« Sometimes it is enough to reproduce the headline | Main | The year in music »
Assorted links
1. Humane Studies Fellowships, from Institute for Humane Studies.
2. New Ed Glaeser book on housing policy; free and on-line.
3. Why does a Senator's seat solicit a bid of only $500K?
4. The blog of daily routines.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 9, 2008 at 06:31 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
The Ed Glaeser link doesn't work
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 9, 2008 6:36:54 PM
Should be fixed now...
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Dec 9, 2008 6:48:24 PM
"Can dogs feel envy?" - Libertarians don't think even humans can feel envy. It isn't logical.
Posted by: Dirk at Dec 9, 2008 7:14:48 PM
Is "Dirk" the Dirk Mateer at Penn State?
Posted by: Tim at Dec 9, 2008 7:56:38 PM
As my husband said when we heard about it on NPR, anyone who felt the need to scientifically study whether dogs feel envy or not has not owned 2+ dogs before. It is incredibly obvious that they can be jealous of one another.
Posted by: Gori Girl at Dec 9, 2008 8:37:15 PM
Can you guys discuss the experimental economics research on bubbles. This seems extremely important, but I have seen very little discussion of this, except for this http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812/financial-bubbles
Posted by: jsalvati at Dec 9, 2008 10:12:56 PM
For the Senator's seat, those in the best position to actually assume the seat, i.e. public servants, probably can't really pay that much. And getting that much would require involving lots of people.
Posted by: Ray at Dec 9, 2008 10:49:00 PM
Dirk, it isn't that libertarians don't believe envy exists, they just don't think envy is a valid reason for using force against innocent people.
Posted by: Jayson Virissimo at Dec 10, 2008 12:10:14 AM
I found this on page 73 of Ed Glaeser's book interesting:
Phoenix’s number eleven ranking [among metro areas in strictness of land-use controls] is interesting and suggests that the Sunbelt market has increased the strictness of its local land-use controls in recent years.
Especially considering how some have claimed the Phoenix's bubble disproved the hypothesis of land-use controls contributing to the housing bubble.
Posted by: John Thacker at Dec 10, 2008 12:37:07 AM
Tyler,
any econ book I might put on my wish-list for Christmas this year?
Posted by: Unit at Dec 10, 2008 12:52:03 AM
I wish Glaeser's book wasn't published by the AEI. A lot of people who really should take Glaeser's work to heart will be less likely to do so because of that association.
Posted by: Reilly at Dec 10, 2008 2:29:52 AM
jsalvati,
Did not go to link you provided, so do not know what it says. There has been experimental research on speculative bubbles going on for two decades now, starting with a paper in 1988 in Econometrica by Vernon Smith and two coauthors. They found a strong tendency for people to participate in bubbles, although if they repeat such experiments several times they can learn to avoid them.
Subsequent experiments, especially in papers by Smith with David Porter, have largely confirmed and extended these findings. People will participate in bubbles even when they are clearly irrational in the short term, with declining real returns in a short time horizon and when they are risking their own money. My guess, although I have not seen a neuroeconomics experiment on bubbles yet, is that this is probably due to the immediate pleaure symptoms people get from making money in the short run during bubbles, even when they know it is looney and will all go away in some tomorrow. Similar findings have explained hyperbolic discounting, with people using the prefrontal cortexes when thinking about long run planning, but the pleasure centers deep in their brain for decisions about immediate actions.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 10, 2008 2:55:22 AM
As my husband said when we heard about it on NPR, anyone who felt the need to scientifically study whether dogs feel envy or not has not owned 2+ dogs before. It is incredibly obvious that they can be jealous of one another.
Although whether "envy" is the same as (instinctual?) alpha dog traits is open to question.
Used to have 2 dogs (both males, same breed), and the one I thought was the alpha (2 months older and a bit bigger and stronger) of the 2 seemed to be getting pushed around by the beta much of the time.
I realized that the alpha was just being "tolerant" and "patient", because every now and then he would seem to lose patience and smack the beta around for a few minutes. After a day or two of lying low the beta was back to pushing the alpha around for 3 to 5 days. Then smack down was repeated. And the cycle started again.
What most everyone who has trained a dog knows is that the dog can not be the alpha animal in the house. The dog must be lower in rank than all the humans, or you will have problems living with the dog.
Posted by: at Dec 10, 2008 9:55:57 AM
I wish Glaeser's book wasn't published by the AEI. A lot of people who really should take Glaeser's work to heart will be less likely to do so because of that association.
I wish that smart growth advocates would understand that a majority of people like suburban low-density living, at least for themselves. And that a consequence of that is that the zoning and planning process, so beloved by smart growth advocates, will always be twisted to support large-lot single family homes and low density. NIMBYs will use the smart growth supporters to ban edge cities but will not allow increased density anywhere, forcing development farther out to where there are fewer neighbors.
But too many smart growth advocates believe that there must be zoning and planning. If you're not with them, you're against them. They refuse to accept the idea of less planning. Perhaps because deep down they know that the majority like suburban living, and a city without zoning would still look a lot like Houston. All true-- but at least a lack of zoning gives high density a fighting chance. Zoning and planning just means that that the large-lot legion ends up imposing its preferences on everyone, including on the people who haven't moved there yet.
The choices are California or Texas. There has never been a smart growth utopia. No place claiming to follow smart growth approves permits or housing at anywhere near the level of the low-planning areas. They just end up restricting housing growth on the edge without any increase in high density housing.
Posted by: John Thacker at Dec 10, 2008 12:02:32 PM
