Monday, October 24, 2011

KPC Dallas summit

Mungo and I converged on Dallas yesterday to take in game 4 of the WS. We warmed up by eating a pile of pupusas (the official food of KPC by the way) and then headed to the game early, to see STL take BP (which was pretty much the only time they hit the whole game). While the outcome was disappointing, the experience was tremendous.

The Rangers have a great ballpark, super fans and a fun team. Their only real drawback is GEORGE F. BUSH, who threw out the first pitch to a standing O!

Some foties:





Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Do We Remember Bad Things More? Not in Baseball...

Effects of Event Valence on Long-Term Memory for Two Baseball Championship Games

Carolyn Breslin & Martin Safer, Psychological Science, forthcoming

Abstract: We investigated how event valence affected accuracy and vividness of
long-term memory for two comparable public events. In 2008, 1,563 fans answered questions about objective details concerning two decisive baseball championship games between the Yankees (2003 winners) and the Red Sox (2004 winners). Both between- and within-groups analyses indicated that fans remembered the game their team won significantly more accurately than the game their team lost. Fans also reported more vividness and more rehearsal for the game their team won. We conclude that individuals rehearse positive events more than comparable negative events, and that this additional rehearsal increases both vividness and accuracy of memories about positive events. Our results differ from those of prior studies involving memories for negative events that may have been unavoidably rehearsed; such rehearsal may have kept those memories from fading. Long-term memory for an event is
determined not only by the valence of the event, but also by experiences after the event.

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

LAGNIAPPE: Along those lines...

Labels: ,

They see me rollin'. They hatin'

Despite last minute hysterics from the usual suspects, the first Mexican truck rolled across the border on Friday. Mexico has now cancelled the $2 billion in tariffs they put on American products in retaliation for Obama's 2009 cancellation of an earlier Mexican trucking pilot program.

According to the NAFTA agreement of 1994, Mexican trucks were supposed to have full access to border states by 1995 and access to all of the USA by 2000 (Canadian trucks enjoy this same full access)!

The current "program" for letting Mexican trucks in is so protectionist that only 11 companies are going through the certification process. There are electronic monitors to measure how long the trucks are running. There are drug tests and English tests for the drivers. All things we do not mandate for drivers of American trucks. If it really is a safety issue, then these measures should be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.

The mix of protectionism and racism on display here is unseemly to say the least.



Labels: , , ,

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Deliverance Economics

Yoo sher got a pretty multiplier....

Labels:

Early Human Fossil

Scientists have found what may be the first elected official.

Labels: ,

Friday, October 21, 2011

Subversive

Turns out that the TSA considers the US Bill of Rights to be subversive. You can be arrested for reading it.

Just stand in line and keep quiet, and hope they don't notice you.

Labels:

Liberty Book Club?

Anybody up for a virtual Liberty Book Club?

KPC fan Brandon Capitalism writes, "Would you be willing to ask on your blog, if any students would be interested in starting a Students for Liberty / IHS Book Club?

They would read the books listed on your blog. And they could, if they wanted, have debates about the books on our Capitalism Facebook page (up to 40k members). I would love that and help them as an Leadership Institute field rep... The vision is for students to organize themselves to study the ideas that Universities don't.
"

Sounds good to me. Contact Brandon Capitalism if you want more info...

Labels:

Giving Stimulus a bad name since 2009

President O's $447 billion stimulus, er, I mean jobs bill has been rejected by Congress. Now the pieces are coming up in the Senate, one at a time.

The first was a proposal to give $35 billion to State and Local governments to support salaries for teachers, cops & firefighters. It's paid for by a surtax on people earning more than $1 million a year.

People, when did stimulus come to mean shoveling money to public employee union members only? when did stimulus come to mean tax increases?

According to WAPO, $30 billion of the money would "Support almost 400,000 education jobs for one year".

Notice that the word "support" in there means they are not claiming almost 400,000 new jobs; this is the old "create or preserve" rhetoric.

Suppose the bill really could deliver 400,000 new teaching jobs for one year. At $75,000 per job/year that would be a marvel of government efficiency. But why teachers? why not $37,500 for 800,000 construction workers? Or cut a check for $18,750 to 1.6 million unemployed people selected by lottery? or $9,375 to 3.2 million unemployed people?

This isn't stimulus; this is simple redistribution from a likely pro GOP group to a likely pro Democratic Party group. No wonder the Republicans are against it.

(Yes I know that one can argue schoolteachers have a higher MPC than do "millionaires", but that would be at best a second order effect, and this effect would be bigger if the money went straight to more unemployed people)



Labels: , ,

Our Correspondent, Anonyman

Anonyman, in the field for a KPC exclusive, sends this report:

"Apparently, they have agreed on a sign!"

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Someone needs to give orders....

They were Rousseauvians. But now Hobbes is starting to sound more right. Time someone was in charge; too many liberties.

From the OWS folks in the stinky park....

From today’s battles, it’s not yet clear who will win the day: the organizers or the organized. But the month-long protest has clearly grown and evolved to a point where a truly leaderless movement will risk eviction — or, worse, insurrection.

As the communal sleeping bag argument between Lauren Digion and Sage Roberts threatened to get out of hand, a facilitator in a red hat walked by, brow furrowed. “Remember? You’re not allowed to do any more interviews,” he said to Digion. She nodded and went back to work. But when Roberts shouted, “Don’t tell me what to do!” Digion couldn't hold back.

“Someone has to be told what to do," she said. "Someone needs to give orders. There’s no sense of order in this fucking place.”


Not even anarchists believe in anarchy. Someone needs to give orders. Hee hee!

This is actually a reason that I do support the OWS thing, nationwide. It's time kids found out that "spontaneous politics" is dangerous nonsense. In markets nobody has to give orders, because someone would OWN that spot. In this communal arrangement where some are just more equal than others, someone has to give orders, and eventually will have to bring in guns to back up those orders.

A nice WSJ article on the proceedings. Catatonic? Heh.

(Nod to Anonyman, whose wife gives HIM orders)

Labels:

Apologies and Social Capital

Apologies as Signals: With Evidence from a Trust Game, Benjamin Ho, Management Science, forthcoming

Abstract: Apologies are part of a social institution designed to restore frayed relationships not only in daily life but also in the domains of corporate governance, medical malpractice litigation, political reputation, organizational culture, etc. The theory shows that in a general class of moral hazard games with imperfect information about agents with two-dimensional type, apologies exhibit regular properties — e.g., apologies are more frequent in long relationships, early in relationships, and between better-matched partners. A variant of the trust game demonstrates that communication matters in a manner consistent with economic theory; specifically, the words “I am sorry” appear to select equilibrium behavior consistent with the theory's main predictions.

----------------------

Does Social Capital Promote Safety on the Roads?, Matthew Nagler, Economic Inquiry, forthcoming

Abstract: I present evidence that social capital reduces traffic accidents and related death and injury, using data from a 10-year panel of 48 U.S. states. The econometric challenge is to distinguish the causal effects of social capital from bias resulting from its correlation with unobservable characteristics by state that influence road risks. I accomplish this by employing snow depth as an instrument, and by restricting attention to summertime accidents. My results show that social capital has a statistically significant and sizable negative effect on crashes, traffic fatalities, serious traffic injuries, and pedestrian fatalities that holds up across a range of specifications.


(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

Labels: , ,

Ron Paul loses his Sh*t in the WSJ

Really!

Here is the money quote: "The Fed's quantitative easing programs increased the national debt by trillions of dollars."

Good luck 'splainin' that one away. The article is here.

People, Ron Paul is a gynecologist, not an economist (and it shows).

To crib a phrase from Mungowitz, he's "straight up loony tunes".

Which is why he fits in so well with the rest of the Republican presidential candidates.

Labels: ,

Joe Biden Loses His Sh*t in Philadelphia

VP Biden sells jobs bill to 4th graders. Really.

That man J-Bide is a loony tune, straight up. This is pretty amazing. Howard Dean just said "yeaaaah!"

Nod to the Blonde

UPDATE: Jason Mattera asks an obvious question: How many of the rapes that Prof. Biden is upset about could have been prevented with the half billion US dollars poured down the Solyndra rathole? Those Solyndra jobs were pretty "temporary," weren't they, J-Bide?

Labels:

Cards Rap



Nod to the Blonde

Labels:

Big Foot, but not THAT Big!

Man orders size 14.5 slipper, gets size 1450.

Not convinced that this is real. A little too pat, at the expense of those "wacky Chinese." Still, a good picture. "Real" slipper at lower left.


(Nod to the Blonde)

UPDATE: More and more questions. "His oversized foot..." FOOT? He only has one? Apparently, because he even says, "I am going to sell it on Ebay." Not them, it. Wouldn't it be a little strange to get an order for one slipper? I mean, even separately from the size 1450 thing, which is probably pretty common, if Art Carden buys shoes. Overall, I cry bullish.

Labels: ,

An observation entirely appropriate for the Euro debt summiteers

“After one strips out all the window dressing there is no way to make $6 billion in liquidity worth more than $6 billion in liquidity. But there are several creative ways to make it less.”

~Ken Rogoff [quoted by Paul Blustein in his wonderful book "And the Money Kept Rolling In (and Out)]

Labels: ,

You have been E-mooned!

Assicons: The new cool emoticons for people over 30 who never do anything cool, so that this isn't actually cool, either. Nonetheless... assicons:

(_!_) a regular ass

(__!__) a fat ass

(!) a tight ass

(_*_) an ass hole

{_!_} a ass out on the floor shakin'

(_o_) an ass that's been around

(_x_) kiss my ass

(_X_) leave my ass alone

(_zzz_) a tired ass

(_E=mc2_) a smart ass

(_$_) Money coming out of his ass

(_?_) Blonde Ass

.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Irony is Dead. Up is Down. Through the looking glass....

"Our" solar producers are mad because their subsidies (which are more than 100% of their total revenues!!!) are not as big as the Chinese subsidies.

Pot, I want you to meet Kettle. Hey! Which is which? You subsidized government activities all look the same.

Nod to Anonyman.

Labels: ,

Caption Contest

So, please put in the best caption, in comments. (This picture is from the SFL conference at Salem College; pic taken by Mark Benfield).

Feel free to click for an even more ridciulous image...


.

Labels:

you make the call


Whattya think people? Is this an endorsement of vegetarianism or nymphomania?

Labels:

Some Facts on Green Jobs

Now, I understand that no sensible person actually believes that "green jobs" are going to save the economy.

Saying that we need green jobs is just a way of justifying increased government payments to corrupt shell corporations like Solyndra. I bet the perpetrators of this fraud are actually pretty amused that it worked.

But here are some facts: even if the maximum good things happen, the impact will be negligible. And it is not likely that anything good will happen.

(A nod to @mfbellemare , who is not complicit in my interpretation)

Labels:

Links

VdR on the stimulus. Nice resource.

Jeff Miron on consequentialist and deontological libertarianism. Since no more than 2% of the US population knows what either of these words mean, it is an illustration of why libertarianisms' cultivated irrelevance is like to survive.

The "Battle for Brooklyn." Very cool, very interesting.

The Mitt-tator calls China out for being a currency manipulator. After we have implmented the Rogoff-Krugman plan and have 6% inflation, presumably the Mitt-tator will call out the U.S. for being a currency manipulator.

Bail-out? Fannie and the Fred have PLENTY of cash, thank you very much. And the Ben Bernank says there is more where that came from.

.

Labels: ,

My kingdom for a counter-factual

Popular Macro debates are getting so tiresome, strident and pointless. The standard of what counts as evidence has fallen to ludicrous levels, even for people who should know better.

For example, consider this common line of reasoning: Tax cuts don't work. After all, taxes were higher under Clinton than under Shrub and the economy performed better under Clinton.

Or this one: Stimulus doesn't work. After all, we spend $800 billion and unemployment just kept going up.

Both of these arguments are non-germane and virtually worthless because no reasonable counterfactual is being offered.

We are not told what would have happened under Clinton if taxes had been cut, or what would have happened under Shrub if taxes had not been lowered. The comparison offered holds no water because it is unreasonable to assume that the only factor that varied between the two time periods relevant for explaining economic outcome is the Federal Tax Schedule. We know that is not true.

The stimulus argument is even weaker. To evaluate its effect, we need to know what would have happened without its application. It is unreasonable to assume that the only factor that varied which was relevant for unemployment was the stimulus.

People, anytime you see a strong empirical claim being made and the supporting evidence is a graph or an anecdote or simple comparison of A vs. B, ask yourself: what is the counterfactual being offered? Is it reasonable?

To my mind, it is precisely because Macro is a non-experimental field (meaning convincing counterfactuals are difficult to find) that it has become so politicized. People can look at the same events and draw diametrically opposing conclusions.

Macro has all the interesting questions, but Lord is it hard to find good answers!

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

She Blinded Greece with Science

Benford's Law, applied to Greece.

Thanks to the ward boss...

Oh, and that's "Benford," not Binford.

Labels: ,

Props to P-Kroog

Interesting, thoughtful article.

By Paul Krugman, lest we forget that he is actually a very smart man.

Labels: ,

Blackberries Cause Traffic Accidents

The effect, 40%, seems implausible. Still, interesting.

The original article in the UAE paper, THE NATIONAL.

Nod to the Blonde.

Labels: ,

Looks like Intraders have discovered Hibbs

On Intrade this morning, Obama's re-election probability is 47.9%, which is the low point for this contract:





This low-ish probability of re-election is now in line with what my main man Doug Hibbs has been predicting via his "Bread & Peace" model, namely Obama loses (Hibbs is predicting 46.2% of the vote for Obama):




(clic the pics for a more Romnian view)

Hibbs has been predicting an Obama loss since May, which is when the Intrade Obama contract peaked at 70% (due to his RIP OBL bounce).

All hail the Stormin' Mormon?

Labels: , ,

The View of the Fed, 1912


(Click for a dramatically more paranoid image)

And a shout out nod to Plasmaquatic Technolithic Mist

Labels:

Monday, October 17, 2011

Euvoluntary Exchange In NRO

Interesting NRO piece by Reihan Salam on Euvoluntary Exchange. Nice examples. And the question at the end is the right one. I just don't know the answer.

What are the sources of the disparities we care, or rather that we should care, about?

Labels:

Occupy Wall Street--Carter Administration Edition

When you have an inept President who blames employers for not hiring people, you get this. From 1979, but quite fresh and timely. No jazz hands, though, which is a shame.



Nod to the Blonde...

Labels: ,

G'accuse!

Where seldom is heard, a missing G word, and judges do strip searches all day!

At the World Scrabble Finals in Warsaw, one competitor accused another having hidden the "G" tile. He demanded that the miscreant be strip searched to find the missing tile.

In the US this would have been done, as long as the guy spoke Spanish and had committed a traffic offense. But not in Poland.

(Yes, the title is intentionally misspelled)

Nod to the Blonde

Labels: ,

Jazz Hands



Wow, these OWS guys are even more self-congratulatory than this blog! And we are (mostly) kidding when we self-congratulate.

I do like the jazz hands.

Finally, Angus, in spite of his protests, would last about 90 seconds in this crowd before he got into a fight with one of them. Their diagnosis, I will admit, is in some important ways correct. Their prescription for cure? Not so much. Angus's claim that he could be in that crowd and not make fun of it.... that made ME laugh. Good one.

Labels:

we going to Sizzler!




One of the few good things about going to Wash U was Cardinals baseball. Me and Mungo were there for some pretty good years (1980-84). We would sit in the LF bleachers (I want to say that tickets were $1.50 but that can't be right can it?), smoke cheap cigars, chant obscenities at the people in the RF bleachers and hate the Cubs. A couple times we even took the train to Chicago and caught a Cards-Cubs game at Wrigley. Jeez, no wonder we almost didn't make it through the program!

Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 16, 2011

I'm down with OWS!

I, Angus, just want to tell you all that, contrary to my good friend and co-blogger Mungowitz, I am totally down with and supportive of the OWS movement.

The ever stronger link between big finance and big government is really hurting this country, and who knows, maybe OWS will start the ball rolling somehow to improve things.

Even if it doesn't, who are they really hurting?

I say let 'em protest in peace with a minimum of mockery.

Heck, if there was an Occupy Norman, I might check it out. Maybe find some elevators where we could push all the buttons at once....

Labels: , , ,

Special Bagels or Something

Actual Egyptians near the park of OWS in New York are scornful of the "pain" of rich kids whining about hardship.  An interesting bit...

As Anonyman summarizes it:

But although she said the destitution in the square reminded her of the Third World, the occupation didn’t strike her as another Tahrir. “We were fighting for a big, big thing: for life, to eat, against a giant snake that would kill us.” Unsurprisingly, she employs a smart breakfast metaphor: “Here, they’re not fighting to eat, say, regular bread, but … special bagels or something.”

Labels: ,

The Grand Game: Farmer Bob Edition

In the contest for worst analogy ever, "The economy is like a farm" has GOT to be a serious contender. In today's NY Times, Bob Shiller trots it out for a spin.

Let's start at the beginning. I grew up in a rural setting and have worked on farms. Farmers don't wait until winter to fix their fences. If there is a break in the fence and the cows are loose, you fix the damn fence then and there. Same with your barn. If there's a hole in the barn roof in June, you don't wait until January to patch it.

Then there's what I think is the weirdest part of the analogy:

The farm needn’t go into debt to do this. All able-bodied people on the farm are expected to contribute their labor, an imposition we can view as an informal tax.

In my experience, farmers laid off many of their seasonal workers after the harvest. Those that were kept on, to deal with animals or to do projects were paid hourly wages. They weren't "expected to contribute their labor".

The farmer had to save part of the farm's income to pay for what workers were needed in periods when the farm wasn't making a lot of income.

(A lot of the kids I knew that lived on farms were expected to make this "contribution" year round and they really really hated it. Winter was their favorite time of year because they didn't have to work nearly as hard)

I acknowledge that in some areas of the country and for some types of farms, business is seasonal. However, farmers mostly deal with that seasonality by laying off workers!


P.S.

The funniest thing of all about this is probably the title of the HTML link for the article which I reproduce here for your enjoyment (I am NOT making this up):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/business/a-proven-principle-behind-obamas-jobs-plan.html


Labels: ,

Saturday, October 15, 2011

be careful what you wish for







Labels:

T-Russ on "To Tell the Truth"



Just ... wow.  Excellent protective camouflage, wearing that suit. 

Labels:

Friday, October 14, 2011

James Madison on Property: Your Dog Does Not Own Your House

(A piece I wrote for the Miller Center) "A Scholar’s View: James Madison’s View on Property"


     Americans believe that property is necessary for liberty. But how can my liberty be enhanced by an institution that excludes me from so many things? In his article for the National Gazette in 1792, James Madison addressed this paradox squarely. The quaint thing about his resolution of the paradox, almost pathetic in retrospect, is the completely assured way in which Madison describes how property, far from being a threat to liberty, is its very foundation. In our modern age, property seems to mean nothing more than that portion of the fruits of our labor that government deigns let us keep. How did things change so much?
      Madison, of course, was a primary architect of the Constitution. He defined property, in that 1792 article, as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual. In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.”
      Madison continues: “In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandise, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.” His conclusion? “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights.” This is no Buddhist koan, a semantic paradox like “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” What Madison meant, and what the U.S. Constitution should mean, is that rights of conscience and rights of property are of a piece, mutually reinforcing. Each American owns his or her rights, and our right to own property is what affords autonomy and independence from the collective will.
      Our freedoms are not guaranteed by majority rule, or by “rights” of political representation. Those things are threats to our true rights. Otherwise there would be no 1st Amendment protection for the press, for speech, or for rights of conscience. Likewise, and on the same level (because the same essential thing), there would be no 5th Amendment protection against the taking of property without due process and without just compensation.
     Madison drives home the point later in the piece, when he describes a “just” government, presumably the kind of government the Founders hoped the Constitution might create. His words ring true, but hollow, for us today, for many of Madison’s premonitions of injustice have come to pass if fact. “A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species; where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.”
       The American Constitution creates a powerful institution, government, to protect our rights to property, and to defend our property in our rights. The core of those liberties are those properties, of both industry and of conscience, that we have fairly obtained for ourselves by work and reflection. Yet our industry is now yoked to a “partnership” with government for the rich, who are told that corporations and equal protection under the law are privileges, granted by the good graces of government and by no essential right. And the consciences of the poor are to be shaped by dependence on public viands to sustain the body, the mind, and the soul. Relieved of all responsibility, they are robbed of all rights.
        Our government, because it protects my rights and my property, has come to claim that my rights are a privilege, and my property is not my own. I would answer, and I suspect that Madison would agree, that such claims are akin to believing that your dog owns your house.

Labels: ,

Remy on Occupy Wall Street



UPDATE: The camera woman is crying, the guy is crying, and they are bizarrely, defending some conception of property rights. This is OURS, you can't take it. "We" can take yachts, and money, and property, from OTHER people, but not from this snotty kid.

Labels: ,

Vladette the Impaler?

So, Raleigh women are getting war chests? Does that look like this?


Aaaaieee! Run for lives! She will stick you with her war chest!

(Nod to the Blonde)

Labels: ,

In the Navy...

This is disturbing. Or it would be, if it were not so predictable.

Labels:

that's nacho cheese

I love Mexico but MAN oh MAN are things messed up there. Check this gem from the WSJ:

Days after the Casino Royale fire, Monterrey's leading newspaper published a video showing the brother of the PAN mayor of Monterrey, Fernando Larrazabal, receiving wads of money at one Monterrey casino. The paper suggested that many of the city's casinos, which lack legal permits, were paying off city officials—and drug gangs—to stay open.

The mayor has denied wrongdoing. His brother, Jonas Larrazabal, says the money was payment for selling cheese to the casinos.


There is a grand Mexican tradition of the politician's brother as bagman (Raul Salinas, you KNOW I'm talking about you), and apparently the PAN is not immune to it.

The whole article is interesting and depressing. A thriving illegal casino industry operates with impunity across the nation.

Labels: , ,

Good Grief: What does Obama have against Lee Myung-bak?

The South Korean president is here to celebrate the US-Korea FTA signing. Here is what our President has planned for him:

"Obama on Friday will then take Lee for a road trip to Detroit, home of the U.S. auto industry."

Let's break this sentence down, Tosh.O style:

1. A "road trip"? Are they DRIVING FROM DC to DETROIT? Who's paying for gas? If they use an electric car, how many days will that take?

2. Where, upon arrival, UAW officials will bury Lee under a parking lot, Jimmy Hoffa style?

3. Maybe President Lee has a thing for vacant lots or $11,000 houses?

4. Umm, Mr. President, I don't think Detroit is actually the Home of the US Auto industry anymore. Are you going to use a time machine and take him to Detroit in 1966?

Plenty of room in the comments for more!

Labels: , ,

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Clever, Clever Satire

This was a comment on a post about a computer game, HOMM VI.

Do me a favor and ask Robert Paul Wolff and Brian Leiter this question: why are they spared the wrath of the 99%? Tenured professors, raised in privilege, products of Princeton and Michigan law school, living lives of luxury and leisure in comparison to the steel worker, the coal miner, the day laborer.

How does the the spoiled privileged Leiter respond to the following: Fairness is considered over the course of a lifetime. This does not exempt the privileged lives of professors, the beneficiaries of capitalism living lives of relative luxury and greed in comparison to steel workers and coal miners. We do not take current distributions as the baseline and simply move on from here. As a matter of fact, this is exactly the objection made against most utilitarian property theorists. Therefore, the unjust distributions that you have benefited from, the skills you have developed because of your privileged position within the capitalist regime, all these resources you have enjoyed will not be forgotten by We the 99%. And here we are. It is time to pay the piper, and this includes the professors as well as the bankers, CEOs and corporate attorneys. It is time for Brian Leiter, Robert Paul Wolff, Paul G. Allen, Warren Buffett, and the rest of the privileged few to make good on their debts. They must now give up their comfortable positions at Univ. of Chicago, etc. and pick up a shovel. It is our time to bask in the sun.


Not sure how Robert Paul Wolff or Brian Leiter would respond, sir. Don't know either, never met them, had to look them up on Google. I can say this: Here is the distribution of income in the U.S.:


You'll notice that 99th %ile is $506k, 95th %ile is $200k. There would be very few college professors above the 96th %ile, I would think.

As for Robert Paul Wolff....he is a Marxist Anarchist who was briefly at U of Chicago, 1961-1964. He never went to Princeton, either as a student or instructor, though of course he likely gave talks there. You may be talking about Brian Leiter, of course, but since I found looking up Robert P. Wolff (he's one of YOURS, fercrissakes!) to be utterly uninteresting I stopped my research, exhausted, and went back to my couch where nubile grad students could fan me and feed me delicious fresh fruit.

In short, what you have written simply must be a moderately clever satire. Because otherwise you are confirming that you "99 percenters" are just as loony as I believe you are.

Labels: ,

What kind of country are we living in?

In 2005 Albert Florence, driving in his car with his family was improperly arrested on a bogus warrant. He was held for 6 days in a county jail in New Jersey and, during that time was "repeatedly strip searched".

And by strip search I mean, "strip naked for inspection, lift his genitals, squat and cough."

Albert sued and the case has reached the Supreme Court. The lawyer for the jail says automatic strip searches are necessary. "It's impossible to determine whether or not a minor offender is a risk or not," he said. "You could be a minor offender because you've just been stopped for a speeding violation" or "you could be a murderer."


YIKES!

People, in what world do even murderers routinely drive around in their cars with their families with dangerous weapons in their rectums or taped to the back of their testicles?

Secondarily, even in New Jersey, police certainly can look up a person via computer and quickly determine their criminal record. So yes, you could be a speeder or a murderer, but we can find out in 5 minutes or less!

Needless to say, the geriatric recluses that populate our Supreme Court did not exactly cover themselves in glory during oral arguments in this case:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked if "showering in the presence of officers" violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. Goldstein (lawyer for Mr. Florence) said no, but that a close inspection at an "arm's length" would be a violation.

That answer didn't sit well with Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "It's OK to stand five feet away, but not two? That doesn't make much sense to me."

What about a visual body cavity search, she asked.

"There's a material difference," replied Goldstein, between a "visual body cavity inspection ... where you require someone to bend over, and cough" to expose the anus, and a visual inspection of a naked prisoner at arm's length. But he contended neither should be permissible without some individualized suspicion.

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether it would be permissible for jail authorities to require every prisoner to shower with anti-lice soap in front of an officer 10 feet away. Goldstein said that would be permissible. So "your only concern is searches that go farther than that?" asked Alito. Goldstein said that was "exactly right."

Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that, at least when he was in private practice, county jails were much more dangerous than penitentiaries because "you don't know who these people are"; you "arrest them for traffic [offenses] and they may be some serial killer."


What is so hard for these morons to understand. You don't "repeatedly strip search" someone for a freaking traffic violation.

Full stop.

The august justices seem to have all watched the entire set of "Porky's" movies before donning their robes.




Labels: ,

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

HOMM VI

Tomorrow, HOMM VI. Finally.

I played the demo.
It's okay. Not nearly as annoying slow as V, or bizarrely not funny as IV.

HOMM II is my favorite game
, all time, any genre. But part of that must have been the timing. There just wasn't much like it then.

Labels:

Illegal Advising

A Jewish professor was advising a student. He told her she might not like the course taught by famously anti-Semitic Columbia Prof. Massad. And Prof. Massad is, indeed, pretty famous.

And, now, the professor who gave advice is under investigation, by the U.S. Government! for "steering," like when a real estate agent tells an ethnic couple they might be more comfortable in their own ethnic neighborhood.

An actual investigation by the DofEd Office for Civil Rights. Because he gave her ADVICE. I give students advice all the time. Am I going to be recorded, and have my advice checked by the Feds? Like when I say, "Don't take ____'s course, he's not very good, I will run afoul of the anti-mediocritism laws? "You are a mediocritist! You discriminate against mediocre people! Bad! Bad!"

Labels:

All Hail R. K. Gaddie

There's a protest in his kitchen and he's telling the world:

Labels: , ,

Solar Fail: Chicago

The problem with solar energy is that it is much more expensive than purchasing energy from power companies.

Much, much more expensive.

It is true that this difference can be reduced by subsidies. But people underestimate how much of a subsidy is required. With installation, batteries, and disposal of toxic waste (batteries are much more poisonous than the exhaust of power plants!), solar panels are almost never cost effective.

And so, we see, yet again, that grandiose claims run afoul of economic reality.
"Green" energy is a huge net waste of resources. Far from making things better, solar panels and solar subsidies are increasing unemployment and causing enormous damage to the environment.

(nod to the Blonde)

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The Rule of Law...of Nature Red in Tooth and Claw

Paul is a "rule of law" scholar, and a smart guy.

But I don't understand this lament. I agree with the sentiment, but not the contradiction.

Abuse of power is not a perversion of government. Abuse of power is the ESSENCE of government. We trade off abuse of private power, theft, and foreign aggression against the certain knowledge that our own government will abuse the powers we give it to protect us against the bad things in the first part of this sentence.

Or, as the young Edmund Burke put it:

Parties in Religion and Politics make sufficient Discoveries concerning each other, to give a sober Man a proper Caution against them all. The Monarchic, Aristocratical, and Popular Partizans have been jointly laying their Axes to the Root of all Government, and have in their Turns proved each other absurd and inconvenient.

In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!

Observe, my Lord, I pray you, that grand Error upon which all artificial legislative Power is founded. It was observed, that Men had ungovernable Passions, which made it necessary to guard against the Violence they might offer to each other. They appointed Governors over them for this Reason; but a worse and more perplexing Difficulty arises, how to be defended against the Governors? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In vain they change from a single Person to a few. These few have the Passions of the one, and they unite to strengthen themselves, and to secure the Gratification of their lawless Passions at the Expence of the general Good. In vain do we fly to the Many. The Case is worse; their Passions are less under the Government of Reason, they are augmented by the Contagion, and defended against all Attacks by their Multitude.
(source link)

So, Paul: I'm with you for being upset at government abuses of power. But how could even your fertile imagination for a moment believe that it could be otherwise?

Labels: ,

Be careful what you wish for

In my survey of international economics class today we had an excellent discussion of possible end-games for the current Euro crisis.

One point that really struck home with me was when a student asked "Why did Greece even want to be in a monetary union with Germany in the first place"?

Indeed.

Greece was a serial defaulting, non-tax collecting, relatively corrupt, but seemingly happy country. They were never going to be Germany, and I can't understand why they wanted to be Germany. Yet they moved heaven and earth to meet the Mastricht criteria and get into the Euro. They hired Goldman to swap around their future revenues, and maybe they fibbed a little bit too. At the time, many people were surprised that they made it in.

Short term, they got a ton of cheap (for them) credit and enjoyed a spending binge. But their economy grew ever less competitive and their external position ever weaker. Now they are down and out, humiliated, wracked by social unrest, and pretty much flat broke.

Yet they still want to stay in! People, Greece is never going to be Germany. I don't say that as a negative about Greece but as a statement of history/culture. The values are different, the comparative advantages are different. Thus, German monetary policy is not really ever going to be right for Greece. Unless Germany is willing to adopt them and put them on a perpetual allowance, the Euro is not going to work out for Greece.

It's time for Greece to pull the full Argentina, or as Hillary likes to say, press the reset button.

Labels: ,

The greatest threat to the Euro

Excellent German condescension from Der Spiegel: "Do you want to be the man who destroyed the Euro?"

But the Slovakian guy hammers him: The greatest threat to the Euro is the bailout fund itself!

The story....

My man Joel R asks, "Is this the only European leader making sense? Forget about Germans - who on the whole probably benefited from euro policies - why should a relatively poor country - for Europe - bail out the banks?"

Labels:

A Charter'd Libertine

School Choice, School Quality and Postsecondary Attainment, David Deming et al., NBER Working Paper, September 2011

Abstract: We study the impact of a public school choice lottery in Charlotte- Mecklenburg (CMS) on postsecondary attainment. We match CMS administrative records to the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a nationwide database of college enrollment. Among applicants with low-quality neighborhood schools, lottery winners are more likely than lottery losers to graduate from high school, attend a four-year college, and earn a bachelor's degree. They are twice as likely to earn a degree from an elite university. The results suggest that school choice can improve students' longer-term life chances when they gain access to schools that are better on observed dimensions of quality.

----------------------

Measuring the Effect of Charter Schools on Public School Student Achievement in an Urban Environment: Evidence from New York City, Marcus Winters, Economics of Education Review, forthcoming

Abstract: This paper uses student level data from New York City to study the relationship between a public school losing enrollment to charter school competitors and the academic achievement of students who remain enrolled in it. Geographic measures most often used to study the effect of school choice policies on public school student achievement are not well suited for densely populated urban environments. I adopt a direct approach and measure charter school exposure as the percentage of a public school's students who exited for a charter school at the end of the previous year. Depending on model specification, I find evidence that students in schools losing more students to charter schools either are unaffected by the competitive pressures of the choice option or benefit mildly in both math and English.


I haven't read either of these papers. But I wonder if selection isn't driving both. In the first case, parents who care enough to get their kids to switch are the sort of parents who are more likely to encourage college. And in the second case, the parents of kids who are doing poorly in math and English are the ones who switch to charters, perhaps because (again) they want to ensure their kids succeed. That may well be wrong in one or both cases, of course. But selection is so tough in studies where you are measuring consequences of choices that are endogenous.

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

Labels: , ,

Do you believe in magic? Ryan Avent does!

Avent joins the crew attributing untapped magical powers to the Federal Reserve:


"Losing its credibility as an inflation-fighter, some of it anyway, is precisely what the Fed needs to accomplish. As Paul Krugman has put it, the Fed needs to promise to be irresponsible at some future point, thereby raising expectations of future inflation. That, in turn, will boost current inflation. Consumers will want to spend their money in the period before its value erodes, and through that mechanism future inflation becomes current inflation.

So the question then becomes: can the Fed convince markets that it will be irresponsible in the future? The answer, quite obviously, is yes. The Onion helpfully suggested one way in which this might be accomplished. At a recent dinner, colleagues of mine joked about other ways to solve the problem. One suggested that Ben Bernanke might ask to have his salary indexed to gold or the Swiss franc. Another said the chairman should take to the podium to tell Americans they'd better start spending their dough soon before it's worthless, lighting a cigar with a $100 bill all the while. More practically, Mr Bernanke could raise his desired inflation target or simply declare that the Fed won't touch rates for a certain period, no matter what happens in the broader economy."


People, if the Fed has credibility as an inflation fighter it is for the Rogoffian reason that we have appointed inflation adverse central bankers. That is, people whose preference is for low inflation.

Please repeat after me:

THE FED HAS NO MECHANISM TO BIND ITSELF TO LIVE UP TO ANY ARBITRARY PROMISES IT MAY MAKE TODAY ABOUT THE FUTURE!!!

Promises to act against one's preferences in the future that are made without any commitment mechanism are simply cheap talk and are extremely unlikely to shape agent's expectations or actions.

We could appoint a central banker whose preference was for high inflation. In that case any promises to create low inflation or deflation in the future would be incredible and ineffective for exactly the same reason today's conservative central bankers' promises to create future inflation would be incredible and ineffective.

This is not a Tinkerbell situation folks; believing in magic is not going to get us through the crisis.

Labels: , ,

Equality or Income? I'll Take Markets for BOTH, Please!

Interesting article. The relation between growth and inequality is complex.

Excerpt: The late Yale University and Brookings Institution economist said that not only can more equal distribution of incomes reduce incentives to work and invest, but the efforts to redistribute—through such mechanisms as the tax code and minimum wages—can themselves be costly. Okun likened these mechanisms to a “leaky bucket.” Some of the resources transferred from rich to poor “will simply disappear in transit, so the poor will not receive all the money that is taken from the rich”—the result of administrative costs and disincentives to work for both those who pay taxes and those who receive transfers.

Do societies inevitably face an invidious choice between efficient production and equitable wealth and income distribution? Are social justice and social product at war with one another?

In a word, no.

Labels: ,

Monday, October 10, 2011

45 czars!

The Ruriks (rulers of Moscow)
Ivan I 1325-1340
Simon 1340-1353
Ivan II 1353-1359
Dimitrij Ivanovich 1359-1389
Vasilij I 1398-1425
Vasilij II 1425-1462
Ivan III 1462-1505
Vasilij III 1505-1533
Ivan IV, the terrible 1533-1584
Feodor I 1584-1598
Boris Godunov 1598-1605
Feodor II 1605
Dimitrij, the false 1605-1606
Vasilij IV Sjujsky 1606-1610

The House of Romanov
Michail III 1613-1645
Alexej Michailovich 1645-1676
Feodor III 1676-1682
Ivan V 1682-1696
Peter I, the great 1682-1725
Catherine I 1725-1727
Peter II 1727-1730
Anna Ivanova 1730-1740
Ivan VI and grand duchess Anna Leopoldovna 1740-1741
Elizabeth 1741-1762

The House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov
Peter III 1762
Catherine II, the great 1762-1796
Paul I 1796-1801
Alexander I 1801-1825
Nicholas I 1825-1855
Alexander II 1855-1881
Alexander III 1881-1894
Nicholas II 1894-1917

Just over 30. Compare that to the....czars of Obama! There are 45 of them.... all at once!

Nod to the Blonde.

Labels: ,

P-Kroog!

Always the critic, always with the details...P-kroog objects to this graph.

Some background on the upward sloping aggregate demand argument. Proving once again that P-kroog is just not that good a macro-economist. ("Minsky moment?" Have Angus draw you his famous "Minsky curve" sometime. It's downward drooping.)

Nod to Kevin Lewis

Labels:

Perfect

A venn diagram. It pretty much says it all.


Nod to James Sinclair, and thanks to Steve Horwitz.

Labels: ,

Will Wilkinson on Ron Paul

Will W gives an analysis of Dr. Ron Paul.

The U.S. could do worse, and almost certainly will do worse, for President.

But I really am confused how people identify RP with "libertarian." It just ain't so. A friend recently told me that RP was "the most libertarian of the major candidates." Okay. But Mussolini* was the most libertarian of the Axis dictators, but that doesn't make him a libertarian.

(*No, I'm not saying RP is Mussolini; I'm saying that the "he's the most XXXX of the YYYYs" doesn't mean the person is actually XXXX).

On the other hand, I was and remain sympathetic to the claim that the main part of the state-sponsored Repub party, and the state-owned media, ignore RP because he is TOO libertarian. That's a fair critique, as Jon Stewart points out.

Labels: ,

Are firms acting irrationally by not investing more?

In an amazingly hubristic NY Times opinion piece, Richard Thaler tries to nudge American companies into doing the right thing:

Corporations are hoarding cash at record rates. The Federal Reserve recently reported that nonfinancial companies in the United States were holding more than $2 trillion in cash and other liquid assets — money that is earning next to nothing. A considerable amount of that cash has been accumulated in the last two years — and the totals exclude the substantial sums the companies hold abroad in foreign subsidiaries. Of course, it can be sensible for businesses to have a source of emergency cash, but many appear to be stockpiling so much that it’s hard to imagine what emergency they fear. To cite just one example, Google is holding more than $39 billion in cash...

Yet is such caution rational? As a shareholder, I would worry about a company that says it can’t find investments that can reasonably be expected to earn well above the tiny return of its cash.

Investment does not necessarily have to involve increasing capacity. Are there no plants or equipment that need upgrading? No promising research-and-development opportunities to be explored? Not even any parking lots that need to be repaved and painted?

I also do not buy the idea that companies need all this cash for acquisitions. If they really want to buy another business, they can issue stock to do so.


It's pretty hard to unpack all the errors/hubris in this quote, but let's try.

The biggest error Thaler makes is that he implies that the idea that firms are acting irrationally by delaying investment can be confirmed by the fact that positive NPV projects are not being done.

"Yet is such caution rational? As a shareholder, I would worry about a company that says it can’t find investments that can reasonably be expected to earn well above the tiny return of its cash."

The problem with this "logic" is that it is contradicted by the entire body of modern economic literature on investment. The literature shows that there is an option value to waiting to invest until conditions are favorable.

See for example "The Value of Waiting to Invest" by McDonald & Siegal (QJE 1987 cited over 2000 times according to Google Scholar) or "Waiting to Invest: Investment & Uncertainty", by Ingersoll & Ross (Journal of Business 1992 cited over 350 times according to Google Scholar).

Here's a crucial sentence in the Ingersoll & Ross abstract:

"The ability to delay a project means that almost every project competes with itself postponed"

The second mistake Thaler makes is downright embarrassing. He seems to assume that investment by firms is actually zero!

Are there no plants or equipment that need upgrading? No promising research-and-development opportunities to be explored? Not even any parking lots that need to be repaved and painted?

Umm, what evidence does Thaler show that these routine tasks are not being undertaken? Firms are sitting on a lot of cash, but firms are also currently investing over $1.5 trillion dollars (in 2005 dollars) this year. That should be enough to pave a few parking lots.



Finally, Thaler informs us that: "I also do not buy the idea that companies need all this cash for acquisitions. If they really want to buy another business, they can issue stock to do so."

Amazing! This is true just because he says so? The horrible condition of the stock market, the problems in the IPO market (which is different but clearly related) are apparently irrelevant; just issue stock, you bungling morons!

This is really one of the worst editorials I've ever seen by a respected economist.



Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 09, 2011

Separated at Birth: Gronke and Grienke

Pretty amazing. Dr. Paul Gronke, of Reed College
....and Zach Grienke, pitcher for Milw. Brewers

I'm just sayin'...

Labels: ,

Carnival Fraud: Really?

So...sheriff's deputies run undercover sting operation to pester people at carnivals.

Because we all want to make sure that no one actually wins any prizes.

Anthony Dewayne Ellis, 32, of Locust Grove, and Kenneth Lea McLeod, 50, of Ashland, Va., agreed to change the rules of a game for undercover Tulsa County sheriff’s deputies, according to an arrest report.

The carnival workers were operating a game involving throwing darts into star-shaped holes when they gave a discounted price to the deputies, who later asked “what it would take to win the big prize,” the report says.

The workers awarded the prize — a stuffed character from the game Angry Birds — after letting the deputies play for $20 regardless of the outcome.

The game’s posted rules required paying $5 to throw darts into the holes for prizes of escalating value, the report says.

State law requires that rules for carnival games be posted at all times. Contradicting the posted rules is a misdemeanor.


(Nod to Jackie Blue, who never cheats)

Labels: ,

All We Are Saying, Is Give.....

Actually, I have no idea what they are saying.



You have to like the "Information Man!" thing from the highly educated plumber's helper just after 2:10.

But my favorite is the guy who want "the government" to run the banks. When asked, what about Republicans....um, no, not them. The "government."

Labels: ,

Patenting Dad

Creativity and the Family Tree: Human Capital Endowments and the Propensity of Entrepreneurs to Patent

Albert Link & Christopher Ruhm, NBER Working Paper, September 2011

Abstract: In this paper we show that the patenting behavior of creative entrepreneurs is correlated with the patenting behavior of their fathers, which we refer to as a source of the entrepreneurs’ human capital endowments. Our argument for this relationship follows from established theories of developmental creativity, and our empirical analysis is based on survey data collected from MIT’s Technology Review winners.

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

Labels: ,

Not Only Not the Onion, But Not Monty Python

This goes well beyond a simple "not the Onion." This crosses well over into "not Monty Python" territory. (If you think I'm wrong, do watch this early planning meeting of "Occupy Wall Street," where they decide on their program, their demands, and who they will follow...)

Protesters at "Self-Absorbed Atlanta" (yes, they call it "Occupy Atlanta," but my title is more accurate) have set up a system where they can solve a bunch of problems that don't actually exist.

1. How to talk when you have a weak megaphone. Normal solution: get a better sound system. Self-Absorbed Atlanta solution: have a simultaneous translation, English to English.

2. How to signal approval. Normal solution: applause. SAA solution: little jazz hands waving, so no ones' voice is drowned out by applause. Of course, nobody is going to see the individual hands in the sea of hands, either. Either way, minority disagreement is going to be overwhelmed. EXCEPT: SAA requires unanimity! So you CAN see the one nut job/racist/star trek fan who wants to block things. Do NOT talk to the jazz hand that says "no!" (If you are not familiar with Jazz Hands, here is a quick guide to SAA hand signals!*)

3. Finally, if you can stand to watch for that long (I skipped after two minutes, I have to admit. SAA can really do some powerful auto-politicism), go to the 8.5 minute mark. Congressman John Lewis stood up to Bull Connor, and crossed the bridge at Selma on Bloody Sunday. But he was no match for the self-righteous idiocy of Self-Absorbed Atlanta.



As Pelsmin, who sent this in, notes: "This is a perfect illustration of how the extreme left's desire to liberate people from oppressive societal conventions like democracy will lead to something like the Soviet bureaucracy." And Soviet civil liberties, too! An invited speaker suffers the heckler's veto, in this video. Wow!

*Okay, no it wasn't. But I made you look. I think that video should replace Rick-rolling with "Tiny-rolling."

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 08, 2011

Atheist Hymnal



(nod to the LMM)

Labels:

Friday, October 07, 2011

New Blog: Euvoluntary Exchange.

New Blog! All things "Euvoluntary."

It is really just for information, and to provide examples for folks who want to use the concept of euvoluntary exchange (either because you think it is useful, or stupid!) in teaching and writing.

At the upper right there are some resources and background information. I'll be adding to that as time goes by.

In the meantime, please do send examples, comments, or critiques, especially of things that happened in the world or the classroom.

And I'll post them, right away. If there is analysis to be done, it will still be back here on good ol' KPC. The new blog is really just an information source.

Labels:

Business Headlines

Rising wages in China push jobs back to U.S. Look, we told you so. We did.

Amar Bhide: limit the rates banks can pay on deposits!

Lynn Sneary condescends to a venture capitalist who explains why jobs are caused by growth, not vice versa.

Labels: ,

The Final Answer: You are BOTH Crazy

There was a bit of a kerfuffle over this comic, by Zach Weiner.

Everyone, including me, was sure that the comic was mocking whoever we were not. Economists laughed that philosophers were so ridiculous, and philosophers thought it funny that economists were so shallow and arrogant. Jacob was sure he knew, for example. But then to be fair a few folks, at least, over here thought that the philosopher was ridiculous.

At KPC we want to KNOW. So I wrote to Zach W himself. And the answer is... you people are ALL crazy. And hilarious. (quotes with permission)

As to the joke: If it went right, hopefully it made fun of both. I actually did a similar treatment of philosophy vs. engineering a while back here:

In that one, hopefully it's clear that the engineer is simplifying in a way that is both informative and problematic. Since Economists are essentially engineers who work with human lives instead of mechanical systems, the perspective is more or less the same.

Curiously, it was popular in both the reddit.com economics forum and the reddit.com philosophy forum. The former thought it was making fun of philosophers for being useless, and the latter thought it was making fun of economists for lacking a sense of profundity.

So yeah, making fun of everyone. Zach Weiner, SMBC


My own conclusion: the Philosophers are not interested in an answer, really. If faced with this real life situation where a decision is required would either respond purely emotionally or else would lie on their backs and kick their little legs in the air, hoping that the problem will go away. Philosophers and grandma both die, because Philosophers aren't interested in answers, only questions.

The Economists would save the Mona Lisa, and spend the rest of their lives trying to forget the haunting screams of the grandma as they carried the Mona Lisa out of the room.

But the problem with policy analysis generally is you don't get to say, "I don't know." You have to do something, you simply must. Philosphers spend all their time wondering if they can get both thumbs up their butt at the same time, or if they have to take turns. Economists spend just a very brief time figuring out "the answer," which is always wrong, and then they pretend they already knew that.

Labels: ,

This is Why Al Gore Invented the Internet*

(*although he never, ever actually claimed to have invented the internet)

1. In porn movies, there is sometimes a classroom setting (I am told, I would NOT know, of course). The question is: are the things written on the blackboard actually correct and useful, or did the director just phone it in? This blog answers that question (SFW, unless you work in a church).

2. Awkward Wedding Photos. Once you give the title, there is little more to say, frankly.

3. (A repeat, but always at the top of the list at KPC) Kim Jong Il Looking at Things.

4. Hospital jobs, by district (or state). You didn't even know you didn't know that, and now you know.

5. The Perfect Pet Petter. Again, nothing to add.

(Nod to Kevin Lewis, the Blonde, and Kindred)

Labels:

Thursday, October 06, 2011

In Honor of Steve Jobs....

Some time ago, I published a celebration of private innovation, "Two Steves and One Soichiro." One of the "Steves," of course, is Mr. Jobs.

Rereading it, I am reminded sharply how badly we would have done in innovation if democracy had been the decision rule. Just look at the quotes from the "experts" in the article. Wow.

Labels: ,

Every Solvent Country is the Same, But Each Insolvent Country is Insolvent in its Own Way

As readers of KPC, you are of course among the world elite, the cognescenti, the "go-to" people. But I want to make sure you understand why it is that everyone is so worried about Greek default. After all, Greece has 9 million people, about the same size as North Carolina. Why worry?

In 2007-8, the reason that we had to bail out a bunch of big banks is that they had totally loaded up their balance sheets, including their reserve requirement assets, with illiquid and not very valuable CDOs and derivatives on other kinds of mortgage-backed securities. So, the problem was not so much the orginators, because they had dealt the crap and disappeared. The problem was the "smart banks," who had picked up all this bad paper because it had a high rate of return, and lap-dog rating agencies had continued to call it AAA, meaning it satisfied Basel Rule requirements for reserves.

This is a no-lose from the perspective of the banks. They got 7-8% if things go well, and get bailed out if things go sour. The guarantee of a bail-out essentially forced the banks to invest in crap, or else leave money on the table.

Amazingly, it has happened AGAIN. I almost can't believe it, but it has. The problem with Greece is not that anyone gives a flying firetruck about Greece. The problem is that Deutschebank and all the big American banks have once again loaded up on a high-risk bet. Greek bonds, especially if purchased at a discount last summer, pay a large return. We have to bail out Greece, the argument goes, NOT because it will help Greece but because otherwise the big banks will go under. It's pure theft, extortion. German citizens have to give money to the Greek government to save American banks. Because the banks bought up all that Greek debt to make money. And they are going to win. Again.

It's enough, I tell you, to make me sympathetic to the Occ Wall St folks. They have a point. Seriously, they have a point. They are insane, unfocused, and ignorant of basic economics. But there's something happening here, and what it is, is now all too clear.

Anyway, just a M. Lewis's "The Big Short" was useful for understanding the American crisis of 2007-8, his new book, "Boomerang," is great for understanding the current echoes around the world.

His basic thesis echoes Tolstoy (though these are my words, not his): Every solvent country is the same, but every insolvent country is insolvent in its own way. Iceland went nuts on derivatives, Ireland had a housing bubble that left three bedroom houses selling for upwards of 40,000,000 euros, Greece doubled the salaries, and workforce, of its public sector, California....well, I don't want to think about California.

Labels: ,

Did someone say monetary expansion?

It has become almost fashionable to claim that the Fed is not doing nearly enough to revive the economy. This conclusion follows from the same logic that the "stimulus was too small" meme employs: Has the economy recovered? No? Then policymakers have not done nearly enough.

Check out what's happened to the monetary base since the crisis began:



(clic the pic for a more vertiginous view)

The base has gone from a path of roughly doubling each decade to more than tripling in three years.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair

Here is a picture of a new Congressional district cooked up by a bunch of geniuses in Maryland:



YIKES!!

Labels: , ,

Do you believe in magic?

In a recent post, Scott Sumner claims that the Fed can easily credibly commit to a nominal GDP target. He further claims that the act of choosing the target in itself would allow the Fed to hit the target without any great amount of monetary expansion:

"The Fed has plenty of credibility, that’s not the problem. The problem is that they are using the credibility to assure investors that low inflation is here to stay. With the right target, there would probably be no need for massive quantitative easing, or other extraordinary policies.

The punch line is that the problem isn’t the Fed’s unwillingness to do enough QE, twists, or cuts in IOR, the problem is the Fed’s inadequate target, just like in Japan."


In other words, the Fed can credibly commit to arbitrary future policies so well that a simple announcement of a new policy path will put the economy on that path without any heavy lifting required.

In other other words, magic!

People, the Fed has no ability to make credible commitment to future policies that might conflict with their period by period preferences! Read Kydland & Prescott. Read Barro & Gordon. Repeat after me: time inconsistency, time inconsistency, time inconsistency.

All the Fed can do is act each period according to its own preferences (yes it's weird to treat the Fed as a unitary actor given all the dissents we've seen recently, sorry).

Many societies have responded to this dilemma by invoking the Rogoff gambit; we appoint conservative central bankers. They deliver low inflation not because they are following some policy rule or pre-determined path, but because their preference is for low inflation!

The idea that there's a magic bullet out there that solves our economic problems, that the Fed could fix things by putting out a press release with a couple sentences about their plans for future NGDP growth, is wrong and somewhat dangerous.

Labels: , ,

It would from many a blunder free us

(clic the pic for a more enlightening image)
Hat tip to Felix

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Linkulation

The links of October....

Central planning...of the internet?

Compensation, schmompensation: Elizabeth Warren says you don't own NOTHIN'!

"Cost-effectiveness" analysis


Gag me with a microwave: The "myplate.gov" button. No, this is NOT the Onion.

Labels: ,

Talking

You can say whatever you want.

And we at the U will tell you what you want!

New video from FIRE

Labels:

Pitching is Over Rated?

Jackie Blue sends this outrage.

Pavitt found hitting accounts for more than 45% of teams' winning records, fielding for 25% and pitching for 25%. And, the impact of stolen bases is greatly overestimated.

He crunched hitting, pitching, fielding and base-stealing records for every MLB team over a 48-year period from 1951-1998 with a method no other researcher has used in this area. In statistical parlance, he used a conceptual decomposition of offense and defense into its component parts and then analyzed recombinations of the parts in intuitively meaningful ways.


Well, as long as it's "intuitively meaningful," right? Charlie is a professor of Communication. Me? I "intuitively doubtful."

Labels: ,

Cut cut cut, cut cut defense!


People, the federal government wastes a crap-ton of money. Let's get serious about cutting spending over the next 10 years. Here's a start:

Defense: Cut $200 billion a year. That's two trillion over 10 years. Don't worry, we'll still have a freaking huge military as current spending is north of $700 billion per year.

TSA: Eliminate it. That's $50 billion a year or 1/2 trillion over 10 years.

Agricultural Subsidies: Eliminate them. That's maybe $25 billion a year or 1/4 trillion over 10 years.

Homeland Security: Cut it in half. That's another $25 billion a year or 1/4 trillion over 10 years.

People, that's $3 trillion of REAL cuts. Easy-peasy. No entitlement reforms (which I favor as well), no cutting Obama's choo-choos and windmills, just declining to screw ourselves quite as much as we have been doing.

Anyone have numbers on other low hanging Federal fruit we can harvest?


Labels: , ,

Monday, October 03, 2011

Bizkit

This poor pup evidently had seizures, and has since died.

Still, all dogs do this, just not so violently.

Labels:

Great Googly Moogly

Have you seen the 13 demands post from Occupywallst.org?

It's a doozy.

I'm stunned to see "open borders" in there with no fossil fuel, free college, cancellation of all debts for everyone, $2 Trillion in new spending. Also very surprised to not see anything about the wars and defense spending.

Labels: , , ,

Firms Maximize Profits?

Senators discover that firms maximize profits.

(Nod to Chateau)

Labels:

People Prefer Cheesy.... Jokes

These are some bad jokes, so I like them. And, they are CHEESY!

Nod to Tom H.

Labels: ,

Hey Tyler: Taxes ARE going up

A lot.

The "Bush tax cuts" expire. Obamacare incorporates a myriad of substantial tax increases that come on line very soon.

Plus, our President has now figured out how to package tax increases on the wealthy as a jobs program (sorry President O. I didn't mean it. Please don't drone me)!

Yet Tyler says Republicans are silly to not make an additional tax deal, even if the stuff they want is unlikely to materialize because "taxes will eventually go up in any case, because they must"

I can't see why it's so obviously correct to be advocating for more tax increases than the one we already have on our plates.

I for one am strongly in favor of tax cuts relative to the current policy path we have.

Labels: ,

Hit the BRICs

This doesn't seem good:



(clic the pic for an even more depressing image)



Labels: , ,

The Cartoon

Nice follow-up by Jacob L. on "the cartoon." on "the cartoon."

Here is my original post. As Jacob L notes, there was a lengthy discussion on FB about it.

The point is that this cartoon is a Rorschach test. I read it as mocking the philosopher. Most people, far and away most in my sample (biased, if anything, toward econophiles) saw the cartoon as mocking economists.

As always, disagreeing with me does NOT make you a bad person. It does, however, make you wrong.

Labels: ,

Grand Theft Educ

Angus already mentioned this.

But you may not have read the story. Excerpt:

From California to Massachusetts, districts are hiring special investigators to follow children from school to their homes to determine their true residences and decide if they "belong" at high-achieving public schools. School districts in Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey all boasted recently about new address-verification programs designed to pull up their drawbridges and keep "illegal students" from entering their gates.

Other school districts use services like VerifyResidence.com, which provides "the latest in covert video technology and digital photographic equipment to photograph, videotape, and document" children going from their house to school. School districts can enroll in the company's rewards program, which awards anonymous tipsters $250 checks for reporting out-of-district students.

Only in a world where irony is dead could people not marvel at concerned parents being prosecuted for stealing a free public education for their children.


The only way the teachers' union, the AFT, can keep a lid on this is to keep parents "away from the table." The solution, as I said when I ran in 2008, is means tested voucher. The wealthy have choices now. It's the poor folks who need help.

As it is, we are just putting people in jail for "stealing" what all my leftoid friends assure me is a public good.

ATSRTWT

Labels: ,

Sunday, October 02, 2011

A History of Violence....

Steven Pinker gives a lecture on violence. There is a lot LESS of it, by the way. This is a good thing.

Labels: ,

Governments gone wild

1. Jailing moms for lying about their residency to get their kids in a better school

2. Felony prosecuting oil companies for killing a bird

3. Setting a goal of doubling exports, but refusing to bring several completed PTAs (that would definitely expand our exports) up for a vote in Congress

Have a favorite? Have other nominees? Tell us about it!

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 01, 2011

The Onion as Truth

This is uncomfortably true, though from the Onion.

What Man Thinks Is Recycling Takes City Workers 2 Hours A Day To Sort
October 1, 2011 | ISSUE 47•40

NEW YORK—City sanitation experts confirmed yesterday that the supposed “recycling” of Manhattan resident Ron Klauff was in fact a conglomeration of various recyclable and nonrecyclable refuse that takes city workers an average of two hours and 288 gallons of water to sort and clean each week. “These days, being eco-aware is more important than ever,” said Klauff, filling a plastic shopping bag with a mixture of yogurt containers, wire hangers, and broken electronics that a civil servant will later have to sift through in the middle of the night. “You have to do your part, even if that means gathering all of your soda cans and stacking them neatly inside your pizza boxes.” Because Klauff is the only New York resident who does not carefully sort and separate his recyclables, officials are considering just tossing everything he throws out into a landfill

Yup, the "only one."

Labels: ,

Throw Like A Girl

This young woman has obviously been practicing in that corner. Still...not bad. And it is great the way she shows up the left fielder: "Here ya go, bud, is this what you were after? (A fake video, according to our commenter, but well played)

And this....you have likely already seen it. But that look from the wife, the "why didn't I marry Chen Li instead of this idiot?" look. We have all gotten that look, husbands. And deserved it.

Of course, women aren't perfect. This woman totally steals a ball from a little girl .

Labels: ,



View blog reactions