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.

Pass the Gravy

“Mr. Trezise, moved to Auckland in September after shedding two inches from his waist on a crash diet….His wife has been battling for months to shed the pounds so they can be reunited and live Down Under but has so far been unable to overcome New Zealand’s weight regulations.” From telegraph.co.uk

I knew those Kiwis were obesists.

Medium or Bold?

Here’s some good news from Africa. You didn’t realize your trip to Saxby’s between classes was helping repair a war torn country, did you?

Apocalypse Now

Paul Samuelson doesn't think there is much to be thankful for this Thursday. He is not enthusiastic about the economy and proposes some preemptive Depression-era intervention.

“Maybe such innovations will turn out not to be needed. But keeping in mind worst-case scenarios of the freezing-up of banks and other lending agencies, exploratory planning is worthwhile insurance.”

This seems excessively bleak and a bit brash, but who am I to argue with a Nobel Laureate? I’m more concerned about how he describes the future.

“The U.S. population is 5 percent of the global total, yet it enjoys per person about 20 percent of total global output. That's the picture now. Will this last? When I come to write a newspaper article like this 10 years from now, I believe America may still be leading the pack in per-capita affluence. But in all probability, the China that has already displaced Japan as the economy with the second biggest total gross domestic product will likely have a total GDP equal to America's.”

Why the doomsday scenario? The average American gets frightened by this talk. But why should they? The rest of the world getting richer does not necessitate America getting poorer. In fact, America will stand to benefit as more foreigners can afford our products and American consumers will be able to enjoy the fruits of foreign labor as their economies grow and they become better equipped to exploit their comparative advantage. Wealth, no matter where it blossoms, is a good thing. Does anyone really think the rest of the world has suffered, on average, from America's prosperity over the last 200 years?

Even better, as foreign countries prosper they will become less of a security concern. The countries that pose a real threat to the United States are those who have an impoverished, oppressed citizenry. People who have spare change in their pockets also tend to have some spare time to criticize their government.

And, yes, Nancy Pelosi does need a hobby!

Thanks to Gregory for the pointer.

Fit to Print

Out of habit, I tend to go to CNN.com first to get my news online. This is a habit that I am quickly breaking, thanks to CNN.com. For the past few months, CNN.com appears to be making a concerted attempt to combine the hard hitting news of Access Hollywood with the editorial opinions of your most annoying and close-minded uncle (in their case, Uncle Lou). Hoping to read the latest on the natural disaster in Bangladesh? Well, they don’t actually have a front page story on that. Looking for news the latest scandals involving the Hooters in Hoboken? You sir have come to the right place.

I find it very interesting to compare CNN.com and Foxnews.com with the New York Times online, LA Times online, etc. Basically, online these are direct competitors and yet the content they present is so strikingly different. Is this because newspapers can simply put online stories that have already been written and so the cost for them to present informed news and opinion is much lower than for their competitors from TV? Or is it because both types of website are simply reflections of the medium from which they were created?

The top headline on CNN.com right now is that TV’s Mr. Whipple has died. I do not know who Mr. Whipple is. While my heart certainly goes out to Dick Wilson’s family (he apparently played Mr. Whipple), I don’t really see this as nationally relevant news. Now, obviously CNN tailors its content to maximize its readership and the simple truth is that celebrities and news of the weird sells. But it sure makes the singling out of Fox News (whose website is just as bad, by the way) seem a little hollow when CNN.com touts Larry King’s interview with the plastic surgeon that operated on Kanye West’s mother.

Tag-line

We need to throw around some ideas for a tag-line. That's just a placeholder more than anything else.

Expanding Access to Nuclear Power

Megan McArdle is in southeast Asia right now. She has an interesting observation about growing energy needs in the developing world. Why not consider helping countries with growing pressure on energy access build nuclear power?

Here in the US the concerns about nuclear are obviously safety, proliferation, waste, and cost. But as far as safety goes, are we most worried because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? If so, it is relevant that no new plants have been built here in the last 25 years or so. Lots of technology has been developed in the interim. As far as international development goes, I don't see why we should shy away from a carbon free solution when the alternative is coal (renewables just won't fill capacity demands). Evidently, French companies have built and managed nuclear power plants in China; is there a compelling reason this would not work in other (developing) countries?

Dead Man Walking

Check out this article at the NYT on capital punishment and deterrence. The bulk of studies suggest executing one inmate prevents anywhere from three to 18 deaths. However, confidence in these results is tenuous at best--for many of the same statistical lessons my tuition check pays for.

The bottom line is we really don’t execute that many people in a given year, so we don’t have a lot of data to work from. We certainly don’t execute at random, so it’s not exactly clear what the counterfactual is (It brings a whole new meaning to “treatment-on-the-treated”). And it’s near impossible to disentangle exogenous crime trends from real deterrence. Wolfers, an economist at Penn, suggests (tongue-in-cheek) overcoming the statistical problems with the following experiment.

“If I was allowed 1,000 executions and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way,” he said, “I could probably give you an answer.”

I think he might have some trouble getting participants for his study. Maybe a natural experiment would be more appropriate…didn’t everyone but Harrison Ford die on that bus??

**Some additional food for thought: Geneticists are rapidly decoding the human genome and it is conceivable that they will identify the “homicidal” gene in the near future. What do we do with infants who we know will pose a real threat to society once they reach adulthood? This throws a bit of a wrench in the moral argument, regardless of your beliefs. I hope we can at least agree to get rid of this guy!

Food Miles

Tim Harford (The Undercover Economist) writes about the environmental effects bringing foods to the market (here). Chilean grapes & Kenyan beans (I had no idea Kenya was so well known for its green beans) have certain carbon intensities derived from the fact that they travel so many airline miles to get to our markets here in the US.

I am not exactly a skeptic about environmentalism, but I typically find that I need to be more critical of alarmist talk about energy technology, conservation, etc. Consequently, I liked Harford's article because it showed the logic behind the calculations showing that the actual greenhouse effects of food transportation are smaller than one might think.

But I get frustrated when someone discounts the importance of availing ourselves of *all* the baby steps that we can take. It's important in a cultural/psychological way to demonstrate that we are committed to changing for the benefit of the planet and posterity, even if the savings are only a few cents of carbon dioxide (assuming $20 per ton tax) for a bunch of grapes. It's important to know that driving cars to the local grocer is much more costly; soon we'll be able to tackle that problem (and to an extent we already can by avoiding useless trips about town).

That's enough out of you, Chuck Norris

I'm almost finished with a paper for EJ Dionne about the way the establishment media covers Presidential campaigns, so I'm a little bit sensitive to the use of political communications as entertainment rather than an informative discussion of policy. Add to that the fact that I have heard the stupid Chuck Norris jokes about a thousand times, and Mike Huckabee's delivery falls very flat. Altogether, I found this youtube video a little bit unsettling and highly annoying.

Silver Lining: At least the commercial contains a message about some policy, rather than simply an attack on the other candidates.

(I saw the video on The Debatable Land, source of Oneupmanship)

Paul "Kettle" Krugman

Occasionally, I will use this forum to dabble in intellectualism (I use “intellectual” in the weakest sense). This post is my first attempt. I will always attempt not to overestimate the true value of my opinions or the interest of others to hear them. Here goes.

In February, Paul Krugman wrote this article on Milton Friedman in the New York Review of Books. Since then it has made its rounds through the econblogosphere. Today, after prompting from a friend, I took the time to read it in its entirety. The timing is appropriate because Friedman is a personal hero of mine (and likely to be a recurring figure in my posts) and this weekend marks the one-year anniversary of his death. I recommend this video for short background on Milton and his impact.

The article is well written and any student of economics and public policy will find it interesting. However, I also find it to be a bit disturbing. I am no expert on monetary theory, but from what I understand and in reading the responses to Krugman, the article seems to have several factual inaccuracies. Even ignoring these, it is clear Krugman has cherry-picked the evidence he reveals to his relatively ignorant audience. In doing so, he tries to paint the world as black and white and blatantly engages in the same intellectual dishonesty he so readily convicts Milton of.

The bottom line is that no one would argue that strict monetarism or strict government intervention is the sole solution to economic woes. Arguing either case is akin to claiming that a vaccination guarantees immunity. It just can’t be true. The question is what treatment will, on average, be most effective.

Milton Friedman’s insight was that the most well-intentioned government is vulnerable to human imperfection and is likely to fall into the hands of less-well-intentioned individuals. Harnessing the power of individual freedom and self-interest in the marketplace is Milton’s antidote and, historically, the only system that has achieved longevity. This intuition and some technical analysis leads to the conclusion that we will best avoid large economic jolts by essentially automating monetary policy. The metaphor is your typical family roadtrip. No one wants to sit in a car as the driver jerks the wheel back and forth; overreacting and overcorrecting for each turn and bump in the road. We'd be better to turn on the cruise control.

You can disagree with this conclusion. Krugman certainly does. But you can’t claim Milton is being intellectually dishonest. The evidence is messy and isn’t overwhelming on one side or the other. Krugman tries to discredit Milton by pointing to the Fed’s success under Volcker and Greenspan in recovering from the high inflation of the early 80’s and easing the hit the economy took in 2001. But recent monetary policy has been successful precisely because of Friedman’s advice. Greenspan’s inflation-targeting is far more mechanical than strategic.

The irony here is that Krugman has become the caricature of an academic who has sacrificed intellectual principles and objectivity for a voice in the political debate. Perhaps Milton Friedman was as a bit too much of an ideologue…but if that’s true, we’ve got a kettle to match the pot.

Nostalgia

Does this picture not hold a striking resemblance to Mark’s apartment (before he got the Deer Park watercooler)? If you look close, those are 'Stones!

I couldn't remember why Ben wasn't there. Then I realized he was the one taking the photo...

First thoughts

Just some initial comments and questions as we get going:

• First of all, what a great name.
  
• When does the ad revenue start? I want to make clear that I am willing shill for any product that will throw a few dollars our way.
  
• Albert Camus was a 20th Century French philosopher. He won the Nobel Prize in 1957.
  
• This was a strange and sad story in the Boston Globe today. Perhaps strangest of all was this line: “…her unit members were as shocked by her death as the discovery that she was a lesbian.” I always kind of thought that on the scale of shocking things, unexpected and violent death usually trumped the disclosure of homosexuality. Of course, I guess there are some places where that may not be true.
  
• Joe Posnanski makes an interesting claim regarding Curt Schilling’s recent contract. I still can’t decide if I think he’s right or wildly exaggerating.
  
• It’s good to get started.

And Now it Begins...

I feel like a proud new father. My high expectation for this brilliantly named blog is sure to lead to disappointment. For the moment though, I plan to continue wallowing in self-delusion.

I suggest we reformat the blog so as to display a little originality. I don’t want N. Gregory Mankiw riding our success. Maybe a little color and a clever subtitle?

Also, should we each write introduction posts once things get settled? I think we owe our readers that. By readers, of course, I am referring to our significant others…until they get bored with the whole exercise in roughly nine days, that is.

Finally, each of us should be required to visit the site at least 45 times/day to inflate the traffic number.

Oneupmanship

You may have seen this already, but it is worth the read if not. This is the War and Peace article Doug mentioned last night.


The Lifeman link takes you to another great read too.

Items to discuss (II)

Ninjas with wristbands.

Items to discuss

Did Voltaire write Camus?