The United States of Whatever
Tyler Cowen explains some counter-intuitive economic magic that will bring gas prices down.#
Some consumers are calling for a boycott of major suppliers, such as Exxon. Supposedly this will force prices to fall. But no, we cannot count on this action, even if massively coordinated, to improve consumer welfare. Why not?
A boycott of this kind, in essence, imposes a price control on the market. No one will buy unless the price falls to a certain level. In theory this can force the price back down to a more competitive level. But the reality is different. Even when monopoly power is present, the record of price controls in improving consumer welfare is a dismal one.
If we wanted to organize a truly effective boycott, one that would increase consumer welfare, what should we do? Here is one of my favorite counterintuitive economics results. Buyers should tax their own purchases of gasoline. You read me right, and here is a formal treatment, what is the intuition?
Dean Esmay discusses the "diploma mills" that America's undergrad schools have turned into.#
Honestly, now: If a man is willing to look at you and say, "I have a high GPA, attend class regularly, will almost certainly graduate with honors, and I am learning nothing," you would think that would give professional academics pause, cause them some sort of consternation, a crisis of conscience. At some level, anyway. That it does not speaks volumes to me.
When someone responds and says, "it's your fault you're not learning," I can only respond and say, "I'm paying you to teach me and the grades you're giving me say I'm doing fine. If it's up to me to learn, what the hell am I paying you for? To be my arbitrary stamp of approval?"
Matt May on gay marriage: It's a good thing!#
Now, I have no direct interest in the outcome of this: I am a straight, married man. But I know where compassion and reason intersect. Even from the most clinical perspective, the State has a financial interest in sanctioning the pairing off of adults, since that suggests monogamy, and monogamous couples are less likely to spread disease in the population. They are also a stable enough unit to enter into partnerships, such as home ownership, insurance, hospital visitation, and so on. And stability is also good for the State: how else explain Bush's various initiatives to get single mothers married, and keep divorces from occurring? Stable, loving couples receiving the benefits provided others in similar situations by society is good for everyone. Learn it. Live it. And get on the goddamned parade float.
Julie Leung writes about her daughters and who they look like.#
Looking at our own daughters, I could dissect them if I desired. I could say who gave them their hair color. And who gave them their eyes.
But instead I am amazed. I look at them and wonder. This is what happens when we put Ted and me in a blender and pull out another human being. Wow.
There are different ways to think about how these girls came to be. I can imagine the gametes meeting. The genes-eye view of the race for survival.
Or I can think about the probability of all the chromosomes, dividing and replicating. I've remembered how our high school biology teacher told us that with the 2 million genes, it was amazing that we even resembled our siblings at all. It's like a gigantic lottery with millions of options. To think about the traits that were passed down from those I've never met. The ones that made it to me. The nose and brow brought over from a distant land. The grandmother who had my hair, that waves when its wet, like the way my daughter's does now.
Julie Leung posts an awesome transcript of The Impact of New Technology on the News Media. It is great and has some very interesting people involved.#
Michael Willaims asks and answers the question, "Is Science better than the Humanities?"#
As a scientist, I'll say of course! But really, it's an interesting question, especially considering the common opinion that science is for the smart, and English is for the dumb. Eli Leher goes into the question in great detail, but the essence of his position is that bright students can succeed in any field, and tend to move towards those that are more profitable. I agree with that, but Mr. Leher thinks this trend can (and should) be changed by redirecting private and public funds towards the humanities; I don't see why.
Alex Tabarrok on the advantages of abortion with regards to teenage pregnancy and crime.#
Since 1991 the teenage pregnancy rate has fallen by about 22 percent, reversing a 40 year trend. In a lengthy story, the NYTimes suggests that learning from the hard experience of others is the explanation for the drop without explaining why it should take 40 years for this learning to take effect. They do note "teenage pregnancy had already begun its decline in 1991, well before welfare changes and the economic boom, and well after the first round of sex education programs." The Times, however, does not examine the most controversial but well-supported explanation, the introduction of legalized abortion in the 1970s.
If this explanation rings familiar it should. In a very controversial paper, Steve Levitt and John Donohue provided evidence that legalized abortion in the 1970s reduced crime some 18 years later. The theory is simple. Abortion rates are higher among the poor, the unmarried, teenagers, and African Americans than among other groups and children born to mothers with several of the preceeding characteristics are at increased risk for becoming involved in crime. Legalized abortion gave these mothers an option and thus reduced the number of at-risk children who might otherwise have grown up to become criminals (note that abortion doesn't mean fewer children per-se, it may simply delay childbearing to when the mother is not poor, a teenager or unmarried which works just as well.)
Chip Gibbons on the Martha Stewart verdict.#
The Stewart/Bacanovic verdict is not a victory for the little guys but victory for those who run the government. If they can do it to Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, think how easy it's going to be to get the little guys.
The government's message is this: "Look what we can do to the rich and powerful. Nobody is above us. Our rule is absolute. We are Caesar!"
The jury did as had been suggested to them over and over during the tedious weeks of the trial. They were being not-so-subtly brainwashed. They were seeing what the government could do to a powerful private citizen. They wanted to do what government officials wanted them to do. They wanted to be good, which is not the same thing as wanting to think rationally about what was happening in that courtroom.
This is excellent, check out the whole thing.