« Why is monogamy associated with economic development? | Main | The burdens of fame »
Assorted Links
- Keith Chen (of monkey sex fame) says cognitive dissonance may be an artifact of an unappreciated Monty Hall problem.
- Brad DeLong is an "optimist" on housing. Even if wrong this puts him in good company.
- The economics of Barack Obama Senior is upsetting some people.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on April 8, 2008 at 01:58 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Greg Ransom did a good job digging up a 1965 paper by Barack H. Obama advocating a development plan for Kenya similar to what Robert Mugabe has imposed on Zimbabwe. Considering that Obama entitled his 1995 autobiography "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," that seems rather relevant.
We can assume that the Presidential frontrunner has evolved intellectually from the radical leftism of his 20s, but his continued membership in the leftist Jeremiah A. Wright's church suggests his heart may not have evolved as much as his head.
It's ridiculous that we're practically done with the nominating process and Obama hasn't been pressed hard enough to get him to account for changes, if any, in his innermost feelings.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Apr 8, 2008 5:42:44 PM
Ransom's post is amusing in its degree of obsesion, but given that he can't even get the title of Obama junior's book right (Dreams FROM my father, not as Ransom has it Dreams of My Father) I'm not sure we should take his analysis of the contents seriously. The book makes clear that Obama junior only met his father once for 10 days, and had virtually no contact with him from his
mid teens until just before his father's death, so the idea that his Dad's economic is a major influence seems highly implausible!
Posted by: Andy at Apr 8, 2008 6:24:22 PM
Andy -- I don't have it wrong. You are incapable of reading, it seems. -- greg ransom
Posted by: PrestoPundit at Apr 8, 2008 6:48:34 PM
John McCain's dad believed that if a woman ate too much apple butter it would make her babies die.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Apr 8, 2008 7:11:49 PM
Presto - read your first line again...
"There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams *For* My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance."
should be Dreams *From* My Father. It shows up every time the title is given.
In my mind, it doesn't detract from your point, but Andy is correct that you got the title wrong (and he's wrong in the title he ascribes to you as that title is nowhere in the post).
Posted by: Jody at Apr 8, 2008 7:30:23 PM
Thanks. Fixed. Where's my proof reader when I need him?
Posted by: PrestoPundit at Apr 8, 2008 7:37:29 PM
The best response I got after explaining the Monty Hall problem: "It's true on paper, but not in real life." I just loved it.
Posted by: Ken at Apr 8, 2008 8:26:17 PM
The "African Socialism" that Obama Sr. critiques was no picnic. Its most prominent exponent, Julius Nyere, presided over the genocide of Arabs in Zanzibar documented in Africa Addio.
Posted by: TGGP at Apr 8, 2008 9:06:52 PM
Alright, you convinced me; I'm not voting for Barack H Obama Sr. for President. (I think the Constitution and Nature has prevented this already, though)
There's a better case to be made that McCain is unsuitable because his dad lost the Vietnam war as head of the Pacific Command. And McCain's whole life is also trying to live up to or fighting with Daddy's expectations.
And by 'better' I mean equally ridiculous.
News flash: Many otherwise smart people thought socialism/communism wasn't so bad for a good portion of the 20th century. Also, many otherwise smart people thought skin color determined the measure of a man for a good part of the 20th century. By the 21 century, most people have figured out both of these ideas are assinine, so let me know if any of the three candidates *currently* subscribe to either.
Posted by: Kolohe at Apr 9, 2008 1:59:42 AM
All three candidates are unacceptable. My verdict is that nobody should be President and that the position be abolished along with the rest of the federal government.
Posted by: TGGP at Apr 9, 2008 2:38:33 AM
That's not quite right about Chen. Chen says, first, that the evidence for cognitive dissonance in monkeys (and young children) is an artifact of a Monty Hall problem. Second, he says that the rest of the research showing cognitive dissonance in the form of choice rationalization (people increasing their liking of the chosen option and decreasing their liking of the unchosen option after they make a difficult choice) suffers from related problems. But he doesn't have anything to say about cognitive dissonance more generally, which is a theory that extends to a variety of domains besides choice rationalization (and is most definitively demonstrated in induced compliance studies).
Posted by: Brad at Apr 9, 2008 2:56:31 AM
Why isn't it still early enough that we can admit the nominating process screwed up and start over?
Posted by: josh at Apr 9, 2008 7:31:01 AM
To be honest, I always suspected that Obama's parents were far to the left of what is usualluy assumed. I am actually surprised that no communist link has surfaced. But I must admit that my suspicion was born out of a prejudice. I always thought that, outside the hard left, an American white girl would not marry a black man and raise a kid with the ambition to become president. There may be some truth to it, I guess.
As for African Socialism, I have no doubt that most American idealist leaders, had they been born in the Third World during the 20th century, would have supported some kind of socialism or another. After all, the USSR (obviously following its own realistically-defined interests) did support independence movements throughout the continent, while western powers supported colonialism and were soft on South African Apartheid. Socialism was a bad idea, but it is not hard to understand why it was such a success in some social environments, such as post-colonial countries, Europe after the war (given the communists’ importance in the resistance, and the fact that the USSR was an ally of the west), Latin America in the 1980s (given the role of leftists in the fight against right-wing dictatorships), etc.
And there is this: socialism did instill in many oppressed people, who were lost to pro-market ideals in the realpolitik of the time, a sense of dignity and pride that is unquestionably positive. I am Brazilian, and it is hard to think of one single African-Brazilian leader who did not come from the left. It does give me hope to think that their kids may be as moderate as Obama is. Let’s hope he may inspire the kids of African Socialists.
Of course, all these arguments may be too subtle for pop political debates and tabloids, so I guess this may hurt him electorally. It would be a shame, though. If Obama has bad ideas (personally, I don’t think they are that bad), vote against him for that reason, and that reason alone.
Posted by: NPTO at Apr 9, 2008 11:46:54 AM
The "Monty Hall Effect" sounds like it could be a problem for a large number of "behavioral economics" studies. It could even affect the difference between traditional "Max U" calculations and observed time preferences as well as loss-aversion.
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Apr 9, 2008 2:11:12 PM
Thank You NPTO!
I too am born of African socialist parents who were the cusp generation of the colonial transition era. Baracks' father, who was an Aide de camp of my father's in the early eighties was a well known intellectual, and prized for the flexibility of his thinking. It would have been remiss given the context of the independence movement, for any thinking African in the sixties, to not give socialism serious consideration. My parent’s generation was village born, and transitioned through the colonial education system into capitalism, then socialism and back out. Due the practicality of governance, whereby real world failure had a direct impact on idealism, they maintained a pragmatic approach to new ideas.
Posted by: nyongesa at Apr 9, 2008 7:07:15 PM
i still don't understand the monty hall deal or no deal example. showing me a goat behind one of the other doors would seem to firm me in my decision. after all my odds have just improved from 1 in 3 to 50-50. the odds were 66% that i was wrong no matter which door i chose at first. i dont see why i would have to switch when it changes to 50-50. maybe someone smarter can explain?
Posted by: wergeri at Apr 10, 2008 2:36:49 AM
Hey, nyongesa, that's some life story! It illustrates my point better than anything I said.
Posted by: NPTO at Apr 10, 2008 2:43:53 PM
