« The Increased Competitiveness of the US Economy | Main | Project Tuva »
Assorted links
1. Thinking clearly about inequality, by Will Wilkinson.
2. China silly forecast of the day.
3. Inaugural issue of Rejecta Mathematica is out.
4. Markets in everything: the new Cheap Trick album is available on 8-track.
5. How to get your wallet returned if you lose it: carry a baby photo in there.
6. CIT battlelines.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
why do you say the China stock bubble crash prediction is "silly"?
are you against econophysics or something?
what would Barkley Rosser say?
Posted by: clementine at Jul 15, 2009 12:56:46 PM
I'm a big Cheap Trick fan and will probably buy the 8-track (yes, I'm probably part of a really small market).
Posted by: thehova at Jul 15, 2009 1:04:11 PM
I find it hard to believe that anyone would take Wilkinson's discussion of the difference between consumption and income without saying a single word about rising debt or reduced savings seriously.
Posted by: spencer at Jul 15, 2009 1:21:12 PM
I don't know which reality Will Wilkinson lives in, but it's not mine:
"It is not very easy to convert economic resources into political resources."
Is he kidding?
Posted by: Matt at Jul 15, 2009 1:34:36 PM
>"It is not very easy to convert economic resources into
>political resources."
>Is he kidding?
I know! Just ask President Steve Forbes ;)
Posted by: holmegm at Jul 15, 2009 1:52:26 PM
One element of the Will Wilkinson article that's interesting is his discussion of "cheap but decent and functional" versus "massively overpriced with a huge signaling premium". This actually makes a lot of sense; after all, you can outfit a kitchen for $1500 with basic Haier and GE appliances or you can use functionally similar appliances for $75K from fancy-pants brands like Subzero and Viking. Beyond a very basic level, it's all about signaling.
One interesting side note is that "good and cheap" stuff is actually cheaper in the US than it is in many other countries. Chinese who visit the US are routinely shocked at how cheap name-brand TVs, clothes, and other branded goods are here versus China - even if the stuff is made in China, as it often is - so a required trip for them is a visit to an outlet mall. In China (as well as Japan), name-brand stuff is sold at MSRP and up, and always in premium retail outlets. "Discounters" are virtually unknown, and wouldn't be trusted in China due to piracy.
This is a concrete example of how piracy hurts moderate-income Chinese and lack of it helps moderate-income Americans.
Posted by: Foobarista at Jul 15, 2009 2:18:32 PM
2. On the same website as the Chnese forecast there is an interesting look at the Peter principle:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23800/
Posted by: Rama at Jul 15, 2009 2:49:25 PM
I wonder why are you linking to something produced by Cato Institute. Do you treat them seriously?
Posted by: Tomasz Wegrzanowski at Jul 15, 2009 2:58:39 PM
Do not publicize the China prediction. You don't know what the consequences could be.
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/the-blue-eyed-islanders-puzzle/
Posted by: josh at Jul 15, 2009 3:31:16 PM
"why are you linking to something produced by Cato Institute"
I'll take a guess. He probably doesn't use institution as a signal for respectability or not. He probably reads it.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 15, 2009 3:49:33 PM
"I wonder why are you linking to something produced by Cato Institute. Do you treat them seriously?"
Maybe he linked to it because it was written by Will Wilkinson, and he takes Wilkinson seriously (as you would, were you fully informed).
Posted by: Jason Brennan at Jul 15, 2009 3:58:06 PM
Andrew: http://www.cato.org/people/tyler-cowen !
Posted by: Murray Rothbard's Nightmare at Jul 15, 2009 4:40:53 PM
So, well then, of course he shouldn't take them seriously since they adopted him?
Do you know what an adjunct scholar is?
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 15, 2009 4:58:52 PM
Two more institutions that he shouldn't take seriously because they take him seriously:
http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/cowenColumns.htm
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 15, 2009 5:03:48 PM
Andrew, after reading the Wilkinson paper, I still don't really know why Tyler provided this link to propaganda [ie ideological-motivated statements with thin evidence]. There are other Wilkinsons around who would provide a better, and more robust, accounts on inequality: http://lost.in/yh
Posted by: Alejandro Guerrero at Jul 16, 2009 12:57:06 AM
So, the 28 pager from a guy commonly linked to from a libertarian blog to a libertarian think tank, out of 6 random links is the one in question, right?
And, just to be clear, what's the complaint again? Was it self-promotion, or propaganda?
So, where's Richard's superior paper? Or do we have to buy the book?
Complaining about Cato because Tyler links to Will would be like complaining about The Washington Post because Tyler links to Ezra. Wait, no it wouldn't. The Washington Post claims to be journalism!
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 16, 2009 9:40:22 AM
Psychological experiments are much in the news
these days. And it is a relief to have got away
from rats, which were all the rage some decades
ago. I find these experiments interesting for
two reasons: insight into how people think and
how they behave and insight into psychologists,
who, like, say, jurists, have their own
characteristics. I must say, however, that
some studies seem to have been done purely because
funds have become available: more ingenuity
than illumination.
Posted by: Candadai Tirumalai at Jul 16, 2009 10:08:50 AM
Wouldn't it be counterproductive to be published in Rejecta Mathematica, particularly for researchers who are just starting out in their field? Given that individuals who are either still in grad school or just coming out do not have many papers to begin with, I think that having a paper in a journal that exclusively publishes rejected papers would form a strong negative signal to academic institutions (potential employers) and other academic journals. Regardless of why the paper was rejected (which could have been for many reasons, not all of which have to do with merit), the reality of academics is that a person's success in his or her field largely relies on the names that are associated with their work, whether that be the name of the school or the journals where their work is published. So having a paper published in RM may actually hurt a person's chances of getting published in better journals in the future. Obviously this does not apply as much to established academics who already have a list of papers in "respectable" journals and are more interested in getting their work out than anything else.
Posted by: Alex Imas at Jul 16, 2009 11:48:07 AM
Wilkinson is the last guy you want to go to if you want to think clearly about inequality. Yes, I think the issue is overblown, but Wilkinson always approaches the issue from the standpoint of, "There are no problems related to inequality whatsoever. Now, what evidence can I find to support that conclusion?"
Posted by: Silas Barta at Jul 16, 2009 1:00:34 PM
I would have liked a discussion about inequality to address the following, by Michael Sandel, from Harvard, in the recent Reith Lectures:
"Part of the problem is that we tend to talk about inequality as if the problem were how to redistribute access to private consumption. But the real problem with inequality lies in the damage it does to the civic project, to the common good. Here is why. Too greater gap between rich and poor undermines the solidarity that democratic citizenship requires. As inequality deepens, rich and poor live increasingly separate lives. The affluent send their children to private schools, or to public schools in wealthy suburbs, leaving urban public schools to the children of families who have no alternative. A similar trend leads to the withdraw by the privileged from other public institutions and facilities: private health clubs that replace municipal residential centres and swimming pools; affluent residential communities hire private security guards and rely less in public police protection; a second or third car removes the need to rely on public transportation, and so on. This trend has two bad effects, one fiscal, the other civic. First, public services deteriorate as those who no longer use them become less willing to support them with their taxes. Second, public institutions, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers cease to be places where citizens from different walks of life encounter one another."
1. It is all worthy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kt7rg).
2. It is my impression that this addresses better the moral philosophies of Krugman and Obama (which is the explicit purpose of Wilkinson's article).
3. I do not understand why communitarians are systematically ignored in these type of debates. They seem to care about these things more than most economists, for example.
4. Sorry for the length of the comment!
Posted by: jose at Jul 16, 2009 7:56:33 PM
Does one observation make something a silly claim?
Posted by: Leonid at Jul 29, 2009 9:10:31 AM
