The Brandeis Ratio is a Faulty Measure.

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.

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.

Science is not a Democracy.

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.

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

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

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.

Grapes.

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.

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?

Dollar dollar bill y'all.

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.

Olly Olly Oxen Free, Evo Morales.

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...

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

You don't win for potential.

Update:
Go Mavs. I really miss Dallas.

Test Musicians!

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.

Really? Again?

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.

Foreign Investors FTW! ... or FML?

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.

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.

Yeast is Awesome...

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.

Jaime Escalante Was Right.

"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.

Bad Day.

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...

Children.

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.

Zombies > Vampires.

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.

Executive Branch Blocking Reburial of Geronimo

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.