy in the eagerness to believe this new report? The take-away here is that figuring this crap out is really hard. I can’t escape the inevitable pun…maybe intelligence just ain’t so intelligent. This is bad, yes, but we shouldn’t allow it to paralyze foreign policy. The stakes remain high.

The affect this news will have on presidential campaigns will be inconsequential. Ultimately, the average American will still, into the foreseeable future, associate foreign policy with national defense. Americans want two things: (1) a leader who will protect them from real and perceived threats and (2) a leader who won’t get them stuck in a decade-long (or longer) war. People’s preferences over these two goods differ, but are not likely to change significantly as a result of the latest report. No candidate will have trouble incorporating the new Iran situation into his/her message. As Bush has already shown us, the issue can be spun anyway you like. People will hear what they want to hear.

That brings me to another point…directed toward the pundits. Why does everyone start gnashing their teeth when Bush spins an issue or tries to sell a policy? That’s what politicians do!!! People have every right to disagree and voice that disagreement. If you’re not convinced by Bush, please, continue to disagree. Rally support for your cause, etc, etc. But don’t be one of those people who accuse Bush of being a liar and demagogue while in the same breath screaming “tax cuts for the rich” when the cuts actually make the tax code more progressive. He was elected, now he is supposed to do what he thinks is right. You might not agree with what he thinks…but hate the policy, don’t hate the game. Sure, Bush comes across as an ass when he's making his case, but we’ll have our chance to elect another ass next November.

That being said, don’t bomb Iran!

President Bush, the NIE

The Economist's Democracy in America blog has a post on the President's handling of the NIE regarding Iran. They take their cue from Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic. I'm astonished that President Bush is already acting very aggressively about Iran rather than seizing the diplomatic opportunity of the moment.

As I have said, I'm very interested in seeing how this is handled by the leading candidates of both parties, all of whom would tout their relative superiority in approach to diplomacy.

You're kidding, right?

This is going to be a fascinating story to watch unfold. I know almost nothing about this, but evidently the most recent National Intelligence Estimate claims that Iran mothballed its nuclear development program over 4 years ago. How could we possibly not know this until now?

I'm curious to see what this means for people like Norman Podheretz (a "we must bomb Iran" wack-job) and other neo-conservatives. Surely this will hurt Giuliani, no? There has also been a lot of press about the Democratic candidates and their approach to regimes like Iran. Is this a boost for Obama because of his expressed willingness to engage Iran? Is it a problem for Clinton, who I believe has indicated a willingness to preemptively strike at Iran?

As I said, I have a lot of reading about this to do, but for now I am shell-shocked about what a monumental lack of intelligence this demonstrates. And it suggests the potential for a catastrophic screw-up. Imagine if we had invaded this country because we relied on poor information about a WMD program!

Read more >> Options >>

I'll Bet You Did!!!

"I thought it would be really fascinating to be the only male at an all-women's college," Usman told the Boston Globe.

Enough Already...

I was a little disappointed at the lack of interesting news over the weekend. Then the Idaho Statesman Journal revealed this little gem. I really have no interest in engaging in this debate. For the sake of everyone, I wish it would just go away. Alas, I can’t resist making a few comments.

1. First, when did “allegations [that] can't be disproved” (taken from the article) become factually sound. I’m no expert on ethics in journalism, but shouldn’t the burden of proof be little stronger before we start destroying lives?
2. Second, who cares? Sure an arrest in an airport bathroom for lewd conduct by a Senator is interesting. Good for a laugh, etc. But is it really that much more unbecoming of a public official than, I don’t know, drunk driving? We don’t run someone out of town for endangering the lives of others. Why then, for an embarrassing, but victimless crime.
3. Should we really be that surprised that an allegedly gay man is embarrassed to reveal his sexual preferences—particularly a married Idaho Senator from a generation other than the current one. It seems to me that everyone who is calling Craig a liar and a hypocrite and claiming he is an enemy of civil rights is doing a far greater disservice to the gay rights movement by further stigmatizing the very thing he was supposedly trying to hide. Shameful.
4. Why is everyone so shocked to discover lying and hypocrisy between private and public life—especially by a politician? As far as I can tell, the matter is not that much more disgraceful than this act. Granted lewd conduct and paying for sex is illegal (we addressed the relative triviality of this argument in (2)), the rest is just private. I have no desire to know how many times, in what position, where or with whom someone is having sex. Okay, infidelity might bring into play the character of an elected official. But again, people have looked past this on countless occasions.
5. I see no significant motivation for reporting this on such a scale aside from (1) desire to sell newspapers, (2) desire to get personal attention, and (3) desire to destroy someone’s life. So, either you’re a tabloid, an attention whore or a total asshole. I find all three far more disgraceful than lying about being a homosexual.
6. Finally, anyone who is reading this and saying, “but what about Monica Lewinsky (use whiny voice)?” go ahead and just slap yourself upside the head. I agree, you cannot defend one without defending the other. There are important similarities between the two and there are important differences. But really, “they did it to us, so we can do it to them (pout, pout)” is not a valid argument.

I’m certain Craig will resign before the end of his term or not seek reelection. Either way, his political career and legacy are destroyed (and probably his personal life to a large degree) and unless these allegations are totally false there is no one to blame but himself. Still, if I were from Idaho I would cancel my subscription to the Idaho Statesmen before I jumped on the bandwagon chastising the Senator.

My God, politics are disgusting. I will say no more.

Oh Uncle Karl!

The Boy Genius has made his share of ridiculous comments in the past, but now that he is enjoying private life he’s made the smooth transition into that lovable crazy uncle and no one knows what will come out of his mouth next.

From the WashPost:

Rove said that the administration did not want lawmakers to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq that soon because it would "make things move too fast," before Bush could line up international allies, and politicize the issue ahead of midterm elections.

CNN reports on this letter in the FT:

The man behind Bush's two presidential victories took to the pages of the Financial Times Sunday to offer the candidate some unsolicited suggestions on how to beat rival Hillary Clinton.

Oh Uncle Karl, I can’t wait until Christmas!

On Faith and Mitt Romney

Richard Dawkins, a renowned evolutionary biologist, is the guest columnist in the Washington Post's On Faith series. His contribution takes a number of controversial positions: on the ethics of lying, he says that politicians have a responsibility to lie about their personal lives. He's a bit wacky.

Dawkins goes on to excoriate Mitt Romney for his religious beliefs:

Mitt Romney, as a self-confessed Mormon, has stated his beliefs about the Second Coming as follows: "Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives and stops that war to kill the Jews. We also believe that over the 1,000 years that follow, the millennium, he will reign from two places: that the law will come from one place, Missouri; the other will be in Jerusalem." The thing about Missouri, you see, is that it is the site (I’m not joking) of the Garden of Eden. Mitt Romney apparently believes that the Book of Mormon is the dictated word of God. The fact that Joseph Smith wrote it in 16th century pseudo-biblical English although he was a 19th century man marks him out – along with much else -- as a charlatan, yet Mitt Romney apparently is gullible enough to be taken in by the scam. After Smith “translated” them, the gold tablets containing God’s words conveniently shot off to Heaven before anybody else could examine them. If a man is gullible enough to believe that, would you trust him to negotiate on your country’s behalf in the tough chancelleries of the world?

I have my misgivings about Mormon theology, but I think that equally tough questions should be asked of people like Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, and other Christian conservatives. A fundamentalist and literalist interpretation of the Christian bible is equally problematic to a lot of voters, if not as mysterious to them as Mormonism.

Tax v Cap and Trade, Carbon Offsets

The debate over the implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigating policy is fascinating to me (should it be a carbon tax, or a cap and trade system?). Greg Mankiw says, in the Pigouvian tradition, that it should be a dedicated tax. In a tax system, the theory is that the revenue could be redirected to the lower income Americans who would be most adversely affected by the rise in prices on a variety of goods. The same could be true of a Cap and Trade system, though.

Nobel Laureate Gary Becker and Richard Posner (a renaissance man) have an interesting discussion (here and here) about problems with the market for carbon offsets. They come down well on the side of a Cap and Trade system, but they don't discuss it in the specific context of Tax v C&T. Nonetheless, it's worth a read, although both posts are rather long. I understand the concern both have about crowd out in efforts undertaken by carbon offset organizations (such as replanting forests), but I wonder if they aren't overstating this potential problem.

In at least two parts of the US, states are taking the lead on controlling GHG emissions absent federal leadership. RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) is a collection of northeast states making a regional push because Congress has failed to take the lead (the participants are: CT, DE, ME, NH, NJ, NY, VT, and MD. In addition, DC, MA, PA, RI, the Eastern Canadian Provinces, and New Brunswick are observers in the process.).

In the Northwest, three governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Brian Schweitzer (D-MT), and Jon Huntsman (R-UT), are part of another such organization. Check out this recent commercial they put out
calling on Congress to step up and make this a national priority. (I saw the video on the Gristmill)

Interestingly (though not surprisingly), one of the carbon offset companies Posner and Becker mention as being a potential liability for the environmental movement advertises heavily on the Grist website.

We're on the Map!

Sadly, I only hear about this after the fact. Why, oh why, did I move to D.C.?!?!? I missed my only chance to win Rachel's heart with a warm stack of Huckleberry pancakes at the Black Bear Diner.

Frankly, I tend to believe the tabloid reports.

On a related note, I discovered that this is the current feature article in my hometown newpaper. The three most surprising facts: (1) the lunch ladies know what kiwis are, (2) "Kids love steamed broccoli with cheese on it. At the grade schools it's been one of the best vegetables kids have eaten," Jobe said and (3) the Madras Pioneer has a website?!?!

The Next Round is on Me

An avid Coarse Evaluations reader (my girlfriend) comments on this post:

The fact that more Republicans *report* better mental health is not mind-boggling and very possibly attributable to party- and community-specific stigma/normalizing/mainstreaming issues.

If we ignore the potential reporting effect and take the findings as being an indicator of the true mental health situation of the country, it might be interesting to consider the biochemical explanations for mental health problems. It's already widely believed (and scientifically backed) that mental health issues run in families (which will make you more likely to have a problem and more likely to recognize one). It is also true that an individual’s political affiliation is highly correlated with his/her parents’ political affiliation. Both characteristics could be present and passed to the next generation without one being directly related to the other. When and why this persistent relationship originated may be tangentially related to the current findings.

Finally, there's the issue that being a Democrat means feeling more personally responsible for the state of the world (or something to that effect) -- that suffering is a failure of humans. If Democratic Party identification is correlated with a higher degree of idealism, and a higher degree of idealism is correlated with a higher degree of disappointment (and also a sense of failure), then chronic disappointment will be a more common feature in the life of a Democrat. Granted, this guilt/disappointment effect might also hold for a market-oriented Republican who sees suffering as resulting from a failure to construct the best institutions, but it is not a stretch to think it will be weaker, on average.

Or maybe being liberal is just tantamount to being mentally ill!

To summarize:

1. Maybe Republicans are equally crazy, but either don't realize it or are less willing to admit it.
2. Maybe Republicans are just mentally healthier as a result of some (un)related or historical factor explained in part through genetics and family environment.
3. Maybe Democrats set themselves up for depression via social idealism and
   disappointment, as opposed to a greater emphasis on practicality and on the
   justice of the market.

A worthy response. Unless (1) fully explains the results (which it may), I'm not sure this gets us much closer to understanding the difference. But I'm also not real sure we should care.

Another devoted reader (my roommate) partially sums up (2) and (3) as a difference in what he calls the "Glass-Half-Full" philosophy.

I propose that the entire difference is due to a few leveraged outliers which I call the "Kucinich Effect".

David Wright straight up for Dmitri Young? You intrigue me.

For Democrats, war, poverty and intolerance are constant sources of worry and concern. This leads to poorer mental health.

For Republicans, war is a righteous sign of American might. The poverty of others is a sign of the moral superiority of the wealthy. And intolerance is way exaggerated. So they sleep fine, thank you very much.

I think somebody owes me a drink.

If this study is true though, then Omar Minaya must be one hard-core Democrat. Yesterday, Minaya sent former top prospect Lastings Milledge to the Nationals for a poor offensive catcher on the wrong side of 30 and a 4th outfielder. What's that you ask? Is that the same Lastings Milledge who in the past the Mets refused to give up for players such as Manny Ramirez and Barry Zito (back when he was at least above average)? Is that the player who less than a month ago was talked about as a key to the Mets hopes for Johan Santana? Why yes. Yes, it is.

Well surely then the Mets must have really needed a starting catcher? Umm, if you mean did they need a third mediocre potential starting catcher after Johnny Estrada (who they traded for last week) and Ramon Castro, then I guess you're right.

This move does not make any sense on any level. Milledge may well have been overhyped and maybe his attitudinal issues are even worse than advertised, but the kid's 22. Let him light it up in Triple A for a couple months next spring and then at least flip him for another prospect.

In all the talk of the Mets epic collapse last year, a lot was said about the lack of heart and character among the players. At the rate Crazy Omar's going, some time soon the Mets will be able to experience a season totally devoid of talent too.

No Surprise Here!

The least surprising research findings of 2007. Although, I'm sure the causality runs in both directions.

One adult beverage for anyone who can provide a reasonable explanation for these results.

The start of something big

So I was going to write my thoughts on this Megan McArdle post regarding race/IQ issue. Fortunately for the reader, I was totally unable to articulate my thoughts effectively so instead I'll say briefly that: I don't agree with her that the question of race/IQ matters. In fact, I strongly believe the question does not matter from a policy standpoint and is, in fact, totally counterproductive. I always wonder why these questions aren't accompanied with studies comparing IQs of Irish-Americans to Scottish-Americans. Why would that be any less relevant from a policy standpoint? The reason we don't see those types of studies, I think, is because studies that try to inform social policy are usually interested in looking at things that social policy can actually change. Switching that focus to uninformative generalizations about unchangeable personal characteristics seems to me to have no conceivable constructive social policy implication. The only real purpose for such examinations is to attempt to justify a "See? There's nothing we can do" approach… But the whole point of developing social policy is that we've already decided we CAN do something to address societal problems.

Well enough ramblings on subjects I said I wasn't going to write about. On to the real purpose of my post: my first annual Semi-Weekly Favorite Wikipedia Entries List (SWFWEL). This new, eagerly anticipated* feature will showcase a few of my favorite Wikipedia pages along with brief comments from yours truly. Without further ado, on to the links:

1. The Moscone-Milk Assassinations (my apologies to those who I've already bored with this link). This story has it all: political intrigue, murderous plots, and of course the Twinkie Defense.
2. Mothman. Also the basis of a movie that I've never seen. Really bizarre and really interesting. You'll find Mothman right below "Don't enjoy mine work" in my Reasons to Not to Live in West Virginia list.

Doug's Know Your Bloggers Wikipedia Entry

3. Hamilton, New Zealand home of everyone's favorite blogger from Cowtown, Ben Geritsen. My favorite quote: " However, Hamilton still struggles with the arguably undeserved nickname of 'Cowtown' due to its conservative rural background and relative lack of entertainment for a city its size. A more common nickname of "Hamiltron: the city of the future" is a gently ironic epithet for the city."

*I don't actually know this is eagerly anticipated, but it certainly stands to reason.

On Political Debates

Even if you hate his politics, Neil Cavuto is one of the most thoughtful commentators in America.

My erudite colleagues...

I am sure that this rating has little to do with my infrequent rants, and more likely the result of KLR's contemplations on politics, economics and other intelligent topics...

Republicans Across America Cringe

I watched the CNN Republican debate tonight. The YouTube format makes for painful, but entertaining television…it’s especially useful for breaking up the monotony of the rhetoric. Here are my immediate reactions:

Tom Tancredo: Hands down the most illegitimate candidate. Also, if anyone knows his nephew…let him know he owes our neighbor a new chair (further details available upon request)!

Ron Paul: Hands down the most intelligent candidates—agree with him or not. I won’t vote for him, but I would support a requirement that all politicians complete a course by Paul before taking office. It would have to be pass/fail though; otherwise, we would have trouble filling ballots.

Duncan Hunter: I bet other congressmen steal Duncan Hunter’s lunch money. Please dropout of the race. Please!!!

Rudy Guiliani: Easily the least socially conservative Republican candidate…but that’s not the worst indictment ever. Oh, and did you know Rudy reduced crime in NYC?!?! Enough already.

John McCain: Some people love McCain…everyone else hates him.

Mitt Romney: Most likely to have been a used car salesman in a previous life. Mitt took a beating from McCain and Rudy in the debate. He made a bold move in trying to position himself as the most conservative candidate and now is forced to defend some extreme-right views while others are effectively calling his bluff. Huh, a flip-flop candidate from Massachusetts…good luck with that.

Mike Huckabee: Probably (definitely) the most principled candidate, but he adheres to no strict political principles. A Huckabee administration would be very unpredictable.

Fred Thompson: Yawn.

I can’t believe these are real people and they are leading our country. Don Boudreaux describes it best.

Economic Literacy

Here is a question Mike Munger of Duke asked his undergraduate intro to econ students on an exam. The majority of students failed to answer the question correctly which indicates either (1) Dr. Munger is a poor teacher or (2) even the brightest Americans have difficulty grasping basic economic principles and applying rationality.

Suppose your favorite artist is performing a concert at a small local venue. You and your best friend are so excited that you go to the box office to buy tickets the night before they go on sale for $40. You wait in line through the night only to realize the next morning that the line is much longer than you expected. Just before you reach the counter the entire concert sells out. You hang your head in disappointment and walk away ticketless. But wait! At the corner scalpers are already reselling tickets. The going rate is $300. In an instant you and your friend list all of the other things that you could buy with $300 and decide it just isn’t worth it. You duck in to Starbucks instead. After getting coffee and sitting down you notice an envelope on ground. Inside the envelope are two concert tickets. Sweet! You wait around for a couple hours and nobody shows up to claim them. You are now in possession of two concert tickets!

What should you do?

The right answer is pretty obvious, but I think people fail to see it at an astounding rate. The more interesting question becomes: What would you do and why? Or, what would you expect most people to do and why?

I tried the question on several family members over Thanksgiving. Most understood the correct answer, but still insisted on defending an irrational decision. My sister (who I don’t think has ever taken an econ class) gave an especially compelling argument in favor of the “wrong” answer.

Listen here for Munger’s discussion.

Republic v. Egalitarian Democracy

Pat Buchanan is ready to throw out traditional democracy as we know it. I'm not, but I'm certainly ready for accountability in governance that more closely resembles the operations of highly successful organizations. Not sure how to implement that, though.

Pat Buchanan

There is no doubt that Pat Buchanan is brilliant. Sometimes I agree with him (for example, we appear to see eye to eye about Rudy Giuliani), and sometimes I don't. I have often thought that despite disagreeing with him, I can't argue with his logic.

In recent posts to his blog, though, I feel like the wheels are starting to come off. As a Jeffersonian, Buchanan sees the concentration of power in the federal government (and state government, for that matter) as a threat to personal liberties. I share the fundamental concern, but I don't see taking the principle as far as he does, particularly with respect to equality among Americans of various sexual orientations (here). "Through Congress," he says, "the gay rights activists are seeking to use law to impose their values on society."

Buchanan inverts the goal of equal freedom in the gay rights movement: he characterizes success for the movement as the restriction of individual freedoms, and the criminalization of personal conduct. Never mind that the "personal conduct" in question is bigotry and discrimination.

Which right has precedence? The right to freely make bigoted and discriminatory choices, or the right to equal treatment? One person's freedom is another's repression, I suppose. A better way of deciding how to mete out freedoms would be to look to John Rawls, who believed that social goods (including forms of opportunity) should be distributed equally, and that the only unequal distributions that are just are those that place advantages in the hands of the most disadvantaged members of a society.

How would Pat Buchanan assign rights and liberties from behind a veil of ignorance? Do you suppose he would say that the preservation of the right to make decisions for oneself is the most important goal of a just and free system? Or would he be more merciful to those placed at a disadvantage by that kind of society?

Depressing news story!

In my opinion, this is the most depressing news story of the year. The worst part? It keeps getting worst. Now a story appears on CNN.com (habit still not broken) relaying how a group in the town has taken it upon themselves to exact their own form of justice on the Drew family by publishing their address, driving by their house and yelling murderer, harassing the parents at work, etc. Now from what I read, the family they are harassing certainly is thought to have committed a reprehensible act, but let's for a moment parallel the 2 chains of events that have played out in this town.

The Chain of Events Leading to the Suicide of Megan Meier:

1. Some people believe Megan treated them poorly
2. Some people take it upon themselves to teach Megan a lesson
3. Lesson ends in tragedy

The Chain of Events Upon Discovery of Participation of Drew Family in Tragedy

1. Some people believes Drew family treated Megan VERY poorly
2. Some people take it upon themselves to teach Drew family a lesson
3. TBD

Again, I'm not here to in any way excuse the actions that Lori Drew or other members of the family are suspected of, but I do have to say that the actions of all involved seem to be missing a pretty big lesson of this entire senseless tragedy: when people take justice/revenge/lesson teaching into their own hands, really bad things can happen. To me it seems clear that it is the failure to understand this lesson that resulted in this tragedy; hopefully history won't repeat itself.

What's Your FQ?

You might recall the recent backlash and embarrassment over Watson’s (of Watson and Crick) comments on genetics and race. I found his remarks, as you probably did, to be undeniably offensive, racist and wholly irresponsible for an expert of Watson’s fame. More disappointing, however, was the immediate characterization of the whole debacle as yet another example of how bigoted our society is. An opportunity to engage in an honest and open discussion about the consequences of genetics and race was presented, but passed-over in everyone’s rush to appear PC. (Note: To this group's credit, the topic made a brief appearance on the Tombs’ agenda.)

That, in part, explains why I find this article by Arnold Kling of GMU to be so interesting. In addressing cognitive ability and race, Kling calls for “individualism” to replace the current “denialism” and “compensationism” that dominates education policy. The definitions of these terms are pretty straightforward and I’m not going to try to summarize the article here. Suffice it to say, I think Kling gets it mostly right, but that actual policy prescriptions are far more elusive and incompatible with the politics of education than the article might suggest.

“Overall, I think that to do education properly, we need to take into account individual differences of ability. I do not think we should pay attention to race. Too much of our education policy seems to be driven by the opposite--we focus on outcomes in terms of race and leave the individual children behind.”

Also, check out this earlier article from Kling. He has some interesting observations about the overemphasis on college attendance. He suggests that the marginal benefit of your degree alone is very small.

What does the Australian election result mean for me?

I know that this question is burning in the minds of most Americans, so I thought I would offer a few thoughts.

Aside from the new Prime Minister's pledge to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, NZ politicans seem to think he's a pretty stand-up guy, with Less ego than his predecessors. The linked NZ Herald article discusses a momentous event in NZ/Australian relations... the underarm incident. I have discovered that some Americans are not fully informed of this historical event, but if you can stand to sit through 1 and a half minutes of cricket (better than 5 days!) it is worth a watch.

The NZ herald article also discusses NZ's political response of "Aussie bashing" after the underarm bowl, led by our fearless Prime Minister Sir Piggy Muldoon. Muldoon was a character that's for sure.

(In case you haven't noticed, I have learned how to use links now...)

Special Guest Contributor

As the most right-leaning commentator here, I felt the need to rally some support in case I am ever feeling outnumbered. IMR has been a lifelong advocate of warmer diaper wipes and longer nap times. She is decidedly pro-military and supports taking the war on terrorism to Where the Wild Things Are. IMR has yet to pick a horse in the current race, but the rumor is she has been holding out for the surprise announcement of a Seuss campaign. I trust you will find her comments insightful.

News from the South....

We all know the famous Lifeman quote, "Yes, but not in the South". Today's election results from Australia, however, may have rendered this quote irrelevant to discussions on climate change. With apologies to our foreign correspondent, I write to report that Kevin Rudd has defeated four-term incumbent, and "loyal Bushie", John Howard to take the reigns as Australia's Prime Minister. Australia's economy thrived under Howard, but the country's policies regarding Iraq and climate change have alienated the international community of late. Rudd has promised to pull the Australian troops out of Iraq, and to sign the Kyoto Protocol as a first step in a commitment to stabilize Australia's GHG emissions. While signing Kyoto is largely a symbolic maneuver, it would grant Australia a greater say at the upcoming UN talks in Bali. As part of his platform, Rudd also promised to enact long-term emission reduction targets. This changing of the guard should further isolate the stubborn United States in foreign policy matters, and with Rudd pledging to take action to combat anthropogenic climate change, will also pressure the U.S. to join the rest of the developed world in agreeing to post-Kyoto climate responsibilities. Both welcome developments!

Foreign Correspondent

I wanted to get a post in before Thanksgiving weekend and set out what I see as my role as the only foreigner currently posting on this board (and I believe the rules stipulate a strict limit for overseas players?)

Via this blog I intend to keep everyone up to date on the latest happenings of global importance taking place in New Zealand. This will be relatively straightforward, as I have been checking the New Zealand news websites for globally important stories since I arrived in the US in August last year, and I have not yet found one.

We are heading up to Massachusetts for Thanksgiving this year, and thanks must go to our gracious hosts. Invitations to thanksigivng were a little thin on the ground this year (no doubt due to the subprime mortgage debacle) but we would have gone to Massachusetts anyway, cause its the home of Thanksgiving. I have been reading many interesting websites on this unique American holiday, and if I could insert a link to any then I would. Suffice it to say, pilgrim costumes are clearly a must and the President pardons turkeys... exceptional.