“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.
21 November, 2007
20 November, 2007
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.”
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.
19 November, 2007
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.
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?
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
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.
**
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).
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).
18 November, 2007
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)
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.
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.
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.
The Lifeman link takes you to another great read too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)