« Markets in everything: rentable goat edition | Main | Smart thoughts on health care »
The story of GMU economics blogging
1. Offered here, strike the word "often."
2. The Economist reviews Bryan Caplan
3. Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
4. Saletan on science is especially interesting this morning
5. Prophets of the MarginalRevolution
6. Memories of Richard Rorty, including from Brian Eno. Here are many more Rorty links.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 15, 2007 at 12:03 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
I am going to have to disagree with the use of "On “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, another quiz show, the answer most popular with the studio audience is correct 91% of the time” as an argument for his cause. Of all the lifelines used, the ‘ask the audience’ feature is more often than not the first one used, so obviously the questions are easier to answer. If the ‘ask the audience’ lifeline was used as the last remaining lifeline, and thus a harder question, I doubt 91% of the time the audience would be correct.
Posted by: Nathan at Jun 15, 2007 4:33:39 PM
What's the incentive structure facing the GMU econ department that encourages all the blogging? Money from foundations like Olin?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 15, 2007 5:59:33 PM
Sailer asked an interesting question. There's not a lot of money in it (I guess ads bring in some money), and my guess is that even at GMU, where blogging is so popular, it counts very little for tenure and promotion. Sounds like irrational behavior to me! ;)
Posted by: Steve Miller at Jun 16, 2007 2:38:36 AM
Steve,
"There's not a lot of money in it (I guess ads bring in some money), and my guess is that even at GMU, where blogging is so popular, it counts very little for tenure and promotion. Sounds like irrational behavior to me."
I think you are missing the point that D. McCloskey made (discussing the
rhetoric of economics), recommending
writing every day because "writing is thinking". The faculty at GMU, by
blogging are honing their skills at intellectual exchange. Economics has
traditionally been advanced by economists arguing about ideas; it is only
in the past 30 years or so that the top general interest journals have
dramatically curtailed the publication of comments, replies and rejoinders.
But for the emergence of new journals and the EJW and yes blogging, the
field of economics would be in a "dark age" (unilluminated by the light
generated when economists openly put their ideas up for debate).
On the blogs, links are being shared that alert others to information on
a spectrum of issues. The influence of GMU in the profession is
expanding rapidly and will continue to do so because they are relentless.
They remind me of a benevolent version of the "Borg" in the Star Trek
series. They are wired to each other and are drawing in outsiders
(but on a voluntary basis, unlike the Borg). The intellectual force of
the interconnected (wired, wirelss too) aglomeration is greater than the
sum of the individuals would be if disaggregated.
Ah, the future is bright!
Posted by: indiana jim at Jun 16, 2007 11:42:22 AM
Jack,
Grow up; its their house so they make the rules. But if you don't
like visiting their house (blog), visit another house. My perspective
is that these guys are as much interested in "truth" as Levitt or anyone
else.
Posted by: indiana jim at Jun 16, 2007 11:59:22 AM
"Check out Freakonomics and you will
see when Levitt and Dubner are criticized they NEVER delete the posts
unless they contain obscene language."
Uh, .... not exactly. In fact, in the fall of 2005, there was a huge brouhaha over Bill Bennett's comments on abortion that were based on Levitt's theory that legalizing abortion reduced murders by black youths a generation later. Levitt was trying desperately to distance himself from his 2001 paper containing that argument and didn't appreciate anybody quoting himt in his comments.
Levitt deleted his ENTIRE blog to eliminate my old comments, most likely the final straw where I offered him the advice that he just walk away from his most famous theory because otherwise some young economist out there would someday punch a big hole in it and make Levitt look bad. Within a few weeks, the WSJ and The Economist reported that young economists Christopher Goetz and Christopher Foote had, indeed, discovered that Levitt had made two technical errors negating his findings!
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 16, 2007 2:17:22 PM
