« The evolution of Keynes's thought | Main | Should chess moves be subject to copyright? »
BloggingHeads.TV with Robin Hanson
Robin and I are recording one next Tuesday. What would you like to hear us discuss?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 3, 2009 at 07:16 PM in Television | Permalink
Comments
I want to know how you manage to conduct academic work without the aid of coffee. What's your secret? Coca? Matte?
Posted by: Matoshi at Mar 3, 2009 7:27:12 PM
What Darwin and Lincoln would have to say about the current economic crisis if they were alive today.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Mar 3, 2009 7:34:34 PM
Any chat between Tyler and Robin is an occasion to go long:
Is there a role for prediction markets in bubble forecasting?
How to set up proper incentives for a long-term-healthy financial system.
Thoughts on health care reform (are we juggling too much, is big change needed, etc.)
Does the international nature of the financial crisis, plus the potential for free-riding, argue for more robust systems of international governance?
Posted by: mk at Mar 3, 2009 7:36:44 PM
Is the U.S. in danger of bankruptcy?
How can we protect ourselves against the next "black swan?"
Posted by: mk at Mar 3, 2009 7:38:29 PM
I'd like to hear you two debate the value of signing up for cryonics.
A seasteading discussion would also be good.
Posted by: tal at Mar 3, 2009 7:43:37 PM
Is Matte a stimulant? Or just an overrated herbal tea?
Posted by: liberalarts at Mar 3, 2009 7:48:27 PM
a multiplier of less than 1 for the stimulus.
Posted by: at Mar 3, 2009 7:56:53 PM
The microeconomics and macroeconomics of risk and imperfect information.
Posted by: Greg Ransom at Mar 3, 2009 8:00:30 PM
1. How much productivity growth there really was in the last decade?
2. If Robin's site is called Overcoming Bias, how come it is rarely about behavioral decision science and mostly about freezing your head and God-like supercomputers?
Posted by: sternhammer at Mar 3, 2009 8:04:22 PM
Which reductionist theories of human behavior do you accept and reject? e.g. evolutionary behavior of the sexes; chimpanzee hierarchies; rational economic man; etc.
Posted by: Arnold Kling at Mar 3, 2009 8:11:55 PM
Free Will vs. Determinism and the philosophical implications for economics.
Posted by: Allen at Mar 3, 2009 8:15:58 PM
I would like to hear you discuss whether the economy can recover if there are still $25 trillion dollars worth of credit default swaps, or whether the thing that slayed AIG, Lehman, WaMu etc needs to be reigned in:
Posted by: George Washington at Mar 3, 2009 8:20:31 PM
Also, I'd be very interested in hearing you discuss the economics of trust
Posted by: George Washington at Mar 3, 2009 8:27:45 PM
Why do so many have such a bank nationalization fetish? People who didn't (and still don't) know the difference between a CDO, LBO, or ABS or even how to read a bank 10K are all of a sudden experts on the banking system and want to try the nuclear option (nationalization) before trying anything else.
Posted by: bill at Mar 3, 2009 8:30:53 PM
The crisis of confidence in macroeconomics
Posted by: Superheater at Mar 3, 2009 8:32:40 PM
The current state of economic discussion and why/how so many of our politicians seem to be economically illiterate.
Posted by: evan at Mar 3, 2009 8:32:54 PM
I am interested in hearing how you deal with the massive amounts of information that you're presented with every day. How do you organize things efficiently? Do you how much of your productivity is attributable to the idiosyncrasies of your mind's organization and how much to learned habits?
Posted by: Eapen at Mar 3, 2009 8:34:11 PM
To what extent does becoming deeply immersed in different cultures affect bias?
Posted by: Jeff H. at Mar 3, 2009 8:34:55 PM
is economics still a relevant field of study?
Posted by: at Mar 3, 2009 8:38:59 PM
Perhaps you can explain why the economics profession appears to be so clueless with respect to the magnitude of the multiplier effect from fiscal stimulus and the manner in which fiscal stimulus should be applied (e.g. tax cuts, spending increases, etc)? This seems to me to be a raison d'etre of the profession, yet there appears to be so much disagreement at the highest levels of the profession. The answer may simply be that this stuff is hard, but I would like to understand why that is the case. Thanks.
Posted by: Robby at Mar 3, 2009 8:58:14 PM
I would love it if someone would analyze what would have happened if the US gov't back in August 2007 had declared, "We are not bailing anybody out. If you invested in mortgage-backed securities, it sucks to be you. We will honor FDIC commitments but that is it."
Would we still have a non-functioning bank sector? Would total losses have been higher than what the taxpayers have already pumped in?
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Mar 3, 2009 9:03:50 PM
Revisit intelligent agent modeling in economics. He would be a great person to discuss that with.
Posted by: Dave at Mar 3, 2009 9:16:07 PM
How would you restructure the NBA salary/revenue dispersal to optimize "the game," as opposed to what's best for players or owners.
First issue: how many franchises should be eliminated?
2nd: how many games should there be in a season?
etc.
Posted by: Delirious at Mar 3, 2009 9:25:46 PM
How would you restructure the NBA salary/revenue dispersal to optimize "the game," as opposed to what's best for players or owners.
First issue: how many franchises should be eliminated?
2nd: how many games should there be in a season?
etc.
Posted by: Delirious at Mar 3, 2009 9:27:01 PM
I'm still not buying the whole 'toxic mortgage backed securities as the cause of the world financial collapse', and the subprime market unable to pay their mortagage is at fault story.
Here's some data from http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/chgallsa.htm
I’m an amateur in this realm,(not a professional economist),but more than a few of of formal educaiton and experience. Am I to believe that a charge-off rate of 0.15% of mortgages, and 0.51% of total loans in 1Q/2007 started this whole problem of ‘toxic mortgage backed securities’ that caused this collapse, as is being attributed by the media? Even today the rate is 1.58 and 1.89 for residential and total charge-off rates. It doesn’t feel right to me. I take risks 20 times that big every day and I’ve made money for a long time.
Am I reading the data wrong? Other explanations?
Maybe you can discuss this because I get the sense that the media isn't picking up on the real story.
Posted by: GlobalPatriot at Mar 3, 2009 9:34:22 PM
