Marginal Revolution

Theorems

Hillary Clinton's proposal is particularly stupid, in my humble opinion, because it tries to get the money back from the oil companies with a windfall profits tax. Tax incidence is tax incidence: if the oil companies can make consumers pay most of the excise tax, then probably consumers can stick them with your windfall profits tax too.

I believe that is what they call "true enough."  Here is more.

Two Indian success stories

Yes, the first is about agricultural productivity, that still-neglected issue:

Ajit Singh, a farmer in the poor northern state of Uttar Pradesh, had never seen a computer until four years ago when ITC, the Indian agribusiness-to-hotels conglomerate, installed a PC in his village, Kurthia.

Now the thin 47-year-old farmer visits the ITC station, known as an "e-choupal" after the Hindi term for "gathering place", every day for online access to news-papers, crop prices, weather forecasts and farming techniques. As ITC's village manager, he passes on what he gleans to fellow farmers.

Knowing the fair market value of crops allows farmers to fetch better prices and circumvent local traders who used to dictate terms. Farmers can also sell wheat and other crops to ITC.

The result has been a big jump in crop productivity. Annual incomes in Kurthia have risen from Rs40,000- Rs50,000 ($1,000-$1,230) before e-choupal to Rs100,000- Rs120,000 now, says Mr Singh.

Here is the link.  Here is the second story, with photos at the link:

Mukesh Ambani, the fifth richest man in the world, is building the most expensive single family residence ever, a $2 billion -- yes, BILLION -- 27-story skyscraper in downtown Mumbai.

New issue of Econ Journal Watch

It is here, and I'll cover the contents once I've had a chance to read them.  Here is a symposium on why so few women in economics?

Guesstimation, or The City in the Sky

On average, how many people are airborne over the US at any given moment?

That's a typical question from the new Princeton University Press book by Lawrence Weinstein and John Adam.  The title is Guesstimation and the subtitle is: Solving the World's Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin.

What's your guess and why; let us know in the comments and I'll post their answer later today.  The book also tackles such hoary chestnuts as "How many piano tuners are there in Los Angeles," although for mysterious reasons (are they mostly part-timers?) they fall far short of the actual number in the L.A. Yellow Pages.

This book isn't for everyone but if you think you might like it you probably will.

Addendum: I post the authors' answer at about comment #31.

When should you take photographs?

JKottke, a loyal MR reader, asks:

Is taking a photo or video of an event for later viewing worth it, even if it means more or less missing the event in realtime? What's better, a lifetime of mediated viewing of my son's first steps or a one-time in-person viewing?

If you take photos you will remember the event more vividly, if only because you have to stop and notice it.  The fact that your memories will in part be "false" or constructed is besides the point; they'll probably be false anyway.  In other words, there's no such thing as the "one-time in-person viewing," it is all mediated viewing, one way or the other.  Daniel Gilbert's book on memory is the key source here.

Furthermore you don't need the later viewing for the photo or video to be worthwhile.  It's all about organizing your memories in the form of narratives and that is what cameras help us do, if only by differentiating the flow of events into chunkier blocks of greater discreteness. 

A photo that requires retakes might be more effective than a photo you get right the first time.

Personally, I take pictures of Yana only when she tells me to, which I might add is often.  I've never owned a camera, but for most people I recommend the photos. 

By the way here are 21 ways to take better photographs.