Letters From a Nut

Go Back to College Economics.

2012-01-27T10:54:00.002-06:00

Are you freakin' kidding me, Blogobamavich?

See if you can follow this labor market example. Aggregate demand drops like a fat baby, and companies stop hiring. Workers then use their savings (and loan ability) to go back to school to retrain. College is seen as the place to do that. Demand for the few spots available on college campuses go up.

Now here's the part our Harvard-grad Preside does not get: as demand increases price increases. Is that too hard of a concept for a constitutional law professor who says he's all for civil liberties and closing Guantanamo, and then renews the Patriot Act and signs off on a document that allows the military to hold people suspected of terrorist activity/connections indefinetly? Probably so, since he doesn't even understand constitutional law.

But I digress, back to economics. Demand rises, and price goes up. Now, university is subsidized by the state and federal government. That keeps some of the price pressure down, as universities are able to provide more spaces, more teachers, etc. Think of that as a shift out in supply.

So you are suggesting that we respond to an increase in demand with a decrease in supply, and that will LOWER prices? Hint: a decrease in supply will lead to an increase in price on the market. Do I need to show you the magical X that I show all of my students? After five minutes even the F students get it.

Or is this another one of those Chicago political moves? You've got this valuable ****ing thing, and you're not going to give it up for free?

The Brandeis Ratio is a Faulty Measure.

2011-12-25T03:39:00.008-06:00

It's Christmas. Can't sleep. Clown will eat me.

Inequality has been on the minds of many economists, and some are proposing "fancy" or "simple" new ways of measuring it. What a lot of them seem to forget are the yardsticks by which a good inequality measure is determined. There are four principles to adhere to, and these are all outlined in chapter 6 of Debraj Ray's "Development Economics" (Princeton, 1998). Unfortunately I don't see these principles adhered to enough these days, or even mentioned really.

A good inequality measure must satisfy these four principles (translated to English):
1) who owns the wealth does not matter, or the only pertinent attribute of inequality is the amount of income, ("the anonymity principle"),
2) how many people participate in the economy does not matter, so that countries, regions, or sections of varying sizes can be compared ("the population principle")- otherwise you could never compare say New York to Oklahoma or China to Lesotho,
3) make the comparison on relative income shares and not absolute levels of income (the "relative income principle"), and most importantly
4) when you make the poor worse off to benefit the not poor, inequality should increase ("the regressive transfers principle" or "the Dalton Principle").

This is a minimum standard. I encourage my students to add on from there as they please. But let's stick to the minimum.

It's very easy to get 1 to 3. The regressive transfer principle is more tricky. As a side, a regressive transfer is simply "taking from some one who is not rich and giving to some one who is not poor". Think of it as a reverse-Robin Hood.

Which brings us to the "Brandeis Ratio" from Ayres and Edlin. Assume an economy of 10 people with a wealth distribution of ($5, $6, $10);(5, 4, 1). That is five people earn $5, four people earn $6, and one guy gets $10. The total wealth of the economy is $21, and the number of people is 10. The Brandeis Ratio is ($10)/($5.5) as $5.5 is the median of the wealth distribution, and we're going to cheat and use the richest 10% as opposed to 1% since there are only ten people. So that's what? The richest in this economy is 1.8 times richer than the median household. Okay, sounds good.

If we allow a regressive transfer of one dollar from a man who makes $5 and give it to a man who makes $6, the new distribution is ($4, $5, $7, $10);(1, 4, 5, 1). The median is unchanged at 5.5. That means the Brandeis Ratio is unchanged despite what many people would see as an increase in inequality in that ten person economy.

The Brandeis Ratio fails the regressive transfer principle, something that the already extensively used Gini Coefficient does not. Actually, the Brandeis Ratio is just a fancy Kuznets Ratio, which is even more simple for calculation and still maintains the lethal failing of regressive transfers. I do not understand why we should adopt a new tax policy based on bad statistics.

I suppose the argument then is that the Brandeis Ratio only deals with the extreme case of the very rich, and I'm nit-picking about regressive transfers. In that case why not just use a Kuznets ratio and go with the share of the top 1% divided by the share of the bottom 40%?

The next might be the usefulness of measuring inequality in "medians". I'm still not sure what the difference is between measuring something wrong in medians and measuring something wrong in income shares?

Addendum:
Ian Ayres provides an account of why Brandeis instead of Gini here. It is in my opinion extremely interesting and well rationalized, but I still think the regressive transfer flaw is a weakness and not a strength.

Another Addendum:
Some questions on Ayres' reasoning.
1) The Gini, as I know it anyway, only looks at an income or wealth distribution. Unemployment and illegal immigration do not enter into it (see principle 1 above). It's a set of numbers, ordered from least to greatest. The entrance or exit of a household within the distribution by unemployment or (il)legal migration isn't really the issue. The numbers are the issue. I'm not sure where he's going with the Gini rationalization on unemployment and illegal immigration. It seems to be a stretch from the more basic Gini explanation.
2) I don't think "simplicity" equates to "transparency". The Brandeis is not "transparent" in that it ignores any transfers below the median. It is however simple enough for some one reading a newspaper article, but so are a lot of things. That does not mean those things are correct. I think a BA is sufficient to grasp a Lorenz Curve or a Gini Coefficient, and even if it wasn't why should we base policy on a statistic that is less correct?
3) I don't see the democracy reasoning either. The Brandeis Ratio is not a direct linkage to the top 1%'s ability to influence policy any more than the Gini is. The 1% disproportionately fund political campaigns. Okay, yes. But these plutocrats are measured in the Gini or Theil index as well. I don't see the advantage of using Brandeis over Gini.
4) The argument is the same for income, wealth, or assets.

If policy is going to be proposed based on statistics, let's make sure these are the best available. Not just the simplest.

Foundation and Facism.

2011-11-28T07:35:00.003-06:00

Sat down this Thanksgiving break and did what I'd been thinking of doing for a while: read the entire original Foundation trilogy. Was easier than I thought, and the writing was enjoyable. I wanted to do this due to some relatively recent endorsements in the speeches and articles by Paul Krugman and how it relates to economics. So I sat down to read the novels with an economist's approach and came away confused, disappointed, and a little shocked. In no way do I mean to disparage the writing of Asimov, I get that it really is just a sci-fi version of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", but I would have thought he'd use a bit more forward thinking for his future galaxy.

Problem 1: The Galactic Empire. Unless I missed it, there is no real semblance of democracy. Asimov's gigantic Empire is best described as either a Facist or Oligarchic society. The emperor has total control over the life and death of his people. Then the great danger is the fall of a totalitarian government that oppresses billions and billions of people for the purpose of propping up a planet that Asimov describes as being totally devoted to the bureaucracy of a ruling political class? And the entire mathematical study of pyscho history is invented to replace this empire after its fallen? Not improve it? Not ensure that no one else is ever disappeared again or murdered on the whims of the politically powerful? Hari Seldon wants to return and recreate the all powerful totalitarian state? Again, I get that this is Rome in space, but the future of Earth after the Romans fell on average has been a big win. The fall of a comparable empire (the British) was followed by the largest increase in per capita income, health, and educational outcomes that history has ever seen. Wouldn't the idea be to avoid a second galactic empire for a better system? Or is the point that we can do no better? I am honestly in the dark here, if some one with a better understanding of the novel can help me out.

Problem 2: Totalitarianism through mind control. The Second Foundation, which is apparently the new governing body leading to this second empire controls events through emotional and mental manipulation. They are hidden in some kind of academic society, and commit themselves apparently to this rebirth of the old totalitarian state for the sake of stability. This is a good thing? An oligarchy with mind control? And all their motivations and desires are purely for the good of humanity and the completion of this Seldon plan for a second empire? They have no problem manipulating the villain (the one who is supposed to be the bad guy) into wiping out an entire planet just to stay hidden, and then leave some of their own to a lynch mob to convince everyone else they do not exist anymore. And why? Because knowledge of their existence throws some wrench into the plan? What the hell? These guys make Alan Moore's Ozymandias look like a rank amateur, because all he did was murder everyone living in New York City to avoid the nuclear war that he thought was coming (and I'm beginning to wonder if that outcome was as certain in Alan Moore's "Watchmen"). But even Moore gave you an idea of the sickness of this. He introduced you to the characters of the news paper stand owner, the boy reading the comics, the psychiatrist who tried so hard to save people one at a time (at the time of Ozymandias' massacre, he was trying to stop a street fight). He made the reader connect to them just before the "Grand Plan of Salvation" was put into place in all its terror. Asimov makes no attempt to introduce the people who are being slaughtered on a chapter by chapter basis all in the name of some vague greater good of re-founding a totalitarian state.

Unless this is actually Asimov's point and I've some how really missed the mark, the Foundation comes out more the villain as it subjugates and conquers the surrounding planetary system, leaving them open to rule by yet another distant and centralized government which does not truly represent them but rather rules them. And all for the sake of stability? The idea of survival of mankind? I'm lost, I admit it. Is the point that the Foundation is good or bad? Or is it just as it is? And was 30,000 years of instability with multiple self-ruled planets really not preferable to 1000 years of rule by a minority, chosen based only on their ability to perform abstract mathematical equations in an academic setting?

There are some economics arguments... but these two are the most unsettling for me. What confuses me more is how most people I talk to refer to Heinlein as a facist for his "Starship Troopers" novel based on a society that requires military service before citizens can vote (and not based on Nazi Germany, but on good ol' Switzerland) . But is anyone criticizing Asimov for portraying as progressive a totalitarian state run by manipulative and authoritarian academics as being facist? "Benevolent" dictatorship is still dictatorship. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As a note: not saying the Heinlein arguments are wrong, but if we're going to talk totalitarianism, the guy who wrote "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" seems to have a one up on the guy who wrote Foundation. Just saying.

Need a More Positive Outlook.

2011-11-18T00:51:00.003-06:00

With so many great things going on in my life I really do wonder why I fixate on depressing news.

Need to re-evaluate. Research (when the data is cooperating) is going well. My little owl is wonderful. My wife is more beautiful every day.

Unnecessary Conversation.

2011-11-14T08:13:00.003-06:00

Student: Hi, I'd like to discuss my grade.

Me: Okay. Which part?

Student: Well the presentation?

Me: The one you e-mailed me about ten minutes before class to say you would not be giving it*.

Student: Yes.

Me: Any reason?

Student: It just wasn't coming together.

Me: I assigned the presentation the second week of class. Other students have been in my office hours for the past two weeks preparing. Where have you been?

Student: Around.

Me: Well, you've failed.

Student: And how much is the Presentation worth?

Me: Well, the presentation is 40%, the Portfolio is 50%, and the homework is 10%. There is 5% extra credit if you complete a few other assignments. You have not turned in your last five chapter summaries at all though**.

Student: So... I should drop?

Me: Last day to drop is this Wednesday. After that you would have to seek a retroactive withdrawal from the college, so I really don't enter into that decision.

Student: So... I should drop?

Me: I'm not supposed to say one way or the other, but I would suggest you do the arithmetic on your current and potential grade and decide for yourself***.

And then there were 3. That's seven minutes of my life I will never get back.

*It is clearly stated in the syllabus that students must give 24 hours notice if they will not be giving their presentation and have a legitimate excuse with documentation (jury duty, medical emergency, etc.).

** The portfolio is a semester long project where students write a chapter summary applying the theories and concepts in the textbook to current events in their given country. They are two pages in length double spaced; they are not hard.

*** All of these numbers are easily available on Blackboard.

Welcome Home, Little Owl.

2011-10-15T10:20:00.001-05:00

10:31 PM. 10/14/2011. 8 pounds, 4 ounces.

Favorite doctor quote: "How can two such small people make such a big baby?"

My wife is champ.

About Time.

2011-10-13T07:17:00.003-05:00

The Free Trade deals that the Obama administration has been holding up since getting into office were finally passed.

Seriously this could have been done as soon as he was elected. It would not have pulled us out of the recession but it would not have hurt. The deal goes along with some sort of "re-training and financial aid" program for those who might lose jobs as a result. I'm still uncertain exactly how they determine that, but all three deals will be a net gain for the macroeconomy and a gain for three countries (Colombia, Panama, and South Korea) who we should have been dropping trade barriers with a long time ago.

"Free" (or at least more liberal- as in "more free") trade deals improve growth in economies that sorely need it. Growth is correlated with health, education, and welfare outcomes. Better health, education, and welfare outcomes lead to less tension, and less violence. That's Nobel Peace Prize material, Blagobamavich. So at the cost of improving lives, you held on to that "valuable f***ing thing" for three years. What'd Blagobamavich get in return? I guess his general weakness as a president in the face of opposition has advantages.

I'm... just... wow...

2011-09-21T09:31:00.002-05:00

Just... I don't know what to say to this.

So is there like a pee-wee soccer team in Western China where parents are shouting, "Let's go, Menthols!"

And then there's this:
"“We’ve been trying to get the Ministry of Education to stop the tobacco companies from sponsoring these schools,” said Xu. “But the ministry wants us to show them proof that this is causing harm.” "

Quick Update:

Isn't "companies" a typo? The Tobacco industry in China is owned by the government, so wouldn't it be just the one? Or did Phillip Morris actually get into the Chinese school business too?

Called it. (Again With Jatropha)

2011-09-16T22:06:00.002-05:00

I posted this in 2007.

CNN reported on this August 13th.

I am still very much in support of jatropha research as a biofuel. I'm a bit confused by CNN's statements on the ejido system being a large barrier to cultivation, but I must confess I do not have as good a grasp on Mexican land reform as I would like. Going to have to consult some old textbooks and see.

My Career Could Be in Their Hands.

2011-09-14T14:33:00.004-05:00

Putting together my teaching portfolio and getting ready for the job-market. My evaluations are generally good, but then I really do wonder about the reliability of these scores.

If we look on RateMyProfessor, after all, we find that a professor who has recently been arrested on charges of dealing methamphetamine and heading a well-armed motorcycle gang did gangbusters.

Perhaps universities should not be relying on student evaluation of professors. Or perhaps I've been approaching teaching from the wrong angle... going to put "Breaking Bad" on my Netflix as soon as possible.

Nice Campaign Speech.

2011-09-09T07:35:00.003-05:00

I changed the channel once Obama said, "invest in infrastructure." I heard that one four years ago. Somehow I don't think I missed anything.

Science is not a Democracy.

2011-09-08T09:10:00.006-05:00

Governor Perry:

Science is not a democracy. My "economist" bias is that its more of a market place. People don't "vote" on the best product in a market place, they buy the one that works. Galileo was not "out-voted" on the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around, he was imprisoned by the Inquisition and had his writings banned from the public. In fact Governor Perry, you could make a "big government" argument here about large, centralized institutions interfering in the optimal rational decisions of individual agents. For the record, the funeral wishes of Galileo's family were also denied by the Catholic church because of his "heresy." This was not out-voting, this was oppression by a tyrannical regime.

Why is evolutionary theory still around? Because it works: its grown better foods, its produced better vaccines, it is the only working model amongst the many that have tried and failed to gain traction. It was not up for a vote, it was tested in the marketplace of ideas and industry and it worked. Ideas such as "intelligent design" or traditions such as "creationism" have not produced any of the above. I'm not discounting faith or belief here, I am simply pointing out that the writings of Augustine and William Jennings Bryant contributed nothing to the vaccine for polio, or modern surgical techniques.

And for the record; think of "evolutionary theory" as if it were the "theory of gravity." It is a model that has proved extremely useful in explaining observations in nature and predicting/manipulating outcomes. I'm fairly certain that's not what you mean when you say something is "just a theory".

Why does climate change stick around? Because the models have worked to the point where 97% of scientists who specialize in it agree that it is the model that works; that human intervention does have consequences on climate.

And finally, it is not in the best interest of free markets or individual liberty to have a "vote" on scientific claims and theories. In fact it is incredibly socialist of you to surrender this competitive and productive market of ideas to the authority of a government, because that worked so well in the past. Why should scientists submit to a "vote"? They already submit to an extremely wrenching process of peer review, where their ideas, if not productive, are torn to shreds. It is more favorable towards individual liberty and capitalism to the let the market decide and the Invisible Hand does not vote- not in the sense that you mean.

Governor Perry your comment about Galileo was odious, ill-advised, anti-science, and in all honesty anti-liberty. Galileo was an inventive, entrepreneurial, and bold man, willing to take risks and entertain new ideas. He is exactly the kind of man we need in a new economy. To "out-vote" him would be a tragedy, an indecency, and a crime. Indeed, it was all of those three.

PS:
By the way, evolutionary theory was behind that HPV vaccine that you decided everyone should take. Just saying. For something you flippantly dismiss as "just a theory" you seem to have remarkable faith in its products.

The Fed Suits.

2011-09-03T09:14:00.002-05:00

Okay, so the Feds are suing on behalf of Fannie and Freddie. This is a little different than what I was hoping for. This suit is brought by the Feds, for the Feds. It does hurt some of the major banks and its a better expenditure of time and effort by the Feds then what Congress and the President are doing these days, so best of luck.

What I was hoping for, in terms of government action is more like what state attorney generals are doing. And this is what the Blagobamavich administration is trying to "bring under control" (he's got this valuable thing, and he's not going to give it up for free). The states don't have to, and in my opinion should not, abide by the settlement because 1) we don't know exactly how many of these foreclosures are legit, and if they do settle we never will, 2) the banks are liars, and 3) because forget DC that's why.

The banks think this swamp of litigation is going to hurt the economy? Prove it. Seriously, I hear this but I see no legitimate backing for this claim. Support it, argue it. Don't just state it. This is practically the same BS line from GM about "What's good for GM is good for America." What's good for banks is good for America? Nope. There are other banks, who played fair out there, who will not get sued. Maybe they deserve some business since they did not get any government money.

Meanwhile the Feds suing each other... I mean.. suing other banks... over Fannie and Freddie? Do not care. I don't see how that puts people back in their homes. State attorney generals suing banks over their fraud, stopping possible foreclosures? That seems to be more like it. An army of pissed off, lawyered up individual Americans wearing down these guys with death by litigation? That's more like it.

What's the Difference Between the UN and the Catholic Church?

2011-09-02T08:16:00.003-05:00

The UN has guns.

So, many media outlets have been giving credit to WikiLeaks for exposing rampant sex abuse by UN Peace Keepers. Uhm... no. This is just one more "already knew this" item that these guys are putting out there. This is not new, although on the bright side maybe people will pay more attention to this problem.

In 2008 the headlines read "Child Sex Abuse by UN Still Rampant..." (emphasis on the "still" is mine), and in 2005 CBS reported that somebody in the UN was maybe, possibly, talking about doing something about it. This is where they get all Catholic: "Currently, U.N. troops and employees accused of wrongdoing are sent home to be dealt with by their own government but are often never punished."

A 2010 cable from the US embassy investigating the misconduct of Beninese Peacekeepers is not some great discovery. The most sickening thing is that its business as usual for the UN, and the people in charge are saying ridiculous things like "we see it as a command and control problem."

The US provides somewhere around 20-25% of UN funding. The US sends tax payer money to the UN. The UN deploys troops around the world. There is a consistent pattern of abuse and corruption among these troops, with very little punishment for inappropriate behavior (to put it mildly). At least we can choose to not support the Catholic church.

Command and control? There is neither. Let's also mention the capability of UN Peacekeepers to bring foreign strains of disease into disaster areas if some particular governments don't screen their Peace Keepers properly!

Lawyer Up, part deux

2011-09-01T09:45:00.003-05:00

I'm a big fan of Planet Money, and their series on "Toxie the Toxic Asset" might be taking a George Romero turn: it could be back from the dead.

If you haven't heard the series, you're missing out. Take some time to listen to it.

My heart does a quick little jig every time I hear about the banks involved with the crash getting sued. I've held some pretty waffling outlooks on the whole crash. I do understand and agree with the rescue of the banks by the Fed (secret loans) and the Treasury (TARP). Things could have been a lot worse if the financial system was allowed to crash. But I also, deep down, wanted to see BoA, Goldman, Citi, Chase, and the whole lot of them face the music. They made bad investments. They should go down, just like Lehman. I balked at the bail-out of GM and Chrysler after all, and rightly viewed it as government rewarding poor performance from bad companies, and punishing good performance from others (no help for Tesla? really?). How are they different from the banks? Well the banks had the economy hostage. Liquidity freeze is a serious issue, and it can lead to worse outcomes than 9% unemployment.

But there seemed to be no punishment for banks behaving badly. In fact BoA and Citi have been getting away with fraud and attempting to foreclose on homes that didn't even have mortgages, until some good people hired lawyers and proceeded to sue the hell out of them. Its important to remember that these banks are FRAUDS. And our current "Hope and Change" president is trying to pressure a settlement with these banks which would bar future litigation. The president apparently wants to negotiate with the banks for a general settlement in return for letting them get away with rampant fraud. This has worked out so well for him in the past, because our Nobel Prize Winning law professor has no balls when it comes to negotiations. No back-bone, no huevos, no intestinal fortitude, NO COURAGE. The man can't even get through a trivial schedule change without looking like an imbecile.

We did not have the chance, when the economy was crashing to punish these banks. So why not take the another route and sue them. The government won't regulate or punish them in any meaningful way, because they are corrupt and cowardly. Time for us to love the lawyers. Time for us to love every manipulative, scheming, greedy stereotype lawyer that we can find, because when I open up the paper they seem to be the last people with any decency left.

And as a fun one, let's review the accomplishments of our president that are worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize, something he shares with other greats like Yassir Arafat and Henry Kissinger:
1) kept Guantanamo Bay open, despite promising to close it "within a year" of his election,
2) signed an extension of the Patriot Act, allowing for the continuance of violation of privacy of his own citizens under the guise of "security,"
3) signed into law a mandate that all Americans purchase insurance, without providing an affordable public alternative (imagine requiring everyone to go to school, but then not providing public schools and how that might affect one's budget),
4) delayed free trade agreements (how is that "strengthening international diplomacy"?)

and now (5), he is attempting to interfere with people's right to sue through our legal system large organizations who have defrauded and harassed them. We're past the crash, and we're into stagnation. A little (or even a lot ) of litigation isn't going to be the end of the world; in fact it might give some of the medium and small size banks, who have been competitively disadvantaged by the government's and Federal Reserve's favoritism to the large banks, get a leg up and compete with the big boys.

Love your lawyer, sue the banks.

What Does She Have to Do?

2011-08-29T09:45:00.005-05:00

To convince everyone that she is completely incompetent? Better yet, that she is bottom-line a horrible human being.

Congresswoman Bachmann is not insinuating, nor hinting, she is out-right saying that Hurricane Irene and the East Coast quake are punishments and messages from God that the US government should cut spending.

Wait... what?

That's right, Timmy, your puppy drowned last weekend in the Hurricane, not because daddy forgot to bring him in, but because God wanted to let our government know that he is concerned about the debt to GDP ratio. Because God is pretty big on the performance of economic aggregates. There's a whole chapter on it in Second Opinions. It's right next to the passage that warns of secular Kenyan Islamists.

Just to take a bit further: God killed 25 people (so far) because government spending is just way out of proportion to the Biblical mandates. Don't tell me I'm being silly, that is exactly what she is saying. Should we rewind?

"I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of politicians... We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

This is also assuming that the will of the American people as she is interpreting it, is equal to the will of God. You know what else was the "will of the American people" in the South back in the 50s and 60s? The will of good, Godly, church-going, voting white people? Even the Mormons now reject that God is racist, so maybe the typical voter is not a good gauge of what the creator of the universe is intending. Maybe we should go further back to slavery, because that was Biblical and supported very heavily by certain state governments.

And you know what, let's just stop a second here, because her idea of government in Christianity is a bit skewed.
1) There is no democracy in the Bible, not as a government form, and certainly not implemented by God. In fact monarchy seemed to be the favorite, with David being the benevolent dictator "after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14). Not exactly the contemporary Republican view of "small government."
2) okay before you hit "comment" and school me on Acts, yeah I know: Acts 2:42-47. Everybody gets together, shares their stuff, eats, drinks, and is merry. That's hardly a government. It's a fellowship, its a church. Not a government. But if we want to go that way, then everyone piles on their wealth into a big pot and shares it. This is closer to facism or socialism than to good old modern day American "capitalism". Read a few chapters later, and we find that the punishment paid for not sharing with the other children was death.

These are not the acts of a an "invisible hand" kind of God. In fact the self-interested actions of individuals in that case led to death, and not the overall beneficial societal outcome (the butcher and the baker better not set the wrong price, or they will die). So what makes the Congresswoman believe that God's message (if it is indeed that) is a message for smaller government? For people holding back more? Perhaps God wants more government spending! Over 9% unemployment, people losing money, people losing job-attached insurance, the suffering of God's children, while the wealthiest control a huge amount of our macroeconomic spending power. Does this sound similar to what you're reading in Acts 2? Wouldn't a redistributive and powerful government be more Biblical? God did after all appoint kings; something that Americans across this hemisphere spent many years, many lives, and many wars trying to throw out. Maybe God wants us to return to a monarchy?

But she also should probably stop cutting her hair so short, and in fact cover it up if she really wants to get Biblical. (1 Corinthians 11: 3-9)

Or maybe a hurricane is just a tragedy, and an earthquake is just a disaster. Maybe all the good, upright, and charitable parts of us come out during these tragedies and the faithful, spurred on by their belief in a loving deity, run to meet the needs of the suffering (as they did and have done many times). Maybe God's message is to help and love one another with our short time on this world to the best of our abilities when disaster strikes.

The point here is that Congresswomann Bachmann is a hateful, vile, stupid, selfish, dung heap of human wreckage. How dare she use the deaths of 25 people for political fodder, how dare she spread her warped messages, and how dare the people of Iowa honestly support this slug of a human. Shame on her, shame on the state of Minnesota for electing her, and shame on anyone who supports her.

UPDATE: The report is that she said this as "a joke". So which is worse: that she would seriously believe that 25 deaths were a message from God about government spending, or that she would use these people's deaths as a joke?

I am willing to bet the Congresswoman was not joking. The "joke" aspect doesn't change a thing: this is not something that should have been said in any context.

Grapes.

2011-08-25T12:39:00.003-05:00

There have been rumblings that the executive branch of our extremely competent and effective government is trying to dissuade what could be legions of lawyers ready to (rightfully) sue several banks regarding their incompetence, ineptitude, and general disregard for human decency.

An Atlantic blog post has a nice explanation for why Blagobamavich would want to do such a thing, and not for the usual campaign contribution conspiracy ideas. He does have this valuable ****ing thing.. and he's not going to just give up for free.

Oh wait...
yes he will.

Let me paint this picture for you all, and then tell me if you're not as horrified as I am about the concept of the Obama administration negotiating a deal on mortgages with legions of well trained bank lawyers.

Obama proposed "B" for the debt ceiling debate. Opponents in Congress suggested "A". Obama suggested "B+" for the debt ceiling debate. Opponents suggested "A". Obama said "A-". Opponents said "A". Obama said "okay."

Now, keep in mind the general collective idiocy of Congress. Now imagine the combined powers of every ivy league lawyer hired by Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo, and company, each with the singular goal to screw everyone out of as much money as they they did with TARP and loans from the Federal Reserve.

Do we really want THAT DUDE negotiating what to do with all those mortgages, with THESE GUYS?

Lawyer up, America! You're government cannot negotiate for you because they lack the testicular fortitude! Hire a lawyer who does.

Pope-mobile in the Rain.

2011-08-20T23:32:00.006-05:00

I find it a little odd that the justice system of Spain would call for the international arrest of Augusto Pinochet, a known murderer and torturer, many in the former Argentine dictatorship, also known murderers and tortures, and ask for an international arrest warrant to detain and try several in the former Bush administration for systematic torture at Guantanamo Bay, but they let a man who has been harboring and covering the tracks of hundreds of men who raped and tortured children for decades speak on a military base, without even the hint of arrest.

Secondary question; since the Obama administration has made no move to change what's going on at Guantanamo, does that mean the Spanish also want to arrest and detain him and his advisors?

Buy Chinese American.

2011-08-09T08:24:00.002-05:00

Mark Thoma's Economist View always delivers on the fun stuff. Original article from the Federal Reserve Bank in SF.

"Goods and services from China accounted for only 2.7% of U.S. personal consumption expenditures in 2010, of which less than half reflected the actual costs of Chinese imports. The rest went to U.S. businesses and workers transporting, selling, and marketing goods carrying the "Made in China" label. Although the fraction is higher when the imported content of goods made in the United States is considered, Chinese imports still make up only a small share of total U.S. consumer spending."

Forgive Us Our Trespasses...

2011-08-08T13:10:00.004-05:00

Course Evaluations are in from Spring. Let me put it this way: one bad review. This student also complained that my grading was inconsistent and unfair. I know exactly who this student is, and I need not check handwriting to confirm (besides I can't really do that very well anyway). This would be the crier- the student who twice came into my office in tears about some issue or other. Let me review my unfairness toward this student:

1) The student was given the mid-term take-home exam 10 days before any other student, and was allowed three more days time to work on it than anyone other student. The student turned in the midterm nearly 20 hours after the agreed upon time, and I still accepted it, despite not giving any leniency to other students regarding turning the test in late.
2) The student agreed to not discuss her exam with anyone, then discussed it with two of her cohorts. They all took (incorrect) answers off of wikipedia. Instead of charging them with academic misconduct, I allowed them to take the Final Exam. All three failed the Final anyway.
3) At no time did I responsibly file Academic Misconduct charges.
4) I allowed a total of two crying jags at a duration of nearly six minutes each. It was only after the second that I told the student to act like an adult and get her work done (in much nicer words).

I did indeed behave irresponsibly: my grading was inconsistent and unfair. It was unfair to the all the other students in my course who turned in chapter reviews, data assignments, portfolios, exams and presentations on time. I am deeply sorry to those students, who did not try to shortcut, bully, cheat or cry their way to a passing grade.

Glowing reviews from every other student. My personal favorite:
"This was one of the best courses I've had in the ECON department. He expected a lot from us, but clearly also expected a lot from himself. He is the fairest, most competent GTA I've ever had at KU. Thank you for a great class!"

Awwwww.

Still, I was harder on this Spring batch than I have ever been on a batch of students. I wonder how far I can push the Fall batch? Oh, and no more wheeling-and-dealing with plagiarizing students. I do not subscribe to the myth of accidental plagiarism anymore, or unintentional copy-pasting. It's going on my syllabus: "All plagiarism will be treated as intentional and malicious, and will be prosecuted as such." I'm not even going to meet with them to ask anymore. I'm just going to push it down to the admins at Liberal Arts and Sciences and they can slap them on the wrists, as they usually do. But at least that way there's a record.

What the Heck is Going on?

2011-07-20T13:02:00.006-05:00

So yesterday my wife calls me at the office and she wants to baby shop. Heat index is around 111F, I'm a tad bit grumpy from working on my proposal and summer research project, my eyes are dry from staring at a computer screen all day, and I am cursing each and every person ever associated with the Federal Reserve Board... ever. That seemed like a good time to take a break.

I am not a good shopper. My family knows this. Especially when it comes to anything other than books, music, or food. My wife loves shopping, and I try to be as good as possible. I will honestly admit that I'm not jumping at the chance to shop, but the baby needs things, and it really makes my wife happy. So I man-up and get ready to sort through an assortment of pink sheets, looking for a label that says 100% cotton. That is background for where this story is going.

We agreed on a baby mattress and some sheets, as well as looked at prices for rugs, window curtain materials, and other baby stuff. Then came the issue of the mobile. My wife is brilliant, and she wants to make the mobile herself. I really think this is a fantastic idea, and so I'm going along with the fabric selections, string selection etc. And then she pulls out what look like two spray painted ply wood tortilla holders for the base to hang the cloth owls from.

I do not know what came over me. The wood pieces looked horrible. They were ghastly. All I could imagine was my child looking up at two black UFOs of death with happy little owls hanging down from them; perhaps abducted, drugged, probed, and then unceremoniously dropped in Butte, Montana, to face the incessant questioning of conspiracy nuts. Not my child. Ooooooh no.

Then daddy went a little crazy.

I found myself (very nicely and politely- don't think I was rude or angry with my wife) saying things that I know will make everyone around roll their eyes. Those things usually began with, "My child will not..." with a particularly self-righteous tone.

So... I made my wife put the tortilla holder of death back on the shelf, assuring her that I could find better wood at Home Depot or Wal-Mart and that I would put together the hanging base for the mobile, and that my child would not fall asleep under cheap grim reaper mulch. No she would sleep under quality material, and that little booger would know that daddy loves her. Let me stop and say, for the record, that we were at the end of our shopping/scouting trip. My wife was fully prepared to go home and rest, something I had been looking forward to all day. ... and then I dragged her across town to the Home Depot and the Hobby Lobby.

At the Home Depot I asked the very patient and nice young man in the lumber section if I could see the wood scraps. After a couple of seconds rooting through their scrap bin I announced that none of it would do, and we moved on (are you seeing a pattern of general daddy-douchery going on here?). I then dragged my wife to Hobby Lobby, where I accosted her with half the wood-carving section as examples of superior mobile material. We settled on an elliptical piece with the bark still around the trim. I can drill holes in them, and hang them from hooks secured into the ceiling.

So, that's the end of it right?

No. Then I see a book (which is never good). A book on pyrography... wood-burning. "Wait!" I announce to my exhausted wife, "I have a soldering iron! We can write her name on the base so she can see it with the owls hanging down!!!

I

CAN

DO

THIS!!!"

Well... about an hour and a half into me hunched over the kitchen counter with my old soldering iron (previously only used to fix gliltchy wires in my electric bass), practicing a couple of different ways to trace "Eva" as written on practice wood pieces by my calligraphist wife, I suddenly look up as if waking up from a black-out.

"Wait... what just happened?"

In my defense, its going to be an AWESOME mobile.

Update:
The wife and I working on some rough drafts.

Bravo.

2011-07-19T13:11:00.004-05:00

It used to bother me when I heard blowhards making (at best) careless and incorrect statements about women not being as good as men at science or mathematics. It bothered me more when I heard young women in my class discuss how they were not good at economics or math based on the gender they happened to be.

After I found out I had my own little girl about to make her stunning debut sometime around the end of October, then these things just started pissing me off.

So my little owl, here's the best news story I've read all month.

Also a bit of hope that there is something going right with education in the US.

Dollar dollar bill y'all.

2011-07-05T09:41:00.003-05:00

Lagarde is cashing in. In fact she is earning a bit more than Strauss Kahn did. $83,000 a year to maintain "a scale of living appropriate to your position as Managing Director and to the Fund's need for representation."

But they insist that she "observe the highest standards of ethical conduct, consistent with the values of integrity, impartiality and discretion." You know, like how Strauss Kahn did.

Again, I am repeating my prediction that Hillary Clinton will be head of the World Bank when that musical chair comes up.

Blagobamavich is Watching.

2011-06-24T09:22:00.003-05:00

The IMF and World Bank seats are up for swap (no givesies-backsies!), and bit by bit our federal government is chipping away at the fourth amendment.

But thank God our corn subsidies were saved. WHEW!

Huh...

2011-06-23T09:53:00.003-05:00

Alright, this Bolivian car thing is way too interesting...

Scratch that last post. Evito, for all the bad things I say about you, you do make me think. I'll be back with something more interesting, and hopefully more coherent later.

Olly Olly Oxen Free, Evo Morales.

2011-06-23T09:11:00.004-05:00

Well its official: grand theft auto is now legal in Bolivia (so long as its stolen from somewhere else).

Question though. The smuggled vehicles are sold on the cheap in the black market because they are illegal and the sellers need to avoid certain laws and enforcement officials. If a seller can now instead "legalize" the stolen car once it is in Bolivia, can't he raise the price now, pay any marginal tax, and avoid the risky cost of being caught and put in jail by Bolivian authorities? Would the legalization not raise the price of cars for the poor, hurting the very people Evito says "have a right" to own them?

And for you car smugglers, hear me out: you no longer have to fear consequences from the local police, so long as you stole your car in another country. The poor you've been selling to have had the implicit threat of ratting you out (or possibly being a police informant). Seriously, raise the price of your merchandise. Evito has done the cost minimization for you.

How would you deal with that situation though? "Officer, I swear, this car was stolen in Chile." How do you prove something like that? VIN number and maybe papers in the glove box?

Update: Follow up question, since Evito is okay with larceny do the Bolivian people expect to have much a treasury left when he leaves office? Some one might want to double check the books.

Rational Thought Update: The italics section actually is wrong. Evito has a point, and I'm backwards. Let's go back to ECON 101. If there are 100,000 "new" cars on the legal secondary market, that pushes out the supply curve, putting a downward pressure on price. So prices in the legal secondary market do indeed GO DOWN, benefiting consumers. Here I think is my confusion: would the price of the legal secondary market be higher or lower than the illegal secondary market initially? I'm assuming it was lower since there were 70 to 100 thousand cars that magically appeared for registration. The legal secondary market price could be pushed lower than the illegal one, and that would be a benefit. If it isn't, than consumers would continue to participate in the illegal one, as the price is relatively lower.

Hm...

Farm Subsidies Are Not Good.

2011-06-17T10:38:00.006-05:00

Our legislature has just voted on continuing subsidies that benefit large companies (who must pay very well during Iowa primaries), while "trimming the fat" of food aid. Oh, they've also made it harder for small farms to compete.

I would feel sorry for small farmers if I did not believe that they do not statistically exist anymore in the US (any numbers on how big "small farms" are relative to ADM? Anyone?).

We've cut payments to Brazil which were the result of their (very reasonable) protest against our farm subsidies and tariffs. Okay... so what? Have we lowered the tariffs against Brazilian goods yet? Nope, and now we're back in violation of the agreement made with the WTO.

Just to recap: in the great Congressional debate on deficit and debt reduction, our Congressmen and Senators have cut aid to women and children (food stamps!!!) by $868 million, but kept the subsidies for large farm companies ($20 billion from some estimates), and added to the headaches of that small population of "small farmers" who are actually small farmers.

Do not buy the lies. Farm subsidies do not "help" the good old, F150 driving, aw-shucks, all-American farmers. They help the guys that Matt Damon ratted out in this movie. WIC on the other hand helps feed young children, which is proven to improve educational outcomes in pre-school and kindergarten, which is shown to have a very large and significant correlation with future wage outcomes (the ability of kiddos to grow up and NOT have to use programs like WIC).

Stan is still the Man.

2011-06-14T09:11:00.003-05:00

Disqualified for being too old. I must admit, I fully expected the IMF to go ahead and consider his candidacy after a review and a vote. I like Dr. Fischer for the job, but "thems the rules" and it was the call of the board and they made it (right or wrong).

I do see this as a signal though that certain governments have already decided how this is going to go. Lagarde will be head of the IMF, and the Euro zone can continue to use it as their piggy bank for as long as their currency is in crisis. An American will become the president of the World Bank (90% certain it will be Clinton- I smell a deal, and let's face the facts that Blagobamavich is just another corrupt Chicago deal maker), and the US will continue to treat the World Bank in much the same way USAID is a "development" institution.

I am curious what Dr. Carstens is doing. The man describes his position as having to try to win a soccer match when your opponent has 5 and you have 0. That does not sound like a man who expects to win this fight. Is this a maneuver for more power and influence in the board? Is he vying for some kind of popularity at home? Or is he really ready to smash face first into this windmill on principle alone?

Parting though: why do people waste time on 9/11 or Area 51 conspiracy theories, when one is unfolding right in front of us and has unsettling and long term implications for the world economy? Ask yourself this one question, think about it, then Google it: Where does the IMF funding come from? Now think about where the IMF funding goes.

What's the Difference Between Larry O'Brien and Alfred Nobel?

2011-06-13T08:23:00.003-05:00

You don't win for potential.

Update:
Go Mavs. I really miss Dallas.

Dang it Stan...

2011-06-12T06:54:00.003-05:00

Oh, Stan, Stan, Stan. By which I mean, "With all due respect Professor Fischer (have I said recently how much I liked your book?)..."

As stated in a previous post, I am all for Stanley Fischer as the new head of the IMF. There is no "but" there. There is however, a "however".

HOWEVER, I'm worried about the timing and the admission of "indecision" on his part. Lagarde and her competitor (my respect again to Carstens for chasing this windmill) have been making foreign visits already. The Europeans have thrown their hat in, and some one is dangling the World Bank post in front of Obama/Clinton "a la Blagojevich" ("I've got this valuable thing here...").

Things have certainly gotten more interesting, and my vote is for the qualified economist over the French spray-tan lawyer, but I've been feeling pessimistic these days. I really do not think there is anyone more qualified now in the running than Stanley Fischer. But I think he has lost valuable time sitting on his decision, when he should have been convincing heads of state that he's their man.

Hillary is Lagarde's Ticket In.

2011-06-09T23:42:00.003-05:00

If the US officially declares support for Lagarde in the next week or two, then I am willing to bet Hillary will be the 2012 President of the World Bank.

The agreement of the US/EU World Bank/IMF leadership stands.

My sympathies to Dr. Carstens, and my admiration for his quixotic leap into the fray. You see, I've learned something today. It doesn't matter where you come from, or your pedigree, or ethnicity, or the powerful friends you may or may not have; if you just work hard, are intelligent, and persevere you too will be rewarded with world recognition of just how productive and qualified you.... oh wait... no that's not it at all.

As Kyle says: "You haven't learned anything, Cartman! Not a ******* thing!!!"

And as Rod Blagojevich, Governor of the home state of our current President says: "[if you have] a ***** valuable thing you just don't give it away for nothing."

Test Musicians!

2011-06-08T08:12:00.003-05:00

Apparently the Brazilian Symphony Orchestra is in an uproar for a number of firings of long-time players. I'm not sympathetic to the players on this one.

It seems that the rationale behind the musicians' argument is that they have played in the orchestra longest, and therefore their seniority should keep them from having to participate in yearly auditions for spots. This is ridiculous. Seniority should not guarantee a musician anything; his skill, expression, and ability should. One of the few ways to really judge that among a large orchestra is to have auditions where the conductor can hear each player individually.

Music is an intense physical and mental activity, and like in sports, audiences reward good performance and punish bad performance. Perhaps one reason the Brazilian Symphony Orchestra has not been doing so well internationally is that they don't subject their musicians to auditions and tests every now and again to insure they're keeping up their chops. Anyone who plays music knows how easy it is to fall in love with it, but "musician" is a job just like any other. There are bound to be shirkers, and we just cannot assume that some one is putting in their best when they say how big a part of their life it is.

Further I think this is a good signal that Brazil is moving more towards a meritocracy then supporting the "old boys club". It has been shown that the introduction of blind auditions increases the chances of a woman getting a spot by 50% (a pretty clear showing of sexual selection if the male conductor can see rather than just here the musician). How much more stratified was the Brazilian Symphony Orchestra before they implemented auditions rather than rewarding seniority? How many of them came from the (richer) inner city and how many from the (poorer) favela? I am very interested in learning the demographic data of this particular group over the past twenty years.

Seriously: what is the ratio of male to female musicians in the OSB from let's say just a decade, 2001 to 2011? How many more/less women were hired after the implementing of auditions?

With regards to the hinted at issue of an increase in "foreign" musicians at the OSB (which oddly enough was started by a mix of foreign immigrants and locals, so not sure why its a problem now); is the point that Brazilians can't compete musically with Europeans and Asians? 12 new immigrant musicians and 9 new Brazilian doesn't sound too bad, but maybe I'm wrong.

And in terms of cultural identity, then simply start a second group. If Brazil wants an internationally renowned orchestra, they have to rise to the highest standards in the world, and those standards do not include tenure. Maybe have two groups: one the cultural/national heritage symphony, in which case tenure, history and personal demographics can be a very beneficial thing, and one the international symphony. Boom.

Here's the last point: musicians across the world (Asia, Europe, North America) have been competing rigorously for years for top spots in the relatively few orchestras out there. To the Brazilian musicians: cowboy up, guys and gals. So you've been there for 30 years? You should be able to ace the audition. If you can't, then maybe you should do some soul searching about where you are before you blame the higher-ups. And before I get harangues for agism, I would like to ask about the dozens of young musicians who were denied that spot in the orchestra for decades not for their ineptitude or inexperience, but because the old guy sitting in that chair had been there longer. Which is more fair? Blind auditions or tenure?

Yearly auditions for orchestras are a good idea. Blind auditions are an even better one.

Nice...

2011-06-06T09:08:00.002-05:00

People foreclosing on banks should happen more often.

Ur Doing it Wrong!

2011-06-05T22:45:00.003-05:00

Let me distract you for a minute from the depressing circus that is the nomination process for the head of the IMF with the nomination process for the Fed Board.

The Nobel Prize Winning Economist Peter Diamond, has been continually denied by the Senate an appointment by President Obama to the Fed Board (thank you, Richard Shelby, you are a moron). After a year of this mess he has withdrawn from the proceedings, and published his views in an New York Times op-ed.

This is depressing, and he has a point... a very depressing point.

You Really Should Be Paying Attention To This.

2011-06-03T08:49:00.002-05:00

"The French want to sway decision-making at the I.M.F. in order to use money from the United States, Japan and poorer countries to conceal from their own electorate that the euro-zone structure has led all its members into fiscal jeopardy: some borrowed heavily; others let their banks lend irresponsibly and thus created a large contingent liability.

The best way to hide the true cost is to have other people’s taxpayers foot the bill, preferably with the least possible transparency. Thus, euro-zone politicians have a lot at stake, and look for Ms. Lagarde to run the I.M.F."

Simon Johnson Economix Blog.

I Called It.

2011-06-02T22:05:00.001-05:00

It's a girl. :)

"Bragging Rights" achieved!

Lies, Damn Lies, and Spitzer.

2011-05-28T23:36:00.002-05:00

I just can't let this go.

Once again, CNN in its infinite wisdom and responsibility for good use of statistics has given a show to Eliot (I'm-Not-Going-To-Make-A-Reference-Here-To-A-Number-That-Is-Greater-Than-8-But-Less-Than-10) Spitzer, who has used this time to make a general idiot of himself.

Last time I posted his mis-use of data from the New York Times regarding the total electricity use of China, and then coyly hints at a doomsday scenario for US firms. Alright, Ellie, here a few more numbers.

I took ten minutes today to play with Google Public Data. They post World Bank Development indicators, which are free and easily available up to 2008. I would like to draw attention to this graph.

The graph is kilowatt hours used per capita (that's per person if you didn't get it already) for the following countries: The US, China, Chile, Mexico, Egypt, Japan, Brazil, India, and Russia. Granted, this is 2008, but I'm assuming electric consumption in China per capita has not sky-rocketed 3,319 kwh per person to above 13,654 kwh per person in the past three years. Do I doubt the NYT's numbers for total electric use? No. But that's looking at a country of a billion people as a single entity. The average or per person electricity use in China is still much, much lower than the US. US companies need not fear the purchasing power of the Chinese competing with your typical American.

But let's consider another point, which I will make again. So the hell what if Chinese electric consumption is growing? This is a sign of growing income, better health, and better life. China is not a perfect country (no where near it regarding civil liberties), but it is good that the average Chinese person is on the whole less poor than their parents were. Take a new look, again using Google Public data at Gross National Income per capita for these same countries. The average Chinese person in 2008 earned about $1000 more than the average Egyptian, and $4000 less than the average Brazilian. Everyone makes a big deal about GNI/GDP surpassing Japan, and China now being the second largest economy in the world. Note that the GNI per capita of Japan is a cool $33,000. The average Japanese person makes $33,000 a year, while the average Chinese person makes (almost) $7000. Almost.

So there are two points I want to make:
1) Spitzer is measuring these things incorrectly, and then making stupid predictions about it in a shallow attempt to take advantage of US fear of China (and sadly it probably worked), and
2) Growth is not a whip-it-out contest. When you see these numbers, do not think of this in terms of a country now has greater wealth, and this is all a big competition to the top. Look at the average terms, and think of it in this way: the average Chinese person is richer than he was, meaning he can get medical care, education, food, and some of the things that citizens of Western and Latin American countries have enjoyed for decades now (note the growth of per capita GDP of Mexico and Brazil vs. China in the last graph). Growth is good, because Growth means life is improving. It would be nice if political and civil liberties came with economic power (the jury is still out), but I think dropping infant mortality rates around the world, increased primary school graduation rates, and better health outcomes are a really good start.

Again, Mr. Spitzer, have you no shame or intellect?

... and I made it through this whole post without using the words "Client" or "nine". ... oh... dadgummit.

Same as the Old Boss.

2011-05-26T07:45:00.004-05:00

I've never been this bored before.

OMGLOL, it's a lady! That'll help the IMF's rape-ish reputation (assuming that the IMF operates under the Polanski definition of "consensual"). There is no way that she's involved in any kind of shenanigans that could embarass the IMF cause she's got the whole lady thing down! Plus she's French, so they'll be getting a second chance... or... seventh... but who's counting?

Simon Johnson has had some interesting (and more mature) pieces and interviews published here, here, and here (this last link being a much better explanation of the IMF than I provided before).

IMF-related boredom/face-palming:
Eliot Spitzer says something stupid. He uses Chinese consumption of electricity to make conclusions about the growth of China's economy, and how it will apparently soon surpass the US. He cites an IMF report of the Chinese economy surpassing the US in 2016. Oh for Confucius' sake...

I have not seen this IMF report (he fails to cite or link it), but I'm going to bet its one of the usual GDP measures. Now I'm going to tell you all something that every single student I've had knows that Eliot Spitzer apparently does not:

GROWTH

IS

GOOD

!

See if you can keep up Eliot. First of all, the proper measurement for making these kinds of ridiculous judgements is not consumption of electricity at the country level, which while a nice instrument, is not informative enough. You see, Ellie, economists have been using Gross Domestic Product since Buddha-knows-when to approximate the "size" of the economy. Picture a big woman with a big purse... wait... no, let's not do that so you don't try to pay her for... moving on. Let's just picture a big man with a big wallet. The GDP is the size of this man's wallet; we assume he "spends all he receives" in income, so his total expenditure is his total income (his wallet). Still with me, lab partner?

Our big man is not a good approximation of welfare or economic ability of the citizens, just potential economic power, if some one liquidated the entire economy and put it into currency. It could be that one Chinese dudette holds the entire GDP in her hands, while the rest of them starve. But let's put inequality on hold. Let's just think about population.

A more proper measure of economic size is to look at the "spending power" of some representative (average) individual in that economy. Divide GDP by population. The number has changed! In fact the rankings have changed! Let me give you an idea, the GDP per capita of the United States in 2010 was $45,989 (FGI, Eliot). The GDP per capita of China was $3,744.

Let me make it more simple:
$45,989 > $3,744

That means that forty-frikkin-five thousand dollars per person is strictly greater than three thousand seven hundred per person. So, Eliot, retake economics. Or just listen to John Oliver, a comedian who seems to have a better grasp on things than you do:

"Any nations economic strength is solely in the hands of its citizens' ability to consume... That is why America is the greatest economy on Earth! You people can't be beaten! ... I was in a mall in Connecticut and a saw an item in a shop window that stopped me dead in my tracks. ... It was an inflatable bar-be-que! ... It was a full functioning bar-be-que so that you... could cook while swimming! Is there any greater example of what it is to live in the freest nation on Earth than that?! ... Will China emerge as an economic force and take over the planet? Could China make an inflatable bbq? Yeah? ... Could China sell an inflatable bbq? Could the people of China for themselves purchase inflatable bbqs? There is no f***ing way!" ... If you are still unconvinced allow me to introduce you to exhibit B, the Oreo pizza!"

You may be equal parts horrified and amused by this (and there are a few comments I'm leaving out), it is true. That is the point of Development Economics; that there exists this gaping inequality around the world. China is still a developing nation, and the amount of poverty, oppression, and misery in that country is still unthinkably high, no matter how much electricity is being used.

And lastly, Mr. Spitzer, growth of income, growth of GDP is not a contest. While pundits like you are playing economic whip-it-out contests on cable news networks to the delight of "journalists" and news junkies who spend and make millions of dollars on this kind of crap, villages in China are going without adequate sanitation, medical care, food provision, and utility provision. Have you no shame? Have you no decency? The increase in per capita GDP of any country should be celebrated as those who were poorer are now relatively richer! That electricity consumption increase could be the purchase and use of washing machines, freeing up time for mothers to teach and care for their children. Yet you treat it as a threat to American companies? AMERICAN COMPANIES!?!?!?

To all of you self-serving, incompetent, and insecure politicians and pundits, I propose you shut up about this ridiculous "China surpassing America" conspiracy BS. What you are saying, in fact, is that we as a nation should do our best to keep other countries poor, so that we are still "#1". The point, as horrible as it may sound to those who decry materialism and decadent spending, is so that the Chinese CAN buy inflatable bar-be-ques, if they so decide.

That is why we measure income growth, not some childish ranking.

The Population Apocalypse.

2011-05-21T13:10:00.002-05:00

Donald Boudreaux has a point.

The IMF is About Money... No Really.

2011-05-19T11:36:00.004-05:00

Pay attention in your international finance courses people! Especially people at the BBC!

The BBC "economics correspondent" reports:

"The votes they cast are weighted by the country's subscription to the IMF, known as its quota. That in turn is roughly related to the nation's share of the world economy.

But the weights are behind the times.

China and many other emerging economies are underrepresented. Western Europe gets more than its share of the votes.

Here are some examples: China's share of the global economy (using a measure known as purchasing power parity GDP) is 13.6%, but its share of the vote is 3.82%.

The UK and France each account for 2.9% of PPP GDP, but each has 2.9% of the vote."

The IMF does not determine the shares by a country's representation as part of the "global share of GDP". Get this through your heads: the IMF is about MONEY. And I don't mean wealth, I mean it is about CURRENCY. Not people, not development, but monetary stability! It was not designed, nor meant to "represent" the world or the share of GDP, it was designed to stabilize currency and hopefully by that stabilize prices so our global economy would not go down the tubes as it did just before WWII.

The BBC needs to do what every lazy student does and FGI*. If the reporter had done that, he would know the quotas are determined by Special Drawing Rights (SDR), based on a currency basket not a goods basket like the PPP he incorrectly states. The basket is evaluated periodically, and is used to determine how much each country allots. The dollar, euro, and yen dominate this basket, period. Representational fairness hasn't got a thing to do with it.

The proper critique would be that the basket does not include the yuan, the rupee, the Australian dollar, or the Canadian dollar. That determines the under representation. Get the argument straight.

The IMF is not the UN, it is not the World Bank. It is a gigantic reserve of currency, which acts for the sole purpose of stabilizing macroeconomic indicators. The EU will get more representation as its currency begins to compete even more with the dollar. Measuring it on GDP is not right. Why? Yeah, China might have more GDP share in the world, but how is that affecting the value of the dollar and euro on the market?

It's called the International Monetary Fund. Not the International Output Fund, or the International Development Fund. Get currency on your brain, folks. This is what this is all about.

*Or in this case FWI; freakin' wiki it.

DSK Out.

2011-05-19T08:02:00.002-05:00

The "great seducer" has officially resigned. Lipsky is in charge until he retires. The EU is pushing for a born and bred European, meaning one of the two Germans, the other French woman, and the Brit. Meh, I say. An emphatic Meh (as emphatic as it gets).

The world economy is in a doldrum-enhancing state of serious Meh, and the Europeans wish to continue the Meh-ness of our Meh-conomy by choosing leaders of whom I will say again... Meh.

Let's go for better than "meh". Let's go for "oh." And that "oh" is Stanley Fischer. If it makes the French and Germans feel better, he isn't American. I mean... technically the guy is African and Israeli. Hm...

Again this really isn't going on qualifications. Fischer is a superb economist, and the Bank of Israel has been doing better than "meh" even through the recession. Can the Germans, French, and Brits say that? I guess we will soon see if the IMF rewards mediocrity... in which case I really should apply. I'm very good with meh-diocrity.

Stanley Fischer for IMF.

2011-05-18T07:52:00.004-05:00

Current head of the Israeli Central Bank, Stanely Fischer, does appear to be on the short list for replacing DSK.

He is not "European" (in fact he was born in Zambia- or Northern Rhodesia as it was known then), but he is by no means outside the mainstream "US/EU" economists. An alumnus of the LSE and MIT, he is the author of two standard texts on macroeconomics for undergraduates and graduates (I and my colleagues have spent many hours working through Lectures on Macroeconomics prepping for qualifying exams), and was the PhD adviser to both Ben Bernanke (current head of our own little central bank) and Greg Mankiw.

If I was to choose the head of the IMF, he would be it. He doesn't have Gordon Brown's political baggage, and his qualifications far outshine other applicants from Turkey, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil, France, India, and Germany. And before you go all Richard Shelby on me and accuse him of being far too academic for a policy role, keep in mind Fischer has served as First Deputy Manager of the IMF, a vice chairman of Citigroup, and Vice President of the World Bank.

It would be a coup for the IMF. A prominent and successful economist who is not European, but certainly will follow the dollar/euro priority as if he was. But will the EU go for this? He doesn't fall into the stereotype as outlined in my last post, but I guess it depends on appearances. Is he too American for the Europeans? Too not American for the Americans? I would be very disappointed if he was passed up for Brown or Lagarde. But this is not just an economic and policy decision; its a political one. Now if he can just get to August without being arrested for some kind of violent crime...

But I'm on Team Fischer. Wonder if I can get a t-shirt for that?

The New IMF Head Will Be European

2011-05-17T13:56:00.003-05:00

Wow, all sorts of fun speculation that comes along with the sudden and unexpected incapacitation of the acting head of what is basic the largest bank in the world. I'm about to embark on some "international monetary economics" stuff, which I haven't reviewed in a while. Take what I say with a grain of salt, and if you find any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them.

Okay, there are articles proposing that the appointment of the new IMF chief will be some one not from the US or Europe. I'm betting that it will be a European.

Many argue that since the IMF loans quite a bit to the "developing world" and imposes the conditions for those loans, that it would make sense for a representative from somewhere that is not the EU or the US. Well... yes, but you would be saying that the IMF is just another World Bank. It is not. The IMF was set up to stabilize currency (namely exchange rates); its a worldwide Federal Reserve. The IMF's main goal is to deal with monetary policy, not development. That is the World Bank's job (and there's plenty to praise and criticize there). The IMF just hasn't had much reason to get heavily involved in the "developed" world until the recent recession hit.

So why do we discuss austerity measures with regards to the IMF? Well, government spending puts more money into the system; more money means more inflation; more inflation means (usually) more instability in the exchange rates. Ta-da! MONETARY ECONOMICS'D! Developing countries in the past forty years have for the most part been the sufferers of monetary crises, hence the involvement of the IMF. Now many of these loan requirements (austerity measures) are unpopular and harsh, and often times can be counterproductive or crippling to longer run growth (we can argue about that later). But it is important to remember that the government of this country is in the end choosing to impose these measures on themselves in order to get IMF money and hopefully pay it back. Unless they're Argentina, but I digress.

So where does the money come from? Well the vast majority comes from the US (about 17%), Japan (6%), Germany (5%), the UK (5ish%), France (5ish%), and China (4ish%). The IMF then votes not based on single country representation, but scaled to their contribution. So if you're afraid the Europeans and Chinese will dominate the US' influence then let's break down the voting numbers in an overly simplistic form (check the link for a more rigorous definition):
The US has 371,000 votes. The next highest are the Japanese with 133,000 votes. It goes down from there.

So, honey, aint nobody going to do what the US/EU doesn't want at the IMF. Nobody. Unless they're Argentina... but let's not talk about Kirchner's penchant for welching on debts, except for those two bits he owes at the River Styx (too soon?).

The IMF is controlled by the US and EU. Let's not fool ourselves by thinking any differently. The last thing the US, UK, France, and Germany want is some one who does not have their best interest in mind; namely the stability of the dollar and the euro. Since the Yuan is pegged to the dollar (and perhaps someday to the euro), the Chinese don't want some one whose best interest is not the dollar or the euro.

The only exception on that BBC list that I can think of is Stanley Fischer, who let's face it will also be sincerely concerned with the dollar or the euro.

So long as the dollar or the euro are the top currencies of the world, the oil that greases the wheels of our ever-globalizing economies, those with these currencies interests at heart will hold power. And also if the "unspoken balance agreement" is true, if there's an American head of the World Bank (eyebrows McGee), then there will be a European head of the IMF. Let's just hope this one understands the difference between "seduction" and "assault."

A Moral Decision...

2011-05-17T06:57:00.004-05:00

In response to some comments I have heard since the IMF chief was arrested for sexual assault, and the odd rush by some blogs to morally defend their profession of choice, I would like to address the issue of whether economics is a "moral and principled" profession.

Here is my response:
when an economist allegedly sexually assaults a woman in a hotel room, he is arrested and arraigned based on evidence (as proven by DSK just this past weekend). When a Catholic priest rapes and tortures young boys, he's given an all-expense paid trip to Rome and/or new "hunting grounds".

So, if you want to know if I still feel I chose the right career path... well, there are certainly worse things. Now excuse me while I go back to teaching my students.

Funny side-update:
If you want my opinion on the most moral career path you can choose: accountant. Enron, Madoff, and 2007. You want to save the world? Do the math.

They Lie to Your Face.

2011-04-04T12:31:00.002-05:00

Out of the mercy of my naive heart, instead of completely flunking two students who obviously collaborated on the take-home exam (even when they had the option of working in a group, so long as they told me who they worked with and followed a group-evaluation grading scheme) I simply assigned zero credit to that question. The other two question answers were quite different and therefore they received what little credit was due to them on the few parts they got right. Not a 0%, but still two Fs.

And yet, less than thirty minutes ago here they are in my office in tears, accusing me of being unfair. They demanded proof that they had collaborated. When I showed them the equations (which were identical in errors and form) and the sentences which were nearly identical (God bless SafeAssign) their excuse was, "Well that's what comes up in a Google search!" I told them that I will regrade if they bring me proof of the source.

When/if they bring the source into me, I'm going to flunk them for not following directions on correct citation, and inform them that if they want to appeal to the Department for a grade change that I will then charge the two of them with Academic Misconduct and plagiarism.

One of these particular students was in my office before, in tears, begging to get to the exam early because she was going to be out of town this week (the week after Spring Break), and whining about how she had to spend her Spring Break at home. I gave her the data set early, she had 3 more days than all other students were given. I also overlooked that she turned the exam in 12 hours late from the due date we both agreed on. Now, not 30 minutes ago, she came into my office she then accused me of being the one forcing her to stay home from Spring Break. This is how a responsible adult behaves.

Out of 20 other students who took the exam, not a single one of them procured identical equations, with identical subscripts, and identical errors. And they all cited their resources correctly.

The particularly angry-Spring-Breaker had the look of "I'm going to talk to some one!" in her eyes. Bring it on. I'm especially happy to deal with students who lie to my face.

Really? Again?

2011-03-15T10:17:00.005-05:00

On Monday, March 14th, Kansas State Representative brought up in a committee regarding control of the feral pig population in KS by using sharp shooters firing from helicopters:

"It looks like to me that shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a problem (I assume he meant to say "solution") to our illegal immigration problem."

This committee was not even discussing illegal immigration. His response to the recent outrage has been that his comment reflects his and his constituents frustration with the illegal immigrant problem. For the record, Mr. Peck hails from Montgomery County and here are a few demographics from the US Census:

White non-Hispanic population: 83.1% (Kansas 79.9%)
Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin: 3.8% (Kansas 9.3%)
Median Household Income: $41,913 (Kansas: $50,174)
Persons below poverty level: 12.4% (Kansas 11.3%)
Language other than English Spoken at home: 3.7% (Kansas 8.7%)
Tyro city relative population change from 2000 to 2008: -2.65%.

My e-mail to State Representative Virgil Peck.

"Mr. Peck:

I am writing to inform you of my disgust with your recent comments during a House Appropriations Committee.

Firstly, making such a comment "out of the blue" at a meeting having nothing to do with illegal immigration does not reflect the sentiment of any of your voters, but rather your biased obsession with this issue. Do not pretend to represent good people who would rightly gag at the implication of your "joke."

Secondly, your comment was in session for the State government and extremely inappropriate. The people of Southeast Kansas deserve more professionalism, intelligence, and effectiveness from their representatives; three things that you are signaling you clearly do not have.

Third, from an immoral and practical standpoint, how do you propose to differentiate from a helicopter and sniper scope who is illegal and who is just "not white?" Or do you pretend like your colleague Mrs. O'Brien to have special vision in picking out illegal aliens?

Fourth, I assume from your website that your Pro-Life stance is grounded in your Christian and moral belief that abortion is wrong. I assume further that you also then believe that murder is not the appropriate solution to any problem ("Thou shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek"). Let me also point out that the Bible commands us to care for "the alien, the fatherless, and the widow" without specifying their legal status. As a Christian, you should be ashamed for even entertaining such a disgusting notion, especially in a professional, public, and respectable institution such as the State Legislature.

So I will ask you now, why you feel that you were justified in suggesting that illegal immigrants be hunted down using helicopters and sharp shooters like feral pigs? Why do you feel that was even remotely funny or appropriate in any way? It is immoral, offensive, and in extreme poor taste to even say something like that, and your lack of regret for making these comments betrays your shamefulness, indecency, and incompetence.

As a refresher, sir, I will end with Zechariah Chapter 7:
And the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts. Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the LORD of hosts: But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them, that no man passed through nor returned: for they laid the pleasant land desolate.

And Deuteronomy 10:

He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

You have shown no compassion, and you have imagined evil against your brother. The people of Kansas deserve better than you."

To contact Mr. Peck, here is his office information.

Virgil Peck Jr.
State Capitol
300 SW 10th St.
Topek, KS 66612-1504
785-296-7641
virgil@virgilpeck.com

UPDATE: Democratic Reps are calling for Peck's resignation. As much as I would love to see and hear no more of this clown, I would disagree (though I won't shed any tears if he does go). I want to know if this guy really represents South East KS as he states. I drive through District 11 (59 S goes through Coffeyville, KS) whenever I visit Tulsa, OK. In fact I have stopped there on several occasions for a lunch break and to refuel. I would like to know how the people of Montgomery County will be voting when this man is up for re-election. Until then I will go out of my way to drive around Montgomery, not gas up there, and in general avoid it. If he's re-elected (and I'm still in the area) I might reconsider my boycott.

He made some sick remarks that reveal the kind of person he is, but it is the responsibility of the voters of Montgomery County to decide if he does or does not represent them.

My New Windmill: the KS Legislature.

2011-02-16T09:48:00.003-06:00

Oh, Kansas State Legislature. How I love thee... let me count the ways. Way #5,543: Connie O'Brien's subtle racism.

But when composing my letter to this particular representative I decided to stay away from the racism aspect and just focus on her idiocy. I try to be nice in the letter (a little); there are after all some thought-out and legitimate arguments for not giving in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants who have completed a high school education in the state of Kansas. I just think that the benefits outweigh the costs. I can provide a moral argument if you want, but as an economist I have no morals (ba-dum-bum-TSH!).

Still, I would prefer those arguments to some angry grandma b****ing about bureaucracy, because if we choose our politicians by how much they whine about unfairness then I honestly should be a governor by now. My wife can confirm that I whine with the best of them. No. We expect more from representatives even if we disagree with them. Using this kind of argument in a legislative committee is immature, incompetent (that's the word of the day), and a waste of time. The people deserve better.

And yeah, what she said was racist. But I feel that's being covered quite well in the press. I want to focus on how dumb she is. In the most professional way I can muster (I might go a bit far in places...).

Enjoy my letter to her office.

"Representative O'Brien:

After having read and listened to your testimony of 2/08/2011 I felt a strong urge to write and share my disapproval of your statements. In the interest of full disclosure, I do not reside in Tonganoxie, so I am not represented by you, I am not affiliated with either party, and I do disagree with you on this bill.

You testified in front of a State Committee regarding a very contentious and complex issue using an anecdote about your personal experience. You did not know the woman, you did not know her situation, and I do not believe that you can tell her status by the complexion of her skin. That is for the office at Kansas City Community College to decide with the proper paperwork, not some one who is frustrated at her financial situation or having to wait in line. You presented no statistics, no research, nor any other verifiable anecdotes to support your conclusion. Furthermore there is no way to prove that this situation occurred as you stated, except on the strength of your word. To be frank, as a politician, you already have one strike against you in terms of my personal trust. Your testimony in other words was useless at best, and completely incompetent at worst. I would understand your statements (though still disapprove) in the context of talking with friends and families, but not as official testimony regarding legislation that will affect many other people's lives, incomes, and aspirations.

I do not agree with your position on this bill, but I am open to hearing legitimate arguments that include more than a hissy fit about a problem you had in line (you do not even know if this woman got a scholarship or not). You have brought embarrassment to your county, to the state, to the party you represent and their possibly legitimate arguments in this debate, and to yourself for your absolute incompetence and lack of professionalism. Take a day or two to do the research before you default to gossip and speculation.

The people of Tonganoxie deserve better, and I challenge you to step-up and bring real arguments to any official hearings, not "woe-is-me" speeches about how unfair life is for you or your children."

If you feel strongly one way or the other about this issue and wish to contact Representative O'Brien, here is her office information.

My Response to the Kansas State Government.

2011-01-26T11:26:00.002-06:00

With regards to the plans to slash salary and education funding, I ask that KS state reps take 20 minutes to listen to this podcast from Planet Money.

Selective Class Size.

2011-01-24T14:42:00.005-06:00

It did not take me long to learn how to loathe large classes in my first year as a GTA. "The more the merrier" naivette regarding letting students into a discussion group would lead to 32 or 34 students per class. Doesn't sound like much until you have three of them (that makes for at least 96 students o grade for). "The more the merrier" gave way to "the less the better."

When I got my own class, "the more the merrier" returned, with a whopping 40 students in my Latin American Development class. Big mistake. The 17 student intro to econ course the previous summer was such a dream, followed by a nightmare of poorly written exams, and essay assignments that made me want to melt my own eyes with my soldering iron.

I quickly began to look into ways to "select out" the problem students through a fun little signaling game I call "Scaring the Snot Out of Them on the First Day."

Students with low attendance scores have lower exam scores and tend to be pains in my rear-end around the end of the semester when they finally do start showing up? Well hello draconian Attendance policy. The two minutes it takes to run through a list of names is well worth the two or three students that immediately dropped the first semester I implemented this. From 30 to 28 in just one move... game on.

Student papers are riddled with poor citation and downright plagiarism? Announce to them my refusal to believe in "the myth of unintentional plagiarism" and promise that I will spend my free time trying to get them kicked out of school if they so much as paraphrase without proper citation. More drops. Why? Don't believe the lie; students know when and how they plagiarize. The two or three per class who will actually try might think twice about even sitting-in.

Group presentations is another good way to push a few out, but make it even better by allowing for "peer evaluation" to determine individual grades. Then show an example of how a group of students screwed over one of the slackers (justice is never pretty). The new thing is a portfolio that they have to work on all semester with chapter summaries and data projects.

The total number of drops for first two days: 9. Three added but have not shown up yet. Count is steady at 24 students. A good round number.

I might change strategy at a small school, but for right now, in a big public university I'm going to keep with my size strategies.

UPDATE 2/6/2011: As of today, my class size has gone down to 22 from 30. Some of these 22 are adds, but the total drop number is a record for me: 15 drops in the first two weeks.

Foreign Investors FTW! ... or FML?

2011-01-18T08:11:00.005-06:00

This made me laugh out loud this morning*. For a rather nice blog analysis of what is going on, this post from Forbes seemed particularly informative and well-written.

So due to the hype around the deal, GS will not be letting US investors in on the party due to a rather fun interpretation of an SEC regulation (I guess the SEC does do something other than allow pyramid schemes, and use government money to watch naughty videos at work). Which is to say that Facebook will become increasingly foreign owned *dramatic chord*. Alright, honestly I could care less about where the owners of Facebook reside (I also don't care about what companies own loading docks, security firms, car dealerships, beer manufacturers, etc.), but I'm wondering if a Budweiser style protest or lawsuit is going to come from this.

Not worried about the privacy thing. Highly doubt all that personal data will wind up in share-holder hands. No that's the juicy apple that GS gets.

And for all of you who think international trade/finance is a horrible thing and we should all "Buy American", just think: Facebook isn't just using Indian/Chinese/Korean programmers anymore. They will probably now be financed and partially owned by Saudis, Chinese, Germans, Norwegians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Japanese... people who do not look and think like you, and are all probably dirty commies/socialists. And all those advertising dollars Facebook makes from your information are leaking out of the US to support their economies at the cost of yours**! So if you use Facebook, you are supporting the downfall of the USA and the rise of the dreaded "rest of the world!"

*I swear someday I will stop ranting about Facebook and start ranting about corn subsidies again. I know you all miss it.
**You should all know this argument is BS by now, and if you don't: shame on you.

UPDATE: "I Love These Guys."
Alright, really good article at the WSJ on this. My silly "foreign scare" blasting aside, after reading this article I was reminded of the Congressional hearings that GS went through with regards to the financial crisis (for those of you with sensitive ears, you should know that there is some foul language in this government hearing):

Maybe US investors are dodging a bullet. Maybe that Facebook is one $$$$ty deal.

Goldman Sachs Has Your Personal Information.

2011-01-09T09:42:00.002-06:00

Let me start off by saying that I have a lot of respect for the research that goes on in Goldman Sachs, their seeming immortality in the face of recession and prosecution, and their knack for making money out of nothing. Bravo, GS.

The recent news that GS is going to invest heavily in Facebook though should make everyone feel a lot less comfortable with their social networks. I recall years ago discussing with some economics and psychology students the treasure trove of data that Facebook holds. It would be, as one of my former economics professors called it, "some really sexy data." Having a large amount of data on a significant proportion of high income consumers (if you have the internet and live in the US, I am considering you a "high income consumer") for their social contacts/links and web activity would be worth b-b-b-b-billions to any good market research firm with an army of researchers. Which GS has.

So GS is going to float Facebook for a while, so they don't have to reveal some of their internal shenanigans, and do you honestly think access to your data in some way or other is not part of the deal? I only regret not getting off Facebook sooner; they keep your data for a few months to ensure you "really meant to quit." And do you think Zuckerberg is really going to deny them your data when he let's Farmville take it?

So again, bravo to Goldman Sachs and Facebook for their astounding feat. Facebook created a way to convince people to give up mountains of valuable data in return for no monetary value (I will agree there is a value to 'connection'), and has made billions by selling it to firm, who will in turn get at least billions in research data.

Again, if you feel that access to a social network is worth the web activity data that you give up, then by all means sign up for Facebook and just understand that GS and Zuckerberg and making a lot of money off of it. Personally, I'm not getting back on Facebook until:

a) I get a check from Facebook for signing up and posting my data online for their availability, along with access to their network. I haven't decided on exact prices for each service. My individual data is cheap, so off the top of my head I'm thinking $100 per year.

b) I have a small business which would get serious value from the available advertising and connections in the social network.

c) since Facebook is now into tracking the sites its users visit, I think they should pay by the hour for any sites I browse while using their services.

For those of you who think I'm paranoid or being stupid regarding all the great things they get from Facebook (and I don't deny its a good service), just remember that its not a fun little network of people connecting. It is a corporation, providing a service for a price. The price is the data you put up, which they re-invest to make more profit. I just think my personal information is more valuable then the ability to be stalked.

An Unfortunate Teaching Moment.

2011-01-07T09:32:00.003-06:00

The governments of India and Bangladesh are making plays to take-over/regulate microfinance in a much more direct manner than they have been.

I do not personally think this is a good idea, and most of that argument can be found here and here. It will be a great teaching project, as I like to cover microfinance when I have time in my development classes: both its advantages and disadvantages. It is not a magical aid program that will save the world, but it does provide certain people among the poor to improve their circumstances. That being said, group-lending can also isolate those who default on loans not just from the credit-market but from other social links, which can make them worse-off than they were before the loan.

I like to encourage my students to do their own digging, put aside ideology, and just use the tools given to them in basic micro and macro to determine if government or other institutional intervention is necessary and efficient. As the "death by bureaucratization" of microfinance will lead people back to local landlords and gangs for their credit (a system we already know is rife with problems), suspicion of government intervention is warranted. Not to mention the idea that the poor owing money to the government around voting-time could be an issue.

But is there economic justification (putting aside the tragic suicides and political pressure) to regulate even more (yes microfinance is already regulated) this kind of activity? This is a good teaching moment in terms of the experiment of more government intervention into a market, but I do feel its an unfortunate one. Will underground economic activity increase? How will the government change the way microfinance institutions loan if they allow them to continue? Who will be shut out, and who will be allowed in?

Mandelbrot

2010-10-15T22:09:00.003-05:00

It's being reported that Benoit Mandelbrot has died.

Clouds are not spheres... and the economy is not linear. Fractals are beautiful things, and some one who can describe such amazing things in the language of mathematics is a genius. I just recently returned "Fractals and Scaling in Finance" to the library. Brilliant book.

See this PBS documentary for more of his breakthroughs.

Because We Need It...

2010-09-28T09:05:00.003-05:00

Obviously longer school years will cost more. There's no two ways about it. So let's all buck up, raise some state and local taxes, find some cost cutting, issue bonds, have a bake sale, and search for funding in whatever way we can to get these kids the education they need.

Why? Because I spent fifteen minutes on Monday first explaining to the half of my class that was struggling how to divide 87 by 3, and then explaining to them why it is not okay for third and fourth year economics undergraduates to not be able to do arithmetic.

I'm open to alternative suggestions though.

"Wow, What a Difference..."

2010-09-23T06:48:00.002-05:00

There were two things that were everywhere in my youth:
Blockbuster, and McDonald's.

Now I can't go anywhere without seeing a Sonic, and I read the news today (oh, boy): Blockbuster files for bankruptcy. Amazing how much of a game-changer that a simple technology can be.

In a certainly unrelated and shame-on-you American car companies story, Toyota is getting first dibs on Tesla. While our government has been bailing-out dinosaurs, the Japanese have been doing what car companies should have done in the first place and taking risks in new technology. But then again why worry when you have politicians so in love with labor unions that they will prop up a company that has by all rights should have gone bankrupt with Blockbuster. Hey, DC, why didn't you take the 50 billion and give it to Tesla? That would have been money well spent.

Another thing; why no bail-out for Blockbuster? They don't have a union? I mean, those Netflix guys are destroying what was once the great American tradition: dealing with the arrogant clerk behind the counter who thinks your taste in movies sucks.

Yes. That is very important for the first exam.

2010-09-21T08:55:00.003-05:00

This is test week. I'm stealing an idea from a colleague, and giving two forty minute exams on Wednesday and Friday, instead of a fifty minute exam on Friday. That way I just go ahead and burn the whole week without the sad excuse for a lecture on Monday, followed by the panicky droves of students on Wednesday. No, I'm dragging it out for them, then doing marathon grading on the weekend.

What is frustrating is the number of students who fish for what will end up being on the exam. So at this point when I receive questions through e-mail like, "Is this important to know?" then I just send one response, "Yes. That is very important for the first exam." Let me give you a sample:

"The lecture 1 notes include material about the syllabus like office hours and class time. Is this important to exam 1?" Yes. That is very important for the first exam.

"You said in class that this was an aside, and not important to exam 1, but do we need to know *insert random subject here which I clearly said in class was not on the exam* for the exam?" Yes. That is very important for the first exam.

"Some one said that you were interested in the Mexican economy. Do we have to know the capital of Mexico for the first exam?" Yes. That is very important for the first exam.

"In some one else's class we discussed *insert random subject here*. Do we need to know this for the first exam?" Yes. That is very important for the first exam.

"My cat's breath smells like cat food." Yes. that is very important for the first exam.

Two of these are fake.

And Guantanmo is Still Open

2010-09-16T08:33:00.003-05:00

"Yes, we can."

Wasn't this the kind of thing Obama spoke out against during his campaign?

More Interesting.

2010-09-14T11:42:00.002-05:00

Link to Forbes' article on ads in Facebook. More interesting then my previous post.

Off the Grid

2010-09-14T11:00:00.006-05:00

I have been thinking over the past month about quitting Facebook. So I sat down and did some basic economics. The opportunity cost is the value of what is given up to get something (basically). So I estimated my time on Facebook in a given week, and set the value of those hours to minimum wage (what I might be earning if I spent that time doing some low wage job instead). That should give me a lowish approximation to the value of time given up not doing something else (baking bread, watching TV with the esposa, working on research, working on teaching, etc.).

The time on Facebook was negligible to amount of time in the week doing other activities. So the total value came out to around $40 to $50 (at a minimum wage of 7, five to six hours on Facebook would cost something like $35 to $42).

I have as yet received no income value from Facebook in terms of connections made, jobs found, or other social network services. In fact the most utility I receive from Facebook is browsing my old friends' profiles, and making what I consider to be extremely clever comments on their walls. I'm not sure, but I think I would pay around $10 a month for that kind of service. So already, the costs are outweighing benefits without getting into the issue of information.

Then I began wondering how much value I generated for Facebook, and began looking at the ads on the side of the screen. These numbers get pretty staggering even if you lowball them, and that's why the founders are all very rich young men. Fair enough, a company has to make a profit. But the value they generate from my logging in far outweighs the benefits I'm getting, as I have valued it. Do I lose anything from that? No. They gain, I don't lose. Still fairish. I'm not being specific on the numbers, because honestly I'm assuming a lot. Here's what I did:
I assumed that Facebook earned about $1 per ad that was displayed on my profile. I averaged about two to three ads on my profile each time I logged in. I counted how many times a day I logged in, and figure that was the per day value they get (so five times is $5). Then multiply that over a week, a month, a year. Maybe my estimate is too high, and maybe its not done that way. I really don't know, but this is the system I set up. If anyone wants to correct me, I'd love to sit down and crunch the numbers properly. But right now I'm too lazy to search it... apparently not lazy enough to not write a blog about it though. Go figure.

Then I started thinking about the value of my information available out there. My name, my birthday, my hometown, my list of friends, their list of friends, the communications between us, the search-able photos available of me. A few days ago I decided to try an expected utility exercise, and assumed that there was a 5% chance my identity gets stolen on Facebook: that is enough information to get into my bank account for at least 48 hours.
Now the monetary value of my bank account is very little in absolute terms, but failure to pay rent, bills, student loans, all affect my credit score and future ability to attain a loan. Furthermore getting put out on the street would incur other losses. Granted, there is a small probability of disaster in this case (5%), but for me the expected utility becomes a rather large negative number. Maybe I'm just reading too much into Nassim Taleb's Black Swan, but the interconnectedness and volatility of my life suddenly became very worrying.

I get that the Black Swan Facebook sounds crazy, but it is one of many examples I considered. There were a number of distinct, large, and probable expected losses associated with being on Facebook, and very few distinct, large expected gains (in fact no positive Black Swans that I could think of). I do not own a company that needs to find consumers, I do not get any value professionally from their social network, so its all a boost in my own personal utility. But I'm paying a repeated cost of lost time and continued, unjustifiable exposure to possible low probability disasters. I do remain on LinkedIn as I see some possible future benefit to business connections. But I can't economically justify Facebook.

That or I'm sick of all the random messages I'm getting from people I hardly knew from high school suddenly wondering how I'm doing, what's up, and if I'm going to the reunion. How many times before next year am I going to have to have that conversation? (I would pay $50 to get out of those conversations, so I apparently value it at -$50. Another blow to Facebook.)
That and the advertisements. I freakin hate the ads.

Yeast is Awesome...

2010-08-09T23:16:00.003-05:00

It is 11:15 PM, and I am making a preferment in order to try and bake french bread tomorrow afternoon.

I just cut open then new "big frikkin bag o' yeast" I got from CostCo the other day, and giddily jumped for joy at revealing the little brown dust that makes my bread magically delicious.

Yes. I'm baking. Accept it. My ciabatta is awesome, by the way. A little ugly right now, but tasty.

The Usual.

2010-07-20T13:20:00.002-05:00

It's that special time of year. The heat is sweltering, the flowers are withering, the bugs are sweating... and the students are stressing.

Yes, progress cards went out today. And considering I have 7 A's in a class of 18, some students were happy. The other 11 are F's. So you can imagine how busy my office has been with pleading students (some of whom I'm pretty sure I have not seen before) are begging for a C+ so they can "graduate and get a job". While I explain to them how they can try (keyword) to achieve that, I'm wondering in the back of my head how a boss would respond to this particular student who came in 20 minutes late the three times he showed up over this 8 week course. Just... throwing that out there.

So many promises. "I will come to office hours and work this and this problem out!" "I will study really hard!" Yet here I am. Office Hours. Thirty minutes into office hours by the way. My office hours in fact are right after my class. And just downstairs from the classroom I teach in. Not a soul. Just me, the blog, and enough time to think up how I'm going to explain 11 F's to the Chair. Shouldn't be too hard with the grade and attendance sheet.

In case you think I've been overly demanding and mean to my students, you should know the following:
1) at this point those 7 A's could stop showing up to class, and still get a B+.
2) one of their major class projects consisted of cutting and pasting World Bank data into Excel, then graphing it. I gave them two weeks to complete this. Somehow, these 11 could not figure out how to do that in two weeks AND did not bother to ask me.
3) the homework is 10% extra credit. I don't mean that they get 10% on an exam, I mean if they do all the homework, that can turn a 70% into an 80%. The 11 students who are flunking have 0% on homework.
4) every problem on the exam has come out of the homework or the notes. That's just how I roll. It is all there, and 7 students got the hint, and consistently scored between 95 and 100 for both exams. Since I drop the lowest exam score, that means they don't even have to show for the Final. The others averaged a 35% on the first exam, and a 68% on the second. I have my doubts about their Final scores.
5) I have had a grand total of two "I just need to graduate, can I please get a C?" conversations this week already, and neither student has done anything to merit a D.

Today is the last day to drop.

No, He's a Keynsian.

2010-07-06T22:02:00.003-05:00

In the middle of my masterful lecture on inequality and credit markets, a lecture I had prepared for with gusto, a lecture I was delivering at full steam, driving home the economic models and theories which lead to the failure of credit markets in highly unequal societies, a young, usually very bright student raised their hand. "YES?" I said with a flourish, "A QUESTION?" anticipating the nugget of wisdom that will come from the fertile mindsoil of their upper level undergraduate minds. Perhaps was he going to ask about failed redistribution policies? Question a piece of the model where a different conclusion could be reached? Point out the controversial implication that rising wages would stifle entrepreneurship in developing countries (see Development Economics by Debraj Ray, chapter 7)? Not agree with the implication that inequality is not Pareto Efficient and begets more inequality?

"Yeah, is Paul Krugman a socialist? I mean... he was on the Colbert Report last night, and he sounded kinda socialist."

I'm not sure if I physically manifested the deflation of my ego upon realizing that my students had wandered off into reruns on Comedy Central while I was presenting what I considered at the time to be one of my more fun lectures.

Back to the drawing board...

Office...

2010-06-03T11:11:00.003-05:00

Have taken over the one desk with drawers, as well as the corner. Moved my fridge, and changed bookshelves. Will clear out my filing cabinets and put my papers in the desk drawers. Let the two newbies fight over the space left.

Awesome.

Edit: Have also removed names of the two office mates who left from the office door. Until August, this room is all mine officially.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

2010-05-06T13:36:00.002-05:00

SafeAssign, the anti-plagiarism program that Courseware has just detected one of my (senior) students plagiarizing off of... wait for it...

Facebook.

Just... let that sink in.

Office Space.

2010-04-22T16:33:00.001-05:00

So I have one office mate who is graduating and one office mate who did not pass quals. This summer I have the office.

From R to I.

2010-04-02T12:01:00.001-05:00

Sent in my voter registration application today. I am now "Not affiliated with a party".

Tragic.

2010-04-01T09:09:00.006-05:00

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!"” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
- Emma Lazarus.

See the post on this from Marginal Revolution.

Why Are You Surprised?

2010-03-31T10:24:00.004-05:00

Drill, Baraky, drill.

Everything this administration has done has been to encourage domestic industry. Whether that is at the cost of trade negotiations (ones that have already been in effect, and ones that should have been approved by now) or environmental protection.

This is just another form of the fear of domestic firms have toward foreign competition. "Less foreign dependence" reads "more profits for those firms at home." Not efficiency, not economic gain, but PROFITS to inefficient and extractive domestic firms who wield market power. This is just protectionism in the guise of "national security", which is an old story.

So environmentalists, stop acting so surprised. "They took our jaaarbs" trumps "tree-huggers" every time. Just like "They took our jaaarbs" trumps Free Trade and basic economic principles. Our domestic industry is so coddled and self-righteous that instead of trying to transform themselves in the new economy, they are groping for any chance to protect themselves from some vague threat of "foreign dependence". The labor unions support this, because they get just as much profit from it as managers. So to all of you environmentalists who are now feeling the same pain that free-traders have been feeling under this administration, let me break it down for you how this President ranks things:
domestic industry = labor unions > wall street > health care > environment, trade, "main street", education, immigration, competition.
Welcome to the club.

Jaime Escalante Was Right.

2010-03-30T20:48:00.002-05:00

"Calculus Does Not Have To Be Made Easy -- It Is Easy Already."

I have sometimes heard from colleagues and persons within the department that I should "go easy" on the intro level students because, "they just cannot handle some of the material, especially the math."

Thanks to "Stand and Deliver" I continue to ignore that advice to this day.

Economics does not have to be made easy -- it is easy already. I like the sound of that.

The Importance of Work.

2010-03-19T10:49:00.008-05:00

The graph above (many thanks to one of my Indonesian colleagues who made it look prettier) shows my current Junior/Senior level "Economic Development of Latin America" students' exam performance (x-axis), with their homework performance (y-axis).

Homework "is entirely voluntary, 10% extra credit, and designed as exam preparation." The homework is basically a voluntary curve. I refuse to arbitrarily curve their work.

I am aware that an excel graph is in no way a rigorous statistical analysis, and I cannot really draw any causality from this (correlation maybe) without some serious econometric mumbo-jumbo. But I do have two words for you:
Selection bias.

Enjoy the pretty colors and dots.

Your Tax Dollars At Work, Again.

2010-03-08T09:18:00.003-06:00

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women."
- Homer Simpson.

Add to that: "Then you lose the money, then you get the government to bail you out indirectly at the expense of the tax-payer, then you cover it up as an environmental project, then you get the money again."

You should all know now how I connect this with my usual corn rants.

Education in Poor Communities.

2010-02-24T09:09:00.005-06:00

Laura Freschi compares small private schools started in impoverished neighborhoods to the public counterpart.

Bad Day.

2010-02-17T14:10:00.003-06:00

Background:
My students have to write an individual assignment essay, in which I ask them to pretend they are an economic consultant who is advising an investor on where to put his capital in a Latin American country (they were randomly selected to the country). Their topic statement was due January 28th, which required a brief description of the country and industry (one page maximum) with at least two non-internet citations (so a quote or noting of something said in a paper, including a bibliography).
Their outline is due this Thursday (February 18th), which requires at least 3 more non-internet citations, and is 2 pages (maximum). The full paper is due March 4th. They had two weeks from the initial assignment to write the topic statement, then two weeks to write the outline, and they will have two weeks to turn in the final paper (which is only five to eight pages).

I thought to myself, "in a class full of third, fourth, and fifth year college students, this should be pretty easy for them." Wrong... so... so... horribly... and tragically... wrong.

I think these questions best describe the state of the worst in my class so far:

E-mail conversation:
Student 1:
"I'm confused by what you mean by citation."
Me:
"As in the format?"
Student 1:
"No, I mean what does it mean."
Me:
"Please see the attached link to the wikipedia article."
Student 1:
"So how many citations do we need for the outline?"
Me:
"So at least two non-internet sources were required for the topic statement. Then the directions on Blackboard say you need three more non-internet sources for the outline."
Student 1:
"Yeah, I read that. So how many is that?"

I have yet to write a response, as most of the drafts I have written include several words which I have been expressly prohibited by my employers from using in front of students.

E-mail conversation:
Student 2:
"I cannot find anything on Blackboard about how the paper should be written. I did not turn in my Topic Statement because I was sick."
Me:
"See the Course Documents page on the Blackboard website, and open the file 'Paper Guidelines.'"
Student 2:
"Well that's not very convenient is it? And why didn't you tell us about this in class?*"
*Note: I have shown this document on the projector twice in class, along with instructions on how to get there.

I have yet to write a response, as most drafts I have written include several words about the students upbringing which I have been expressly prohibited by my employers from using in front of students.

(Student 3 dropped by my office; I should note NOT during office hours and did not seem to care that I was doing other things)
Student 3:
"Yeah what's an outline?"
Me:
"You mean the outline you're supposed to be turning in tomorrow?"
Student 3:
"Well yeah, how do I do that?"
Me:
"An outline in general?"
Student 3:
"Yeah."

All 3 of these students are listed as seniors. Jeeeeeeeez...

Pre-Oscar Hatin'.

2010-02-15T20:05:00.005-06:00

Warning, if you liked Avatar, you might not want to read this. At the bottom are links to other criticisms of the movie that I find interesting that were not addressed in my own criticism (which is given below, sadly in a longer form than I would have liked).

This is a post that I keep trying to condense down, but I could talk for a long time about how the movie Avatar is a complete failure. James Cameron has put out what is possibly the worst science fiction work since The Phantom Menace. Avatar fails as an environmental-warning allegory, a critique of capitalism/corporatism, a critique of military, and a critique of imperialism.

Firstly and most easily it fails as a critique of imperialism. If the movie is indeed trying to represent the violent and tragic subjugation of American tribes and civilizations to European imperialists, then it is doing so with the mentality of a third grader. The title Avatar is reminiscent of the Hindu religion, and the god Vishnu taking several forms to interact with the world. So lets apply this to the movie Avatar: a white marine with a severe physical handicap is the savior and leader of a culture that is biologically and philosophically completely different from his own. The naive natives are helpless against their Western invaders until their Western (and white) savior comes from the heavens, deigning to their form and their culture to do it. This is less Jesus, and more Tarzan, encouraging a benign imperialism as opposed to a local, grass roots resistance raised by the aliens themselves choosing how they would live outside of human/Western influence. If Cameron wished to make this a true attack on Western imperialism, why not have the natives actually WIN by their own means, with their own strength, and from their own leaders. Cameron is saying that they are too weak, too innocent, and completely unable to defend themselves and need the guiding hand of human influence. How is this not subjugation, dressed up as paternalism? And how the hell did anyone in the audience accept that this white soldier, with no understanding of the language or culture managed to do what only supposedly a few of these people had been able to do in their entire history? That he managed to attract the most desirable female of all of them? That he was accepted faster than the scientists who had been living with them and studying them for much longer? Don't get me started on the voice casting for the natives either.

I will combine the failures of its critique of militarism and capitalism together in one simple argument that it attacks systems through two dimensional character assassinations. The military leader is predictably hard-headed, cold, cruel, and unthinking. The corporate scum bag is morally ambiguous putting a price on all life. This is all well and good for a five year old's fairy tale, but as an actual critique of the systems it does not work. If Cameron wanted to really attack capitalism, as Marx did, he would attack it as good people, working for a better system, but ultimately destroyed by the nature of the system. To portray the capitalist as cold, amoral, and lacking spirit simply says, "Well this guy does not do it well" but leaves open the argument that "well if the right person is in charge then it will work." If you want to attack the system, attack the system! Make your capitalist or your militarist as noble and good as any mythology surrounding Lincoln and Washington. They cannot tell a lie, they think of the good of their country, they are beyond reproach. Then demonstrate the weaknesses imposed on these good people by the very system they operate under and defend. Bam! Instant critique. But instead Cameron took the lazy-man's approach, and its written all over the poor character development, woefully inept dialogue, and plot with more holes than a Swiss cheese. Maybe that's why he had to steal so much from other movies (Dances with Wolves, anything by Miyazaki, his own much better film Aliens, etc. etc.)

Finally as an environmental warning allegory it is woefully inadequate. What did mankind do to destroy its own planet? To waste its resources? Why do they look for the ridiculously named and little explained unobtanium? Cameron should have gone with the stand by, which is easier to write but harder for audiences to accept: COLONIZATION! Cameron chickened out in front of US audiences, when he could have tapped into the one actual environmental and historical conflict that would have challenged them; Manifest Destiny. The subjugation and conquering of the land, the search for a better way of life balanced with the destruction of another way of life. Of course the natives are the typical 6th grade stereotype myth of the "one with nature" tribe who feel the trees' pain. They would do nothing to hurt it. Despite the fact that they are modeled after cats, who let's face it, enjoy killing whatever they so desire. If there was a settling party, that wanted to live where the aliens were and treated the environment differently as the natives did, then that would challenge the audience and bring up real conflict. As it is the audience cannot identify with the invading humans in anyway, and learn nothing about their own faults or their own prejudices. They simply see the bad corporation killing the native. This was not the old west story. It was not the railroads, or the mining companies, or the oil companies, it was those settlers that so many American stories are told about who go and risk it all for a better life who destroyed the North American tribes. That is the complex and hard truth that a true science fiction story would bring to the audience, that a true risk-taking director would make, and that would really function as a message about preservation of tradition, preservation of environment, and preservation of cultures different from our own. It is very easy to say the corporation is evil when it tears down the village. It is much harder when we see people like ourselves tearing down the village and building up their own. Cameron provides no real conflict. It is easy for the audience to walk out unchallenged, and having learned a thing. We are all like Cartman when we walk out of that movie, saying "You know, I've learned something today..." and I want some one to stand there and be like Kyle, screaming, "No you haven't, Cartman! You haven't learned a thing! Not [one darn] thing!"
There is not practical moral! How do we sustain our environment for our survival? Well love the Earth/planet-of-blue-kitties like these simple folk, even if you kill stuff. But we can keep killing stuff right? Well so long as you do it in a way that respects them. ... wait, what? No, Cameron needs to be blunt: what was the human error, how are the humans different from the aliens, how is this alien system better, what can humans do on Earth to prevent this, etc. Instead its just 3 hours of Fern Gully as interpreted by the Smurfs, with about as much intelligence and maturity. This is not good science fiction.

And to those who would say to me, "but the graphics were amazing!!!" Yeah? I nearly wet my pants watching Jurassic Park when I was young. I watch it now, and I laugh at the raptor scenes. Give it ten years, and Avatar will look just as silly. My proof?
Watch "Tremors" or "Tremors II" before you watch Avatar. See anything familiar? How many people are still talking about the great CG/puppet effects in Tremors? Cause a lot of those things in that movie just looked like "graboids" to me, when they didn't look like my cat had digested a smurf. And seriously, Cameron, have your blue kitties EAT SOMETHING. They look like anorexic shaved tabbies who wandered onto a paintball course full of twelve year old boys with serious anger issues.

If you want a good environmental allegory, pick a Miyazaki film. Any of them. Spirited Away, Princess Monoke, Castle in the Sky, Nausicaa. These are all well developed plots with imaginative creatures and three dimensional characters. They criticize poignantly and humanly the flaws in certain systems without debasing themselves to 2 dimensional character stereotypes. They are everything that Cameron wishes he could do with Avatar, and they are on average a good 45 minutes shorter. Mononoke is especially pointed and difficult in its clash between the gods of nature attempting to retain their realm and the humans of industry trying to create a better life for the downtrodden. The capitalist industrialist is a strong willed, intelligent, and charitable leader who believes what she is doing is right. But as the movie progresses, the flaws in the system that she subscribes to become apparent (her disregard for the importance of the gods, her industrious attempts to tame the forest to continue to grow her city and serve her constituents). Watch that movie with an ear for what the director is really trying to say, and you will actually learn something and be challenged.

But I could forgive all of this, I could have sat in my seat and watched the movie and had a pleasant time, I could have even ignored the "White Man's Burden" undertones if this movie had not been so spectacularly boring. When do you think I had time to think of all of this? In the three hours I was bored out of my gourd watching ten foot smurfs cry over the loss of their shrubbery.

This movie is a grandiose, money-making failure of science fiction, and I think has set the genre back at least 15 years in intellectual pursuit.

There. Done. Now y'all know why I do not like Avatar.

Here's my advice: instead of watching Avatar, go watch Up twice. Pixar has been putting out fantastic films with excellent graphics and touching narratives since Toy Story (even before that really with their short films). Up has everything Avatar doesn't: adventure, love, developing of relationships, a complex and understandable yet still despicable villain, and A TALKING DOG! How can you argue with that? IT'S A TALKING DOG!

Links to other criticisms of Avatar:
David Brooks expands on the "Messiah Complex."
A fun and interesting blog post here. Favorite phrase: "sexed-up Ewoks."

Up

2010-02-03T13:57:00.001-06:00

If Up loses "Best Picture" to Avatar, I will never in my life watch another Oscar program again.

That is all.

My wife...

2010-01-15T22:37:00.001-06:00

... is pointing out plot holes and inconsistencies of time travel while watching the first season of Doctor Who. Yet she has not told me to turn it off. Ahhhhh, amor.

First Semester Over.

2009-12-15T08:52:00.004-06:00

I have finished up my first semester of teaching "Latin American Development" and I think it went pretty well. Here are some lessons:

1) Offering extra credit only attracts students who value their grade, and would have most likely gotten an A anyway.

2) Telling students you won't curve, and that the "extra credit is the curve" will result in the same conclusion as described above. However it does take a bit out of the arbitrary nature of curves, and students on the margins have a way of sending an effective signal "Hey, I worked in this class."

3) Group projects can be done, however if the students are doing a presentation give them more time to present in class.

4) Group projects are a great way to not have to work on class plans for an entire month.

5) Students parrot the lecture material, either through trying to get by on the grade or because they just do not understand the material well enough to form their own opinion. This was painfully evident in their presentations regarding the topics of: the informal economy, remittances, public vs. private goods. I need to focus more on developing how to analyze these very difficult concepts; judging from their presentations I failed at this over the semester. They got the conclusions presented in class and how I got there, but they showed no differing viewpoint or how to get to that differing viewpoint. I was pleasantly surprised that other arguments arose over provision of education, health care, infrastructure, foreign direct investment, and some rather difficult macro concepts. But I'm still puzzled as to where I went wrong on the others.

6) Two things will happen if you let them choose their own topic: either they will choose something from the lecture material and it will be borring, or they will choose something way out in left field and be very interesting, but difficult for the student to present. The latter is what I was hoping for, and with a few groups they did a fantastic job with topics that I had not covered (the ALBA trade negotiations, a comparison of the reactions of the Mexican and Venezuelan economy to the 2008 Recession as a compare/contrast paper on free market vs. central planning). The majority though were the former; if I want them to go outside the material, I need to provide a list of topics and explicitly tell them to not use what we've covered in lecture.

7) More economics required. Some of them had great background in Latin America, and some of them had great background in economics. The vast majority had neither. More time is necessary on economics for them to understand how the analysis works.

8) Slides are time consuming. In the process of converting my power point slides to beamer presentations. Luckily that does not take as much time as the actual writing of them this semester. Hoping to have a consistent "go-to" slide file to recycle over the semester.

9) Students threaten all kinds of things. Though I have yet to actually be physically threatened by a student I have been told that I will face the wrath of: "my parents", "the provost", "the department chair", "God", and various other figures of authority and deities. Situations of wrath faced by human authority: 0. Divine retribution: Unsure, but I still seem to be alive, walking, and teaching.

My wife has just declared...

2009-12-12T22:40:00.001-06:00

... concerning Taylor Lou-something's appearance on SNL just now.

"Oh my gosh! He's so gay!"

My wife said this.

Love you, Bugsy :)

Be Skeptical.

2009-12-08T09:35:00.004-06:00

I find William Easterly's blog to be a fantastic source of discussion on aid organizations.

I also find it disturbing that whenever I meet some one who buys "fair trade" or "RED", and I ask them to define "fair trade" or how the money from their purchase actually gets to the intended target (development in African communities) they have only a vague notion (i.e. "Well they pay a wage the farmer deserves" -how is this determined and by whom?-, or "it goes directly to the Global Fund" -how does it get from the store, how are the profits and costs tallied, and who is in charge of the distribution?-).

So I would like to link this blog post for my friends who buy RED.

When economists and auditors can't view the flow of funds something is not right. If you want to feel charitable this holliday season, give to your local religious organization or actual charity who has to open up their books every now and then and prove that they're not misusing funds. I'm all for these "sustainable business" plans, but that does not mean that they can be trusted off hand because celebrities and Apple say its okay.

Obviously, if you trust the company, continue to buy and do so with my full encouragement; it is your choice and your money.

Update: RED responds rather openly, and Dadush expands on the need for transparency.

Dreams Do Come True...

2009-11-12T09:57:00.002-06:00

Lou Dobbs' only contribution to empirical analysis of immigration is shutting up. Which he finally did. Way to take one for the team, Lou. That's one shrill, ill-informed, and self-righteous talking head off the TV down... only a couple hundred to go.

You Are Being Lied To.

2009-11-11T08:27:00.003-06:00

Remember how the government said that the bail out would help spur the car industry to make electric, green, vehicles? How they would give up their old, gas guzzler production ways?

Yeah. That worked out really well. I want my money back that went to financing the Italian purchase of this failing American car company.

Think of It As An Investment.

2009-10-22T18:53:00.003-05:00

So, I get the benefit of what we at the Econ Department like to call "poor people's internet." The local cable company is offering a lifeline internet service to those who make less than $21,000 for a two person household (yo).

Well, when my wife and I went down to negotiate this, I distinctly remember bringing in my tax returns, all my documentation, and discussing the "cable transport fee" with the young woman behind the counter. Now I asked her, on several occasions if I still needed to pay the "cable transport fee" of $10 since I was not a television subscriber, and I got the distinct and clear message that yes, I was going to have to pay it, unless I subscribed to both the TV and internet services. Even though I was very obviously dirt poor (as all good GTA's are). So I figured "well, 10 bucks a month for internet is better than 40." So we have been paying this amount. Apparently up until tonight.

I was paying the bills, and realized I had not seen a Sunflower bill recently. I panicked. Checked my desk, the basket of papers and bills, and went online looking for how much they were going to ding me in rent fees. Well after going online and not finding any bills since August 6th, I notice the "amount due" line.
"-$131.00".

My lovely, beautiful, intelligent wife, while I am about to go medieval points out, "But doesn't that mean a credit of 131?" which calms me down. We call the good people at the local cable company, spend fifteen minutes on hold, and then talk to a very nice young woman who informs me that apparently there had been an "internal audit" which found that I had been wrongly charged $10 a month for the lifeline services. For about... 11 months. Soooooooooooooo... they credited my account. And seeing as my new lifeline payment for my "dirt poor" cable is $0 and NADA, the only charge I get from them is if we go over the bandwidth limit (1 gigabyte for poor people cable. No online movies for us :(.... until now....).

Yeah... or I guess we could go down there, get a refund check from them and pay the buck or so whenever we do go over the limit but... I'm a lazy man... a lazy, sexy man...

Question of the Week.

2009-10-10T10:23:00.002-05:00

I really want to know, and I'm curious about anyone's input on this topic. I will be pondering it for the next week and will hopefully have an answer.

What does Bill Clinton have to DO to get a Nobel Peace Prize?

Adorable Kitten Wins the Nobel Peace Price.

2009-10-09T07:50:00.004-05:00

It was announced this morning that this adorable kitten has won the Nobel Prize based on his work with nuclear disarmament, climate change, multilateral negotiation in international politics, and giving the promise of a hopeful future to all people worldwide.

While the adorable kitten's worldwide recognition may seem premature to some analysts, they are forgetting HOW FREAKING CUTE IS HE??? OH MY GOSH I JUST WANT TO CUDDLE HIM FOR E-V-E-R!!!

What? Guantanamo Bay still open, Afghanistan still in shambles (let's not mention Iraq), nuclear capabilities in Iran, a continued oppressive dictatorship in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, and an unsubtle push from the US executive branch against liberalization of trade with our allies and economic competitors possibly heralding in a new Smoot-Hawley era?
BUT LOOK AT THE KITTEN!!!

The adorable kitten could not be reached for comment as it had recently left the country to appeal for the IOC moving the 2016 Olympics from Rio to the sunbeam in the den.

(I'm just not even going to list the amount of hard working politicians, economists, social activists, diplomats, who got robbed this year.)

Edit 9:15 AM:
Greg Mankiw is better at this than I am. But then again, he's also a Harvard Professor, and I'm a third year grad student at a Midwestern public university so... that's to be expected. See his take on the Nobel here. Also yet another part in the continuing blog cat-fight that is Mankiw/Krugman.

Student.

2009-10-05T11:39:00.003-05:00

I understood when you could not grasp the concept of exchange rates.

I understood when you could not tell the difference between domestic interest rates and exchange rates (economics can be tough).

I understood when you did not understand how unenforceable contracts could lead to a moral hazard problem.

I understood when you got a 26% on the first exam (people sometimes make mistakes).

But when you come up to me, two months into the semester saying, "I don't have a group" then trail off looking at me expectantly, don't get pissed when I tell you, "As it states on the group paper policy: students are responsible for forming their own groups." Don't get further pissed, when you ask me, "How do I form a group?" and I respond with "Talk to your classmates." If you need me to babysit you on "making friends and influencing people" then you have more severe problems than exchange rate regimes. And when I hear, "Well I'm not doing it alone" then you are S.O.L. if you don't start talking to people. Welcome to the professional world.

I have a list. When I write my memoirs I will name names. You just made the list.

Children.

2009-09-24T09:45:00.003-05:00

So apparently a brawl broke out on Wescoe beach between the University of Kansas Basketball and Football players, regarding such important issues as popularity on campus and girls. You know, as opposed to secondary issues such as scholarships, getting an education, becoming productive members of society, and winning games. And this Wescoe brawl was apparently the SECOND on campus brawl in as many days (the other being reported in front of the Burge Union).

Are you serious? This is the kind of juvenile behavior I expect from high schoolers, and even then it should not be tolerated. GTA's get less money and respect as "representatives of the university" and they get kicked off campus completely for less.

It's the second fight ON CAMPUS (and there have been a few others reported off campus over the years), and that to me is unacceptable.
I say cut the scholarships of all involved. One fight is too much, but allowing a second to happen without any kind of response is unacceptable. Otherwise my embarrassment will go from "look how ridiculously our athletes acted" to "look how shamefully our university acted."

And it is even more shameful that a (hopefully) minority of disrespectful and stupid players brought disgrace on an otherwise fine athletics department.

Geography is a Problem.

2009-09-18T11:11:00.003-05:00

Dear Students,

When I ask you, in a class called "Economic Development of Latin America" to "give an example of such and such economic policy in Latin America" on a homework that you have had a week to work on, I do not expect you to write on the following countries:
1) South Africa.
2) China.
3) Estonia.

When, in a state of disbelief and shock, I quiz you by asking, "What continent is Nicaragua in?" the correct answer (answered by ALL the US students except one) is most certainly not "Central America".

When, in a further state of disbelief and shock, I ask you to name at least 3 Caribean countries, one of the possible correct answers is NOT "Argentina."

So dear students, congratulations. You have just successfully added a geography component to your second exam in October.

I really should have emphasized the maps more at the beginning of the semester.

Wifey Come Home

2009-09-17T09:39:00.003-05:00

I have just posted four blogs since my wife left to visit her family in Mexico and see her sister graduate (FELICIDADES!!!!!!! :) )

Seriously, amor... come home before your husband goes mas loco than he already is (don't think I've ever looked forward to a Monday this much).

Guess What?

2009-09-17T09:33:00.003-05:00

83% of Economists believe that tariffs and trade restrictions should be lowered from their present levels.

55% of economists believe that ethanol subsidies should be eliminated, the other 22% believe they should be reduced, and only 10% think they should be increased.

This means one of two things:
1) I am not crazy, and in fact fall within the majority of current economic consensus.
2) Economists are crazy.

Herbert 2.0

2009-09-17T07:41:00.004-05:00

A very interesting editorial from the WSJ about the threat of a Trade War, and the lessons we SHOULD have learned since 1930.

I do have to disagree with their view of the "carbon tariff" as protectionist (though to be honest I have not spent as much time looking into it as I should). I've read Prof. Krugman's arguments, and I agree. Its not protectionism (or at least the economic reasoning is not), but rather Pigouvian taxation, which honestly would most likely work better than this cap-and-trade bill (which Congress ruined). If some one can explain to me why not, go for it. I'm honestly all ears on this one.

Professor Taleb Speaks on Debt.

2009-09-14T22:11:00.003-05:00

"NASSIM TALEB: Well, before talking about regulation -- and, again, regulators failed us here -- let's talk about the economic establishment. All these measures I hear, oh, transitory deficit, oh, we'll repay it back, come from people using models that did not predict what's going on. They did not see the elephant in the room -- too much debt -- and all these models are completely unpredictive of anything. So don't predict. Let's try to lower debt so we don't have to predict.

As to the regulators, we have to realize that the regulators got us here by favoring a risk measurement system by banks -- and banks lost $4.3 trillion on failures of risk management systems."

and later...

"[regulation] is not a panacea. I agree, regulation can do a good job, but just blind regulation is not the solution. The solution to me is the cancer we have in the system -- too much debt -- and let's stop talking about painkillers. Let's remove the tumor.

... It's painful to remove the tumor. But the sooner we remove it, the better, instead of delaying, saying, "Transitory, transitory, transitory." The debt today is the same debt as we had a year ago. Actually, it's increasing."

Video to see Professor Taleb disagree with Professor Blinder's rosy outlook.

Transcript for those who like to read.

Point of fact: Nassim Taleb predicted, warned about, and made millions of dollars off of the financial meltdown in October 2008. Alan Blinder is the originator of the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Just... throwing that out there.

Because So Much is Riding on Them...

2009-09-14T07:20:00.004-05:00

It begins with tires and chicken. It ends with stagnant growth for the next decade thanks to protectionism. Another ten years stagnation to get union support for a health care bill. So we are adding to the deficit, and now destroying one of the ways to pay for it. Ugh.

Just freaking pass Smoot-Hawley again and let's get the lost decade over with. If we have to re-learn this lesson after 70 years again, then we deserve to lose our spot as the biggest economy in the world. While we're at it, let's continue building a gigantic, expensive, and ineffective wall along our bor- oh wait... done that.

I am in no way...

2009-09-08T09:49:00.002-05:00

... actually represented on this graph. Interesting to poke all my friends with this though... but then again they actually have jobs... but whatever. I can lie with statistics just as easily as the next guy.

Just a note though: my three undergrad degrees are in Economics, Spanish, and Mathematics. So should I average out the salaries (weighted perhaps by my GPA in all?), add them all together cumulatively, or maybe find a more complex index?

The Following...

2009-08-20T07:33:00.002-05:00

... are not good responses to your ECON professor's question of, "why do you think I should up your grade from a mid to low C to a B?"

a) "I really need to get into the Education School, and I think I deserve to be an exception."
b) "I'm on academic probation."

Just throwing that out there.

Zombies > Vampires.

2009-08-17T12:44:00.004-05:00

Aside from my disdain of vampires, most of you probably already know my very dire warnings of the zombie apocalypse. The good people of the University of Ottawa Mathematics and Medical Departments, as well as Carleton University, have put forth a convincing and rigorous mathematical model on how to avoid the Zombie Apocalypse when it comes.

Everybody grab an axe, a shotgun, and get ready for a "long, hard slog."

Interestingly enough, according to my brief statistical survey, math departments treat zombie apocalypses fairly credulously while usually completely debunking the possibility of vampires. Either that or vampires are just LAME!

Added note: any academic paper that cites Simon Pegg is Freaking Awesome.

Office Roulette.

2009-07-28T14:17:00.002-05:00

As of 2 PM today, I have one office mate leaving, with no replacement listed by the department. My other office mate is never in.

Own class? Check.
Own office? Sorta-check.

Care for a Game of Monopoly?

2009-07-28T07:51:00.003-05:00

I really am surprised at the consistent and naive idealism that consumers have in certain companies. Apple will always put out a better product than Microsoft because Apple is a company of artists and Microsoft is corporate greed. Millions of consumers would beg to differ, despite Apple's ridiculously snide "I'm a Mac" ad campaign. Those I know who do shell out for the perceived superior product have an almost religious devotion to it that has gone well past the phrase "annoying." This perception leads to what is called in economics: monopolistic competition. There can be any numbers of firms in a market place with free entry or exit, however the key difference is consumer's perception (true or not) of the product as unique. I honestly do not see the difference in a PC vs. a Mac, therefore I'm not paying a higher price. Others would disagree, and happily pay the higher price. Good for them. In this case then the firm (Apple) can behave much like a monopolist with regards to prices (it has market power to set a higher price than in a perfectly competitive situation). And of course, like all economic agents Apple will "exploit all opportunities to make themselves better off." In other words, they will lie, cheat, and steal to get the bottom line. Microsoft's competitors are indeed just as corporate, greedy, and "evil" as the company they rail against.

So now, moving away from Apple, we get to the deal with Google. Imagine my lack of surprise to hear the outcry over the beginnings of anti-trust investigations into Google from the Google devotees. Let me be up front first of all: I love googling. I love the product google puts out. My wife will tell you that I check G-mail obsessively, and part of that obsession is all the cool gadgets. I tried out Chrome, which I think can be great in a couple of years, but for now I prefer Firefox. I blog on google. So I am a Google consumer through and through. But I do not buy this "we do not do evil" crap they send out. Allowing the Chinese to censor your websites pretty much falls under that definition of "evil", especially when let's face it: you did it to increase your consumer base. The more users you have, the larger your revenue. You are just as greedy and profit maximizing as Microsoft. They make a product, they want to sell that product to as many as possible, and they do it well. To assume that Google will follow this "Trust us" idealism forever is just stupidity, and shame on Google for thinking that they can get away with that, especially when they're now actually boxing their weight.

So am I upset that Google is being investigated for antitrust? Nah. Welcome to the party, Google. It was not anti-trust lawsuits that broke Microsoft, but the consistent competition of innovative and aggressive firms like yourselves. And now that you're the top, guess what? You've got the target on your back. You already let the Chinese government meddle in your business practices, so you might as well prepare to deal with the US. At least with the US you can hire good lawyers and after a decade or two of legal battles with companies who are accusing you of being the next great Satan, and still come out with your product intact. Kudos. Plus when you deal with the US, you don't have that whole issue of your conscience bothering you about censoring Chinese dissidents for a corrupt and totalitarian regime. But I bet all that money does help you sleep at night.

Do I think Google should be investigated for antitrust? About as much as I think Microsoft should have been. Again, let me be clear: the government did not save us all from Microsoft. It was the innovation and hard work of Apple (as much as I just bad mouthed them, they really did do their part in helping consumers by competing), Google, Yahoo, and others. Netscape can kiss my butt, for their wussiness and running to big brother at the hint of blood in the water. Honestly it was a bad browser to begin with, and if they were doing so poorly how the heck did they manage to hire those attorneys? Google and Apple did it right: they brought out different and competitive products that cut into Microsoft's market share and profits in a fair way, which benefited the consumer. Maybe certain other American companies who cry foul (and protection) every time the Japanese make a better product should take note.

So bring the pain, US government. Google is just one more firm which provides a service, and is neither above nor below its competitors: they have to play by the same rules as the rest of the greedy capitalists. Do I think the US government will waste taxpayer money in a lawsuit that will come to nothing, especially when fifteen years down the line Google will be the aging giant facing off against another young upstart? Oh yeah. But at least I can enjoy the show of the fan boys squirming as the computer age increasingly disillusions us all to the idealism leftover from the 1990s.

Seriously though... do American consumers really buy this moral high ground that Google advertises? I guess if they bought the "What's good for GM is good for America" line, they would buy this too.

Ur Doing it Wrong.

2009-07-27T09:46:00.004-05:00

As the laziest 104 student of mine can tell you after just 8 weeks of marginal teaching: price ceilings will create shortage. Shortages in fact, the ones so common to the USSR, were not caused by bad winters or corrupt capitalists, but the imposition of a price ceiling which creates market inefficiencies, and leads to incentives to cheat the system.

So Hugo Chavez, congratulations. You are dumber than my worst 104 student.

The government creates shortages in staple goods like milk, beef, and coffee. Then it appropriates any taxes and oil profits in order to import these goods that the economy (the people) could be producing itself (and has been proven to be able to produce itself, before the miracle of "21st Century Socialism", which is actually more like 19th century bad economic policy), and then provides these goods even more inefficiently to the poor (after the bureaucrats take their dues of course).

Okay... maybe you're not stupid. But definitely evil.

Executive Branch Blocking Reburial of Geronimo

2009-06-22T09:36:00.004-05:00

Geronimo's descendants are filing suit against the US government to rebury their ancestor's remains in New Mexico. And the US government is trying to block it. And by US government, I mean the executive branch, specifically our president and secretary of defense (and their lawyers).

Assuming the Skull and Bones did not steal Geronimo's skull back in 19-whenever, this man's remains staying in Oklahoma is about like burying George Washington in Canada. It just aint right. If his descendants wish to transport the remains of one of their former leader that should be their right, and the US government has no say in the matter. They can take it up with the Apache's living in OK, and decide between themselves where the remains should lie, if there's any conflict of interest.

Furthermore, let's dig it up. Let's see if some one actually did steal those remains. Test it genetically, and then FIND THEM.
If Yale is intent on clearing its name and its association with one of the most persistent conspiracy theories out there, then heck, have an investigation. Bring in the FBI. Use tax payer money. Call it a historical justice stimulus package if you want. If there is not truth to it, the remains should be in Ft. Sill right? If there is truth to it, then somebody needs to find them.

Furthermore, there's nothing funny about desecration of the dead. If there is this society (again, I'm not saying there is, and I think if it does exist its just an ivy-league excuse for a kegger every few weeks), and they are abusing some one's DEAD BODY like this, then they need to be held responsible. Doesn't matter who stole it. It does matter who is still doing it. If its still being used by students on Yale campus, it is the responsibility of the university to penalize or discipline them. Once Yale has expelled those students involved, start a federal investigation on the individuals implicated. Again, if they exist, nobody in that group over the past 90 years thought, "You know... maybe we shouldn't be messing around with a man's skull that we stole from his grave?"

But what is getting me is the hypocrisy of this. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's some legal precedent that needs to be upheld, and the suit has to be modified so it gels with whatever court mumbo-jumbo has to be done. But as I recall there was recently a Senate approved apology for slavery. Is the return of a man's remains to his homeland not "change we can believe in", while a hollow resolution of "oh yeah, our bad" is acceptable?

Come on! Just exhume the remains at Ft. Sill, have observers from both parties catalogue the remains. Once its determined if anything is missing, surrender the remains to the Apache and allow them to bury their kinsman in peace.

Hey Jimmy!

2009-06-13T21:13:00.001-05:00

I bet Carter thinks this one was free, fair, and legitimate too.