This article by John Aziz illustrates why I do not trust economists like Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, and a few others.
If you read their op-eds or non-academic articles you notice one theme (now, in your most solemn, mechanical yet snobbish voice (with nasal sounds, throat clearings, and heavy exhalations through the nose)), increase government spending on...insert any project you or your ill-informed drinking partner, next door neighbor, etc can think of.
These economists will say anything to get the government to spend more money. There is never a reason to spend less, never a reason to limit the power of labor over consumers. Perhaps my least favorite attribute these individuals possess is their sense that no one on earth is smart...at anything...ever, except for them. I used to think that about myself...when I was three.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
Preliminary Thoughts on Supreme Court Decisions
Put simply, I'm not sure what I feel about it. I haven't had much time to analyze the details. My initial reaction was "But the government didn't say it was a tax, they argued they have the right to mandate that the public purchase insurance under the commerce law." So, I was pretty surprised by the decision, as were most people notwithstanding whether they lean left or right.
As a primer to learn more about the decision and the law, here is a link to Tyler Cowen. He also links to several other comments.
More to come.
As a primer to learn more about the decision and the law, here is a link to Tyler Cowen. He also links to several other comments.
More to come.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Education and Option Value from Bryan Caplan
Education and Option Value: A Conversation With Virgil Storr
This conversation cheered my soul. I have a lot of issues/objections/whatever with/to education in the US. Primarily, every day, it seems, I learn about a new field that I didn't even know existed. And I say, "Wow, if I had any idea that a person could do this for a living I would have started from day one."
This isn't 100% the fault of our educational institutions. But, who would have thought that a field like evolutionary psychology (link) existed? I sure didn't. I didn't hear about it until a few years ago. Honestly, before the internet, people may have gone their whole lives without hearing about the field.
Our schools need to upgrade and move away from training students in language and arts. The focus should be on skill development, career awareness, or just a flat out apprenticeship for people that know they want to work in computers.
Plenty would argue against this, saying kids are too young to make decisions. Fine, then just develop their skills in areas that allow them access to the widest array of careers possible such as math, computer science, economics :), electronics, accounting (boring), law, anything besides literature, painting, speaking a random language, etc.
This conversation cheered my soul. I have a lot of issues/objections/whatever with/to education in the US. Primarily, every day, it seems, I learn about a new field that I didn't even know existed. And I say, "Wow, if I had any idea that a person could do this for a living I would have started from day one."
This isn't 100% the fault of our educational institutions. But, who would have thought that a field like evolutionary psychology (link) existed? I sure didn't. I didn't hear about it until a few years ago. Honestly, before the internet, people may have gone their whole lives without hearing about the field.
Our schools need to upgrade and move away from training students in language and arts. The focus should be on skill development, career awareness, or just a flat out apprenticeship for people that know they want to work in computers.
Plenty would argue against this, saying kids are too young to make decisions. Fine, then just develop their skills in areas that allow them access to the widest array of careers possible such as math, computer science, economics :), electronics, accounting (boring), law, anything besides literature, painting, speaking a random language, etc.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Ayn Rand vs. Evolutionary Psychology
Rand vs. Evolutionary Psychology: Part 1, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
Is it appropriate to say that you love something like Evolutionary Psychology? It's probably fine, but it doesn't make much sense. So, instead I'll say that I find the field informative in the way that makes me want to start school over and dedicate my life to the field...sometimes. Since that's not an option, I'll just continue to use it to inform my beliefs about economics (broad category).
I also enjoyed reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Some of her non-fiction resonated as well, most of what I've read actually. So I hate to see Rand and Ev. Psych in conflict.
When the two fight, I'd have to side with Ev. Psych.
Is it appropriate to say that you love something like Evolutionary Psychology? It's probably fine, but it doesn't make much sense. So, instead I'll say that I find the field informative in the way that makes me want to start school over and dedicate my life to the field...sometimes. Since that's not an option, I'll just continue to use it to inform my beliefs about economics (broad category).
I also enjoyed reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Some of her non-fiction resonated as well, most of what I've read actually. So I hate to see Rand and Ev. Psych in conflict.
When the two fight, I'd have to side with Ev. Psych.
To Frack or not to Frack
From Marginal Revolution's Alex Tabarrok, see here.
Opponents of hydraulic fracturing often quote the contamination of groundwater as a worthy reason to stop the technique. But, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that fracking is worth around $100 billion to US consumers and the contamination of groundwater costs around $250 million. In other words, fracking makes more than enough money for the US economy to pay for the contamination it causes 400 times over.
The value to US consumers is certainly greater once you consider that "cleanliness" of natural gas versus other energy sources.
So, frack away.
Opponents of hydraulic fracturing often quote the contamination of groundwater as a worthy reason to stop the technique. But, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that fracking is worth around $100 billion to US consumers and the contamination of groundwater costs around $250 million. In other words, fracking makes more than enough money for the US economy to pay for the contamination it causes 400 times over.
The value to US consumers is certainly greater once you consider that "cleanliness" of natural gas versus other energy sources.
So, frack away.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Numbers Don't Lie...people do.
One of ESPN's Sportscenter episodes from June 23, 2012 extolled the virtues of Title IX. An anchor points out that some opponents of Title IX argue that it takes funds and participation away from male sports. She then segued to male reporter who proceeded to cite numbers showing increased participation rates in both male and female sports. The conclusion from the reporter and the anchor was that Title IX increased participation rates in sports for males AND females because numbers "don't lie."
We could follow the same logic. Suppose there is a two parent household with one male child on whom they can spend $100/month. Then, they have a second, female, child but their income remains the same. Will they spend more than $100/month? No, they can't afford it. They must split their spending on each child. The male gets $50/month as does the female.
The increase in male and female participation reflects the increase in popularity and profitability of collegiate sports. There is no question that athletics departments with finite resources must take income away from the lowest revenue producing male sports and reallocate income toward the highest producing female sports. Also, this reallocation reduces the number of scholarships for males but increases those available for females.
Bottom line: yes, diverting money from male sports and toward female sports does reduce the number of male sports and participants. But, that IS acceptable because it provides opportunity for female athletes that wouldn't exist otherwise, or at least did not exist in the past.
ESPN should be confident that their audience understands this fact rather than presenting numbers, claiming that numbers don't lie, and then lying about what the numbers mean.
We could follow the same logic. Suppose there is a two parent household with one male child on whom they can spend $100/month. Then, they have a second, female, child but their income remains the same. Will they spend more than $100/month? No, they can't afford it. They must split their spending on each child. The male gets $50/month as does the female.
The increase in male and female participation reflects the increase in popularity and profitability of collegiate sports. There is no question that athletics departments with finite resources must take income away from the lowest revenue producing male sports and reallocate income toward the highest producing female sports. Also, this reallocation reduces the number of scholarships for males but increases those available for females.
Bottom line: yes, diverting money from male sports and toward female sports does reduce the number of male sports and participants. But, that IS acceptable because it provides opportunity for female athletes that wouldn't exist otherwise, or at least did not exist in the past.
ESPN should be confident that their audience understands this fact rather than presenting numbers, claiming that numbers don't lie, and then lying about what the numbers mean.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Some Thoughts Between Me and a Few NYT's Economix Blog Readers
Here is the original link about Obama and the size of the government work force.
My First Response:
Crediting Obama for presiding over a decrease in the size of the public sector?
1) As mentioned, the majority of the public sector jobs reduction is from state and local governments.
2) This reduction is the result of....
A) Shrinking government revenues due to less economic activity.
B)The necessity of maintaining less than astronomical debt/revenue ratios in order to continue to finance state and local government activity through bond issues.
3) Your tone is adulatory, as if the president intended to reduce the public sector (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you sincerely admire the man for reducing the scope of government). If he did, then he spent over a trillion dollars to help the economy shed public sector jobs. It could have been done for a lot less, the cost of paying their unemployment benefits for example.
My Second Response:
Ross is not right. You fired your cashier bc you invested in a piece of advanced technology. Thus, you created demand for highly advanced technological goods. The person who made your advanced good gets paid much more than the cashier you fired and they spend a lot more. Yes, demand matters, but you were part of the demand for high end goods.
People who want to keep manufacturing, of the lower end type, in the United States miss a key point: low end means low productivity, low productivity means low income, low income cannot afford technologically advanced goods. Let the low productivity jobs leave this economy, let individuals or colleges or technical schools or whatever, find the next level of skills that will allow a person (cashier) to re-enter the workforce in a more productive capacity (point of sales station repair person). Then your cashier might have a chance in partaking of high end goods without assuming too much debt.
Third Response: Banty, think more clearly about the argument. No one claimed that low-level jobs would disappear, but the definition of low-level, low-skill, and low-investment jobs is dynamic (meaning it changes over time for you non-"phd level engineers" out there). Low-skill, low-investment, low-whatever jobs today are much more productive than their counterparts 25 years ago. In other words, many low-productivity jobs from 25 years ago no longer exist today, and many of the low-level jobs 25 years from now will seem highly technical and complicated compared to their contemporary counterparts.
The spectrum of jobs you describe has always existed, but the spectrum shifts along with technological advancement the same way that the bottom 20% of income earners shifts upward along with a society's overall level of wealth. No one would insist that a healthy distribution of wealth requires some people to make $1 a day, and no one would argue that a healthy labor force requires some people to still sew mittens by hand with sharpened wooden sticks. I've heard the argument before also, as a former barista, personal trainer (model....not really) and as a phd level economist. It makes sense to me.
Fourth Response: Obvious, the person in China makes components. Companies in advanced economies do not find it profitable to export the production of high-end technological goods to peasant economies like China, because the Chinese just can't do it. Any healthy economy engaged in trade outsources low productivity jobs as it creates higher productivity jobs. The less productive in society lose in this scenario, but there are training centers (including government funded ones) designed to upgrade their skills.
GKR, you didn't dispute anything I said. So which 75% is wrong. You just pointed out, I think, that an electrical engineer (or someone similar) has their work divided by 10,000 units. I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like you're saying that a cashier can make $1000, an electrical engineer can make 5*1000 = 5000, but then has to divide the 5000 by 10000. Then, 5000/10000 < 1000, so the electrical engineer makes less than the cashier?
Banty, check the math above before agreeing with GKR. Do not feel sorry for the cashie; by making sure that he or she always has a job as a cashier operating a piece of low-end technology, you essentially make sure that he or she always has a low-income and will never afford some of the neater gadgets a society puts out.
My First Response:
Crediting Obama for presiding over a decrease in the size of the public sector?
1) As mentioned, the majority of the public sector jobs reduction is from state and local governments.
2) This reduction is the result of....
A) Shrinking government revenues due to less economic activity.
B)The necessity of maintaining less than astronomical debt/revenue ratios in order to continue to finance state and local government activity through bond issues.
3) Your tone is adulatory, as if the president intended to reduce the public sector (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you sincerely admire the man for reducing the scope of government). If he did, then he spent over a trillion dollars to help the economy shed public sector jobs. It could have been done for a lot less, the cost of paying their unemployment benefits for example.
My Second Response:
Ross is not right. You fired your cashier bc you invested in a piece of advanced technology. Thus, you created demand for highly advanced technological goods. The person who made your advanced good gets paid much more than the cashier you fired and they spend a lot more. Yes, demand matters, but you were part of the demand for high end goods.
People who want to keep manufacturing, of the lower end type, in the United States miss a key point: low end means low productivity, low productivity means low income, low income cannot afford technologically advanced goods. Let the low productivity jobs leave this economy, let individuals or colleges or technical schools or whatever, find the next level of skills that will allow a person (cashier) to re-enter the workforce in a more productive capacity (point of sales station repair person). Then your cashier might have a chance in partaking of high end goods without assuming too much debt.
Third Response: Banty, think more clearly about the argument. No one claimed that low-level jobs would disappear, but the definition of low-level, low-skill, and low-investment jobs is dynamic (meaning it changes over time for you non-"phd level engineers" out there). Low-skill, low-investment, low-whatever jobs today are much more productive than their counterparts 25 years ago. In other words, many low-productivity jobs from 25 years ago no longer exist today, and many of the low-level jobs 25 years from now will seem highly technical and complicated compared to their contemporary counterparts.
The spectrum of jobs you describe has always existed, but the spectrum shifts along with technological advancement the same way that the bottom 20% of income earners shifts upward along with a society's overall level of wealth. No one would insist that a healthy distribution of wealth requires some people to make $1 a day, and no one would argue that a healthy labor force requires some people to still sew mittens by hand with sharpened wooden sticks. I've heard the argument before also, as a former barista, personal trainer (model....not really) and as a phd level economist. It makes sense to me.
Fourth Response: Obvious, the person in China makes components. Companies in advanced economies do not find it profitable to export the production of high-end technological goods to peasant economies like China, because the Chinese just can't do it. Any healthy economy engaged in trade outsources low productivity jobs as it creates higher productivity jobs. The less productive in society lose in this scenario, but there are training centers (including government funded ones) designed to upgrade their skills.
GKR, you didn't dispute anything I said. So which 75% is wrong. You just pointed out, I think, that an electrical engineer (or someone similar) has their work divided by 10,000 units. I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like you're saying that a cashier can make $1000, an electrical engineer can make 5*1000 = 5000, but then has to divide the 5000 by 10000. Then, 5000/10000 < 1000, so the electrical engineer makes less than the cashier?
Banty, check the math above before agreeing with GKR. Do not feel sorry for the cashie; by making sure that he or she always has a job as a cashier operating a piece of low-end technology, you essentially make sure that he or she always has a low-income and will never afford some of the neater gadgets a society puts out.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Income Inequality
I saw an interesting tweet the other day, I forget by whom. The tweet was short and to the point (not surprising). Since I don't recall the exact words, I'll paraphrase: protesting against income INequality, or lamenting income INequality is somewhat strange since it supposes that there could ever be such a thing as income EQuality.
Could a world actually exist with pure income equality? In other words, all income must be redistributed to others until their income is equal to yours?
Is focusing on the concept of income equality even productive? Would we be better off focusing on providing equal incentives for saving, investment, further income generation, equal across the entire range of income? I think so.
Could a world actually exist with pure income equality? In other words, all income must be redistributed to others until their income is equal to yours?
Is focusing on the concept of income equality even productive? Would we be better off focusing on providing equal incentives for saving, investment, further income generation, equal across the entire range of income? I think so.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Occupy Wall Street Rolls Up (or out of) Into Greg Mankiw's Class at Harvard
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Tax
How does the 999 plan affect income? Here is the Tax Policy Center's score of the plan with respect to the tax change by cash income percentile.
Does it look fair? Can you even interpret it?
Does it look fair? Can you even interpret it?
Four Policy Mistakes
Greg Mankiw, here, outlines four countries that we do NOT want to emulate. More specifically, we want to avoid their policy mistakes. Some might argue that France is lovely, and the people of Japan are noble, but that does not mean their governments do not make some silly decisions.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Habit Audit
Keith McCullough, retweeting from Ancient Proverbs, said this on his twitter account: "First, you make your habits. Then your habits make you." This quote isnpired me to examine the opportunity cost of my habits, i.e. how much I give up to engage in any particular habit.
This isn't easy. I don't have a readily available metric with which to measure opportunity cost. Example: Option A: Workout for 1 hr. Option B: Work 1 hr for $10/hr. Opportunity cost is $10.00. This dichotomy does not hold for most of us. That is, your other option besides working out is probably not to go work for $10/hr somewhere. So how do we measure opportunity cost? You could try to guage the value of the next best thing you could do with your time. So, if you wake up and watch an hour of Sportscenter, the opportunity cost of doing that is the most productive use of your time you can find (besides watching Sportscenter which you must feel is productive or valuable in some way). For me, this probably involves studying or something similar that I'm not always motivated to do.
Now, the primary point here is that most of us engage in quite a few habitual activities without recognizing them as such. This leads to an immense time and productivity drain if those habits are not productive, or not the best use of your time.
So, the Habit Audit is a way to get some control over where your resources are flowing. How much time per day do you spend engaging in non-productive activities? What habits could you replace with new habits, and what might be some measurable outcomes (example: an increase in your GPA)
This isn't easy. I don't have a readily available metric with which to measure opportunity cost. Example: Option A: Workout for 1 hr. Option B: Work 1 hr for $10/hr. Opportunity cost is $10.00. This dichotomy does not hold for most of us. That is, your other option besides working out is probably not to go work for $10/hr somewhere. So how do we measure opportunity cost? You could try to guage the value of the next best thing you could do with your time. So, if you wake up and watch an hour of Sportscenter, the opportunity cost of doing that is the most productive use of your time you can find (besides watching Sportscenter which you must feel is productive or valuable in some way). For me, this probably involves studying or something similar that I'm not always motivated to do.
Now, the primary point here is that most of us engage in quite a few habitual activities without recognizing them as such. This leads to an immense time and productivity drain if those habits are not productive, or not the best use of your time.
So, the Habit Audit is a way to get some control over where your resources are flowing. How much time per day do you spend engaging in non-productive activities? What habits could you replace with new habits, and what might be some measurable outcomes (example: an increase in your GPA)
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Who Pays More...?
Who pays more in federal income tax, your grandma the plumber/teacher of the disabled and infirm, or Warren Buffett? Take a look at this link (from Greg Mankiw's Blog) to the Effective Federal Tax Rates based on income.
The lesson: The wealthiest pay 30.4 of their income to their government. The middle income distribution pays 14.1. So...billionaires already pay more than secretaries.
The lesson: The wealthiest pay 30.4 of their income to their government. The middle income distribution pays 14.1. So...billionaires already pay more than secretaries.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Learning By Doing
Learning by Doing could refer to a particular class of models in the Macro literature, or it could just describe what humans do when they do stuff.... The last few days I've been preoccupied with the importance of, for lack of a better word, starting.
Think of the time value of money and compounding interest. It's important to start a retirement account as early as possible so that you can earn compounding interest over that time. But money is not the only thing that behaves like this. I generally expect things to be easy. That is, because I find something conceptually easy, I often expect the details to be similarly easy; a silly assumption. Example: planning a budget. Seems easy, right? It is, conceptually, but there are quite a few assumptions you have to make. Do you count income earned in August, but paid in September as September or August income. Not that this is too difficult, but you have to decide or things get confusing. Also, when you project your financial positions 1, 3, or 5 years into the future, there is a bit of error. You have to go back and plug in actual values in place of your estimations, and you have to recognize that this is what you are doing. Again, not a complicated task, but it can make your spreadsheets look messy.
My point is this: you may not know the optimal way to build your spreadsheet on day one, because you don't anticipate all the information you will need at future dates. Building the optimal spreadsheet for your needs takes practice, time, and repetition. If I had started budgeting on my 18th birthday, I would have a pretty solid understanding of how to build my optimal spreadsheet by now.
What other activities fall under this category? Well....just about every activity a human undertakes, right? The more complex the task, the greater the importance of starting early. This train of thought led me to ask questions regarding where one chooses to live and economic growth.
I'm sure more rigorous thinking would lead me to abandon this line of thought, but let's entertain it. The best way to develop expertise is to practice a specific task or occupation over and over. The variety of tasks available for individuals to choose from is greater in urban areas than in rural. Society's resources are optimized when every person specializes in something they have the lowest opportunity cost in pursuing (i.e., do the most valuable thing you are good at). Growing up in a rural area limits the exposure one has to various occupations. Consequently, one may not find that task that they have the lowest opportunity cost in doing, and thus society's resources may be allocated less than optimally. But, does this mean we should encourage relocation to urban areas? Does this happen naturally (small towns decline as economic opportunities decline)? I'll leave the discussion for now, there is certainly much more to say and consider. Readers' thoughts are encouraged.
Think of the time value of money and compounding interest. It's important to start a retirement account as early as possible so that you can earn compounding interest over that time. But money is not the only thing that behaves like this. I generally expect things to be easy. That is, because I find something conceptually easy, I often expect the details to be similarly easy; a silly assumption. Example: planning a budget. Seems easy, right? It is, conceptually, but there are quite a few assumptions you have to make. Do you count income earned in August, but paid in September as September or August income. Not that this is too difficult, but you have to decide or things get confusing. Also, when you project your financial positions 1, 3, or 5 years into the future, there is a bit of error. You have to go back and plug in actual values in place of your estimations, and you have to recognize that this is what you are doing. Again, not a complicated task, but it can make your spreadsheets look messy.
My point is this: you may not know the optimal way to build your spreadsheet on day one, because you don't anticipate all the information you will need at future dates. Building the optimal spreadsheet for your needs takes practice, time, and repetition. If I had started budgeting on my 18th birthday, I would have a pretty solid understanding of how to build my optimal spreadsheet by now.
What other activities fall under this category? Well....just about every activity a human undertakes, right? The more complex the task, the greater the importance of starting early. This train of thought led me to ask questions regarding where one chooses to live and economic growth.
I'm sure more rigorous thinking would lead me to abandon this line of thought, but let's entertain it. The best way to develop expertise is to practice a specific task or occupation over and over. The variety of tasks available for individuals to choose from is greater in urban areas than in rural. Society's resources are optimized when every person specializes in something they have the lowest opportunity cost in pursuing (i.e., do the most valuable thing you are good at). Growing up in a rural area limits the exposure one has to various occupations. Consequently, one may not find that task that they have the lowest opportunity cost in doing, and thus society's resources may be allocated less than optimally. But, does this mean we should encourage relocation to urban areas? Does this happen naturally (small towns decline as economic opportunities decline)? I'll leave the discussion for now, there is certainly much more to say and consider. Readers' thoughts are encouraged.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Social Security Fun
Here, Tabarrok outlines a couple of views on Social Security.
Person 1: Anyone who thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme is nuts.
Person 2: SS is a Ponzi scheme that WORKS! A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever contrived.
Person 3: SS is a Ponzi scheme...may or may not work. Tabarrok doesn't specify this person's view.
Person 4: SS is a Ponzi scheme that used to work great, now it has just gone flat and may even pay you less than you put in.
Persons 2, 3, and 4 are all Nobel Prize winners.
Oh, a Ponzi scheme is an investment scheme where people who invest initially are paid returns from money invested by other people (or their own money) not from any returns actually made through investing (think Bernie Madoff or Tom Petters (this guy dated my cousin!!)
So, is SS a Ponzi scheme? For more info, read the links!
Person 1: Anyone who thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme is nuts.
Person 2: SS is a Ponzi scheme that WORKS! A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever contrived.
Person 3: SS is a Ponzi scheme...may or may not work. Tabarrok doesn't specify this person's view.
Person 4: SS is a Ponzi scheme that used to work great, now it has just gone flat and may even pay you less than you put in.
Persons 2, 3, and 4 are all Nobel Prize winners.
Oh, a Ponzi scheme is an investment scheme where people who invest initially are paid returns from money invested by other people (or their own money) not from any returns actually made through investing (think Bernie Madoff or Tom Petters (this guy dated my cousin!!)
So, is SS a Ponzi scheme? For more info, read the links!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
A Good Question
Russ Roberts asks a good question here.
Which is best for stimulating the economy? 1) If you have a bunch of unemployed carpenters, drop a bomb on a big city (evacuate the citizens first and put them up in rental homes), then employ the carpenters to rebuild that city. 2) Just give the unemployed carpenters the amount of money they would have earned working, but don't destroy the city. 3) Figure out why there are so many unemployed carpenters, then address that.
Many Keynesians argue that number 1 is the best idea. Roberts, and I, disagree.
Which is best for stimulating the economy? 1) If you have a bunch of unemployed carpenters, drop a bomb on a big city (evacuate the citizens first and put them up in rental homes), then employ the carpenters to rebuild that city. 2) Just give the unemployed carpenters the amount of money they would have earned working, but don't destroy the city. 3) Figure out why there are so many unemployed carpenters, then address that.
Many Keynesians argue that number 1 is the best idea. Roberts, and I, disagree.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Fools...
NASA employs fools..so does Pennsylvania State University. I'm sure this article is not an indictment of everyone working for these organizations; but, what these people are saying is stupid.
On second thought, they may have been joking, and it's the U.K.'s the Guardian that is making a fool of itself in the interest of promoting fear over global warming.
Most Econ 101 students should be able to provide one compelling reason why aliens are not likely to destroy the human race to prevent us from spreading greenhouse gasses to other planets....what would that reason be? Go!!
Here's my guess: a race advanced enough to make interstellar travel reasonable (in terms of how long it takes to go from solar system to solar system) is probably advanced enough to have an energy source other than those that emit greenhouse gasses. Or, they may still use such sources, but use it very efficiently. So, rather than conduct a military operation, they might just shoot us a quick email about how to improve our energy usage (I'm assuming a race whose first instinct is to blow stuff up, including entire species and planets, probably wouldn't last long enough to achieve space flight...they might...but I doubt it.
On second thought, they may have been joking, and it's the U.K.'s the Guardian that is making a fool of itself in the interest of promoting fear over global warming.
Most Econ 101 students should be able to provide one compelling reason why aliens are not likely to destroy the human race to prevent us from spreading greenhouse gasses to other planets....what would that reason be? Go!!
Here's my guess: a race advanced enough to make interstellar travel reasonable (in terms of how long it takes to go from solar system to solar system) is probably advanced enough to have an energy source other than those that emit greenhouse gasses. Or, they may still use such sources, but use it very efficiently. So, rather than conduct a military operation, they might just shoot us a quick email about how to improve our energy usage (I'm assuming a race whose first instinct is to blow stuff up, including entire species and planets, probably wouldn't last long enough to achieve space flight...they might...but I doubt it.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
How Not to Be Persuasive
...because, it makes you sound smart and thrills the multitudes of thought-hating, reason-eschewing (eschew: to shun) individuals that comprise your audience.
Joe Nacera, in his article here, accuses Obama and Conservatives of having offered no real solutions to high unemployment. He argues that Conservatives continue to offer non-solutions based off of tax-cuts for the wealthy, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. For Joe, "mounds" of evidence consist of such brilliant and highly reputed sources like the Huffington Post, and The Atlantic. One journalist with left-leaning political views citing other leftward leaning journalists does not make a strong case any more than would an academic citing only his or her own work in a paper.
Joe should at least acknowledge that there is a certain level of corporate taxation that would push producers of goods and services from the market. Once one admits this level exists (we may not know what it is exactly) then it follows that once beyond this level, a decrease in taxes will serve as an incentive for producers to reenter the market, and thus, lower unemployment.
What Joe should really concern himself with is whether we are beyond this level, or not. That's where the debate is, and where contributions to that debate are useful.
Joe Nacera, in his article here, accuses Obama and Conservatives of having offered no real solutions to high unemployment. He argues that Conservatives continue to offer non-solutions based off of tax-cuts for the wealthy, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. For Joe, "mounds" of evidence consist of such brilliant and highly reputed sources like the Huffington Post, and The Atlantic. One journalist with left-leaning political views citing other leftward leaning journalists does not make a strong case any more than would an academic citing only his or her own work in a paper.
Joe should at least acknowledge that there is a certain level of corporate taxation that would push producers of goods and services from the market. Once one admits this level exists (we may not know what it is exactly) then it follows that once beyond this level, a decrease in taxes will serve as an incentive for producers to reenter the market, and thus, lower unemployment.
What Joe should really concern himself with is whether we are beyond this level, or not. That's where the debate is, and where contributions to that debate are useful.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
I was forced to...
...eat a cheeseburger the other day. Don Boudreaux comments on Elizabeth Newton's stupid comments. Some feel, often journalists, that their intellect is far enough above that of everyone else that they do not feel the need to think before they speak, or write in this case. Newton's letter to the editor in the New York Times is an example of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)