So Argentina has just elected its first... well... elected female president. Bravo, Cristina. Good for you. Honestly its rather boring news compared to other recent South American elections. Her victory was expected, and pretty much uncontested.
Here's the juicy bit...
according to a BBC article, Argentine's are not given the choice of whether to vote or not. It's required. So certain industrious non-voters put up their votes on an e-bay like site. The prices range quite a bit (from about 30 cents to 95 dollars), and I'm sure an interesting article can come out for anyone with more time than a grad student studying for quals (this is a freebie if anyone is looking for a quick grant).
Here's the real kicker: The website is international. It's basically e-bay for the Southern Cone. Theoretically speaking, I could have bought a vote in the Argentine election (maybe I missed a few buying restrictions when I visited mercadolibre.com). Granted there's no guarantee the voter I "buy" will actually vote in that way, but if they're disillusioned enough with their own political system to auction off their vote at 30 cents, they've got no incentive to NOT vote the way I ask either. So if there is a country out there with mandatory voting systems, that actually gives the voters incentive and opportunity to sell their votes on the open market. This leaves the country up for possible foreign influence, given enough internet connection and working credit cards (or pay-pal accounts or whatever the kids are using these days).
So I think next November we should all appreciate those Americans who choose to abstain from voting. Cheers to you guys. I'd rather you not vote, then sell it to an Argentine.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Hippy Jam Festivals
If you all recall my first "Best Answer Ever" for the first Micro exam ("What can the government do to improve market outcomes? Print too much money"), then you probably think it can't get any better than that. It just did.
Second exams. Question:
"Define and describe what happens with the Free Rider problem?"
Student Answer:
"Hippies gather, and slowly form jam festivals."
(I gave him points because I thought it was a good example.)
Second exams. Question:
"Define and describe what happens with the Free Rider problem?"
Student Answer:
"Hippies gather, and slowly form jam festivals."
(I gave him points because I thought it was a good example.)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Recognition
Many other, much smarter, and more creative men, all with doctorates, tenured positions, and bestselling books (all three I highly recommend), have weighed in on the new winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics.
Their entries are well thought out, debatable, entertaining, enlightening, and rigorous. Mine... not so much. But I just wanted to throw in my two cents anyway, as a "first-year" grad student (so it's my second first year... big deal). Furthermore, I've never actually met the guy, but that doesn't seem to stop most bloggers. So here is why Leonid Hurwicz deserves the Nobel, but not for any reason you'll read by researchers.
One of my favorite professors in my program sent out a blanket e-mail to the department, gloating that his old adviser at Minnesota had received the Nobel prize. He listed five other professors within our department who had been students of Prof. Hurwicz. I have had three of these professors in various undergraduate and graduate courses, and I can attest to their excellence in teaching. Their students have gone on to become teachers, who also have the funny habit of actually getting undergraduates interested in economics and turning them on to something they knew little about beforehand. Prof. Hurwicz has also been active in teaching (apparently more so than some who are half his age), and took the bus from Minneapolis to Kansas City in order to attend a seminar his former students had set up, two years ago.
I understand the Nobel is mostly recognition of research. But it's also recognition of contribution. Prof. Hurwicz, without my even knowing until just recently, has strongly influenced my development as an economist, a student, and a researcher. There are countless others who can say the same. I'd say that's a pretty big contribution.
Perhaps the overall contribution is debatable, and many of course will argue the same age-old macro/micro, policy/theory issues. But for a lot of people, the micro changes that this man caused led to a rippling down, from the 1930's all the way to today. Good teachers are too rare these days. Good professors (in the teaching and not the research sense) are even more rare. He got the Nobel for his research, and its effect on economic thought today. He deserves the Nobel for the imprint he's left on his students, and their students, and their students, etc.
From what I understand, the other two gentlemen to win have similar track records, and are all agreed to be "very nice men." I just don't really have any connection to them. Sorry Prof.'s Maskin and Myerson. Maybe someday I'll have a reason to write about how cool you guys are too. But as it is... I got nothing.
Their entries are well thought out, debatable, entertaining, enlightening, and rigorous. Mine... not so much. But I just wanted to throw in my two cents anyway, as a "first-year" grad student (so it's my second first year... big deal). Furthermore, I've never actually met the guy, but that doesn't seem to stop most bloggers. So here is why Leonid Hurwicz deserves the Nobel, but not for any reason you'll read by researchers.
One of my favorite professors in my program sent out a blanket e-mail to the department, gloating that his old adviser at Minnesota had received the Nobel prize. He listed five other professors within our department who had been students of Prof. Hurwicz. I have had three of these professors in various undergraduate and graduate courses, and I can attest to their excellence in teaching. Their students have gone on to become teachers, who also have the funny habit of actually getting undergraduates interested in economics and turning them on to something they knew little about beforehand. Prof. Hurwicz has also been active in teaching (apparently more so than some who are half his age), and took the bus from Minneapolis to Kansas City in order to attend a seminar his former students had set up, two years ago.
I understand the Nobel is mostly recognition of research. But it's also recognition of contribution. Prof. Hurwicz, without my even knowing until just recently, has strongly influenced my development as an economist, a student, and a researcher. There are countless others who can say the same. I'd say that's a pretty big contribution.
Perhaps the overall contribution is debatable, and many of course will argue the same age-old macro/micro, policy/theory issues. But for a lot of people, the micro changes that this man caused led to a rippling down, from the 1930's all the way to today. Good teachers are too rare these days. Good professors (in the teaching and not the research sense) are even more rare. He got the Nobel for his research, and its effect on economic thought today. He deserves the Nobel for the imprint he's left on his students, and their students, and their students, etc.
From what I understand, the other two gentlemen to win have similar track records, and are all agreed to be "very nice men." I just don't really have any connection to them. Sorry Prof.'s Maskin and Myerson. Maybe someday I'll have a reason to write about how cool you guys are too. But as it is... I got nothing.
Just stating for the record who also deserves a Nobel then:
My 7th grade math teacher, my high school English teacher, a few of my Spanish professors in undergraduate, and my analysis prof. who sounded like Cheech. They deserve some kind of recognition for putting up with my laziness in their class. Why not?
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Somehow They Don't Believe Me
I've been focusing on graphs for my classes. All graphs. Euclid and Pythagoras would be proud with the amount of board space I have wasted on triangles, squares, and curves (oh my!). Pythagoras would be even prouder that I neglected to even bring up the irrational numbers in my lectures to my students. Those pesky numbers that cannot quite be written as ratios of two whole numbers. Oh, the humanity! And yet... for some reason... when a particularly frustrated poor girl asked me why these graphs made sense, I assumed that they had the same high school math experience I did. It all went downhill from there...
I filled an entire board with equations. Equations that were simple algebraic expressions. Equations with x's and a's and y's and b's, and slopes. All those frightening letters that any high school graduate would think could never be found in a proper math formula ("doesn't like... math just deal with... like... numbers..?"). I wasted twenty minutes, happily in my math world, showing that indeed taxes put a wedge in market prices, causing a decrease in supply and a decrease in demand. Showing that taxes on consumers would have the same effect as taxes on producers. Showing that consumer and producer surplus were areas of these triangles created in the graph. Showing what was so simple, pure, and beautiful in my mind. And having completed my "Fighting Temeraire" of equations I turned in triumph to my Principles and Micro class and with a flourish said, "THIS is why the graphs make sense!"
You can imagine their looks. I think absolute panic best describes it. "Isn't this a little intense for us?" the girl asked. y=mx+b is too intense for undergrads apparently...
As a great micro professor once said to me: "Never prove theorems to the peasants."
And as Alfred Marshall said: "(1) Use mathematics as shorthand language, rather than as an engine of inquiry. (2) Keep to them till you have done. (3) Translate into English. (4) Then illustrate by examples that are important in real life (5) Burn the mathematics. (6) If you can’t succeed in 4, burn 3. This I do often."
Dad gummit. Alfred Marshall is spinning in his grave.
I filled an entire board with equations. Equations that were simple algebraic expressions. Equations with x's and a's and y's and b's, and slopes. All those frightening letters that any high school graduate would think could never be found in a proper math formula ("doesn't like... math just deal with... like... numbers..?"). I wasted twenty minutes, happily in my math world, showing that indeed taxes put a wedge in market prices, causing a decrease in supply and a decrease in demand. Showing that taxes on consumers would have the same effect as taxes on producers. Showing that consumer and producer surplus were areas of these triangles created in the graph. Showing what was so simple, pure, and beautiful in my mind. And having completed my "Fighting Temeraire" of equations I turned in triumph to my Principles and Micro class and with a flourish said, "THIS is why the graphs make sense!"
You can imagine their looks. I think absolute panic best describes it. "Isn't this a little intense for us?" the girl asked. y=mx+b is too intense for undergrads apparently...
As a great micro professor once said to me: "Never prove theorems to the peasants."
And as Alfred Marshall said: "(1) Use mathematics as shorthand language, rather than as an engine of inquiry. (2) Keep to them till you have done. (3) Translate into English. (4) Then illustrate by examples that are important in real life (5) Burn the mathematics. (6) If you can’t succeed in 4, burn 3. This I do often."
Dad gummit. Alfred Marshall is spinning in his grave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)