martes, 22 de diciembre de 2009
Reflections on Paul Samuelson
The great Paul Samuelson passed away last weekend at the age of 94, and several economists have now written about his life and work. Paul Krugman highlights eight of Samuelson
jueves, 10 de diciembre de 2009
Why Does the U.S Rank 29th in Longevity?
Yes, the U.S. healthcare system is full of inefficiencies which lead to bloated costs. But no, that's not the reason that U.S. longevity ranks only 29th in the world.
That's the gist of a working paper (abstract here; pdf here) by Samuel H. Preston, a health demographer at Penn, and Jessica Y. Ho, a health economist.
As summarized in the NBER Digest:
The authors demonstrate that mortality reductions from prostate and breast cancers have been exceptionally rapid in the United States relative to a set of peer countries. They argue that these unusually rapid declines are attributable to wider screening and more aggressive treatment of these diseases. Screening for other cancers also appears unusually extensive, and five-year survival rates from all of the major cancers are very favorable. Survival rates following heart attack and stroke are also favorable (although one-year survival rates following stroke are only average), and the proportion of people with elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels who are receiving medication is well above European standards.
These performance indicators pertain primarily to what happens after a disease has developed, though. It is possible that the U.S. health care system performs poorly in preventing disease in the first place. Unfortunately, there are no satisfactory international comparisons of disease incidence. Some researchers report a higher prevalence of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the United States than in Europe, and biomarkers confirm that many disease syndromes are more prevalent in the United States than in England and Wales, for example. Higher disease prevalence is prima facie evidence of higher disease incidence, although those high incidence rates also could be produced by better identification (for example, through screening programs) or better survival. The history of exceptionally heavy smoking and the more recent increase in obesity in the United States suggest that a high disease incidence cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the health care system.
Evidence that the major diseases are effectively diagnosed and treated in the United States does not mean that there may not be great inefficiencies in the U.S. health care system, according to the authors. A list of prominent inefficiency charges levied against the system include: fragmentation, duplication, inaccessibility of records, the practice of defensive medicine, misalignment of physician and patient incentives, limitations of access for a large fraction of the population, and excessively fast adoption of unproven technologies. Some of these inefficiencies have been identified by comparing performance across regions of the United States, but the fact that certain regions do poorly relative to others does not imply that the United States on the whole does poorly relative to other countries. The authors also note that many of the documented inefficiencies of the U.S. health care system simply add to its costs rather than harming patients.
They conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely a result of a poorly functioning health care system.
This doesn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who's dug a bit into the healthcare data (which is vast vast vast), but I don't believe the public thinks of the issue this way. Many politicians also probably don't -- and their positions are further compromised by the fact that, politically, it can be very hard to blame bad health outcomes on their voters' overeating, smoking, and other personal choices.
While we don't have a dedicated healthcare chapter in SuperFreakonomics, healthcare is probably the single most prominent topic throughout the book. A lot of the stories we tell point to failures that could be easily corrected if the existing incentives were aligned less perversely than they are. There are huge gains to be made, for instance, in decreasing hospital-acquired infections and paying attention to the inefficacy of many types of chemotherapy. Also, it may be that less interaction with the healthcare system in general would be a very good thing.
That's the gist of a working paper (abstract here; pdf here) by Samuel H. Preston, a health demographer at Penn, and Jessica Y. Ho, a health economist.
As summarized in the NBER Digest:
The authors demonstrate that mortality reductions from prostate and breast cancers have been exceptionally rapid in the United States relative to a set of peer countries. They argue that these unusually rapid declines are attributable to wider screening and more aggressive treatment of these diseases. Screening for other cancers also appears unusually extensive, and five-year survival rates from all of the major cancers are very favorable. Survival rates following heart attack and stroke are also favorable (although one-year survival rates following stroke are only average), and the proportion of people with elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels who are receiving medication is well above European standards.
These performance indicators pertain primarily to what happens after a disease has developed, though. It is possible that the U.S. health care system performs poorly in preventing disease in the first place. Unfortunately, there are no satisfactory international comparisons of disease incidence. Some researchers report a higher prevalence of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the United States than in Europe, and biomarkers confirm that many disease syndromes are more prevalent in the United States than in England and Wales, for example. Higher disease prevalence is prima facie evidence of higher disease incidence, although those high incidence rates also could be produced by better identification (for example, through screening programs) or better survival. The history of exceptionally heavy smoking and the more recent increase in obesity in the United States suggest that a high disease incidence cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the health care system.
Evidence that the major diseases are effectively diagnosed and treated in the United States does not mean that there may not be great inefficiencies in the U.S. health care system, according to the authors. A list of prominent inefficiency charges levied against the system include: fragmentation, duplication, inaccessibility of records, the practice of defensive medicine, misalignment of physician and patient incentives, limitations of access for a large fraction of the population, and excessively fast adoption of unproven technologies. Some of these inefficiencies have been identified by comparing performance across regions of the United States, but the fact that certain regions do poorly relative to others does not imply that the United States on the whole does poorly relative to other countries. The authors also note that many of the documented inefficiencies of the U.S. health care system simply add to its costs rather than harming patients.
They conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely a result of a poorly functioning health care system.
This doesn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who's dug a bit into the healthcare data (which is vast vast vast), but I don't believe the public thinks of the issue this way. Many politicians also probably don't -- and their positions are further compromised by the fact that, politically, it can be very hard to blame bad health outcomes on their voters' overeating, smoking, and other personal choices.
While we don't have a dedicated healthcare chapter in SuperFreakonomics, healthcare is probably the single most prominent topic throughout the book. A lot of the stories we tell point to failures that could be easily corrected if the existing incentives were aligned less perversely than they are. There are huge gains to be made, for instance, in decreasing hospital-acquired infections and paying attention to the inefficacy of many types of chemotherapy. Also, it may be that less interaction with the healthcare system in general would be a very good thing.
Did You See A Red Balloon Last Sunday?
On Saturday, December 5, at 10 a.m., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the R&D arm of the Department of Defense, floated ten large red balloons in public areas across the U.S. The balloons weren
martes, 8 de diciembre de 2009
Money Changes Everything
In the first chapter of SuperFreakonomics, we write at some length about the economics of prostitution, both among street prostitutes and a high-end call girls.
One of the most interesting aspects of prostitution is that it involves a good or service (or whatever you want to call it) -- sex -- which, when undertaken for free by consenting adults is legal but which becomes illegal when money changes hands.
Can you think of other goods and services that share this trait? Let's also consider examples where money doesn't necessarily make the practice illegal, but at the very least taboo or socially repugnant.
I will put a few more examples below the fold, so as not to ruin the guessing game, but I am hoping you all can collectively expand this list many times over.
A few other goods and services that come to mind: human organs; children (you can put your baby up for adoption but cannot sell it); and -- my favorite, suggested by a smart fellow I met recently -- political favors.
One of the most interesting aspects of prostitution is that it involves a good or service (or whatever you want to call it) -- sex -- which, when undertaken for free by consenting adults is legal but which becomes illegal when money changes hands.
Can you think of other goods and services that share this trait? Let's also consider examples where money doesn't necessarily make the practice illegal, but at the very least taboo or socially repugnant.
I will put a few more examples below the fold, so as not to ruin the guessing game, but I am hoping you all can collectively expand this list many times over.
A few other goods and services that come to mind: human organs; children (you can put your baby up for adoption but cannot sell it); and -- my favorite, suggested by a smart fellow I met recently -- political favors.
Touring Gangland
A group of civic activists in Los Angeles plans to start giving "Gang Tours" -- taking busloads of tourists through some of the most dangerous parts of the city -- in hopes of "sensitizing people, connecting them to the reality of what's on the ground." Critics liken the tours to voyeuristic "slum tourism" in India and Rio de Janeiro. But Gang Tours organizers say they plan on using tour profits to help communities through avenues like loans for inner-city entrepreneurs and sending graffiti taggers to art school.
viernes, 6 de noviembre de 2009
What Are the Most Notable Quotes From 2009?
Let me take a break from responding to readers' quote queries.
I'm starting to think about my annual list, run by the Associated Press, of the top 10 most notable quotations of the year. By "notable" I mean "important" or "famous" or "particularly revealing of the spirit of our times" rather than necessarily being eloquent or admirable.
Some that seem to stand out this year include Mark Sanford's spokesman saying "The governor is hiking the Appalachian trail"; Joe Wilson's calling out "You lie!"; Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift; and Sarah Palin on "Obama's death panel."
I would welcome suggestions of additional quotes from 2009, particularly ones from politics or popular culture or entertainment or sports or business or technology.
I'm starting to think about my annual list, run by the Associated Press, of the top 10 most notable quotations of the year. By "notable" I mean "important" or "famous" or "particularly revealing of the spirit of our times" rather than necessarily being eloquent or admirable.
Some that seem to stand out this year include Mark Sanford's spokesman saying "The governor is hiking the Appalachian trail"; Joe Wilson's calling out "You lie!"; Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift; and Sarah Palin on "Obama's death panel."
I would welcome suggestions of additional quotes from 2009, particularly ones from politics or popular culture or entertainment or sports or business or technology.
A Different Kind of Organ Market?
Who gets bumped to the front of UCLA medical center's liver-transplant line? The godfather of the Japanese mafia, according to this 60 Minutes video. Called the "John Gotti of Japan" by U.S. law enforcement, he moved to the top of UCLA's waiting list and got a liver in about six weeks rather than the average three years, reports 60 Minutes's Lara Logan, by allegedly paying $1 million for the transplant and making a sizable donation to the transplant center. He wouldn't have been so lucky in the UK.
Charity Won't Contain This Secondary Market
Each year I receive about 10 introductory economics textbooks from publishers. The purpose is to induce me to adopt the book in my 500-student principles class. Many years ago the books I received typical copies, same as the students would buy. Book-buyers came around seeking to buy my unused copies, but I never sold them. Others obviously did, because the publishers started stamping "Complimentary copy" on these freebies. One publisher even has my name printed on the copy I received. The purpose of all this is to prevent an increased supply in the secondary book market from competing with the supply of new books. I received a text today that had stamped, "...please return it to XX and we will donate $1 to
Do Earmarks Matter?
Making fun of earmarked Congressional spending is easy, feel-good entertainment. In this regard Sen. John McCain's Twitter feed, in which he reels off outrageous examples of pork-barrel spending (we especially liked "$300,000 for Texas A&M for 'Texas Height Modernization'") is a laugh factory. But is the war on pork a distraction from a larger problem? In 2008, Congress earmarked $17.2 billion for special projects. That amounts to less than one half of one percent of all Federal spending last year. The figure is less than NASA's 2008 budget ($17.3 billion) and less than half of the $35 billion the country spent on foreign aid last year (is there a "Finland Height Modernization" program?). A recent paper found almost no correlation between the amount of pork in a given year and the size of that year's deficit. The authors conclude: "While increasing levels of pork may be symptomatic of a larger government spending problem, they are not the underlying cause."
jueves, 29 de octubre de 2009
Steve Levitt on The Daily Show
He wondered if he was in for a Jim Cramer-type beatdown. But it turns out that Jon Stewart gave SuperFreakonomics a thumping endorsement.
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cSteven Levittthedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Crisis
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cSteven Levittthedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Crisis
viernes, 23 de octubre de 2009
The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz
By the time you finish this blog post, you will understand why we differ from our critics in our conclusions.
As we write in SuperFreakonomics, there are many misconceptions about the facts surrounding global warming. Take the following true/false quiz to test your knowledge of the science, economics, and technology of global warming.
Global-warming science questions:
1. The Earth has gotten substantially warmer over the past 100 years.
TRUE / FALSE
2. Even if we were to immediately and permanently stabilize our carbon emissions at the current levels, or even cut these emissions substantially, climate models predict that Earth will continue to get warmer for decades.
TRUE / FALSE
3. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it spewed millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Scientists believe that the haze generated by the eruption reflected some of the Sun
As we write in SuperFreakonomics, there are many misconceptions about the facts surrounding global warming. Take the following true/false quiz to test your knowledge of the science, economics, and technology of global warming.
Global-warming science questions:
1. The Earth has gotten substantially warmer over the past 100 years.
TRUE / FALSE
2. Even if we were to immediately and permanently stabilize our carbon emissions at the current levels, or even cut these emissions substantially, climate models predict that Earth will continue to get warmer for decades.
TRUE / FALSE
3. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it spewed millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Scientists believe that the haze generated by the eruption reflected some of the Sun
martes, 20 de octubre de 2009
Are Solar Panels Really Black? And What Does That Have to Do With the Climate Debate?
Nathan Myhrvold is a polymath's polymath, the former chief technology officer at Microsoft who, by the time he was 23, had earned, primarily at UCLA and Princeton, a bachelor's degree (mathematics), two master's degrees (geophysics/space physics and mathematical economics), and a Ph.D. (mathematical physics). He is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, a firm comprising many other scientists, including climate scientists, whose counterintuitive views on global warming and its possible solutions are explored in the final chapter of SuperFreakonomics. A climate-activist blogger didn't like the chapter, accusing Levitt and Dubner of chicanery (a charge that Dubner rebuffed here) and accusing Myhrvold of not understanding the physics behind solar power. Oops. Below you can read Myhrvold's views on the tenor of the global-warming debate in general and solar power in particular. Watch this space for further rebuttals of shouted claims of error and evil.
One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become. Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas.
There are serious scientific and technological issues in studying our climate, how it responds to human-caused emission of greenhouse gases, and what the most effective solutions will be for global warming. But unfortunately, the policy implications are vast and there is a lot at stake in economic terms.
It seems inevitable that discussions of climate science would degenerate to being deeply politicized and polarized. Depending on which views are adopted, individuals, industries, and countries will gain or lose, which provides ample motive. Once people with a strong political or ideological bent latch onto an issue, it becomes hard to have a reasonable discussion; once you're in a political mode, the focus in the discussion changes. Everything becomes an attempt to protect territory. Evidence and logic becomes secondary, used when advantageous and discarded when expedient. What should be a rational debate becomes a personal and venal brawl. Rational, scientific debate that could advance the common good gets usurped by personal attacks and counterattacks.
Political movements always have extremists -- bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I'm sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn't bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos. These folks can be found at the fringe of every political movement, throughout all of history. Technology has amplified them in recent years. First with talk radio and then with cable TV, the extremists found larger and larger audiences.
The Internet provides the ultimate extremist platform. Every blogger can reach millions, and given the lack of scrutiny or review over content, there is little accountability. Indeed, the more over-the-top the discourse is the better -- because it is entertaining. Ancient Romans watched gladiators in much the same way that we read angry bloggers.
That seems to be the case with Joe Romm, a blogger with strong views about global warming and what he calls "climate progress." In a recent series of blog posts, Romm levels one baseless, bald charge after another. What provoked this? The best summary I've seen comes from a comment by DaveyNC to the Freakonomics blog which says:
No, no, no, no -- you have committed apostasy; heresy! You are not allowed to speak of warming except in the most emotional, alarmist tones!
You are not allowed to follow an objective, skeptical line of reasoning in this matter. You are not allowed to consider whether or not it is cost-efficient or even possible to cease all carbon emissions; you simply must do it.
That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell. SuperFreakonomics dares to comment on climate issues in a manner that Romm sees as contrary to his agenda, so he sets out to smear the book and me as a figure in the book.
Romm's method of attack is pretty simple. He takes as many statements as he can, interprets them -- or misinterprets them in the worst possible way -- and then subjects them to ridicule. As an example, he goes on and on about a comment that I made about how solar photovoltaic cells have a problem because they are black. Romm attacks me as if I think that this means that solar cells are bad. Yet that wasn't the point in SuperFreakonomics at all. I am quoted in the book as follows:
As an example he points to solar power. "The problem with solar cells is that they
One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become. Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas.
There are serious scientific and technological issues in studying our climate, how it responds to human-caused emission of greenhouse gases, and what the most effective solutions will be for global warming. But unfortunately, the policy implications are vast and there is a lot at stake in economic terms.
It seems inevitable that discussions of climate science would degenerate to being deeply politicized and polarized. Depending on which views are adopted, individuals, industries, and countries will gain or lose, which provides ample motive. Once people with a strong political or ideological bent latch onto an issue, it becomes hard to have a reasonable discussion; once you're in a political mode, the focus in the discussion changes. Everything becomes an attempt to protect territory. Evidence and logic becomes secondary, used when advantageous and discarded when expedient. What should be a rational debate becomes a personal and venal brawl. Rational, scientific debate that could advance the common good gets usurped by personal attacks and counterattacks.
Political movements always have extremists -- bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I'm sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn't bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos. These folks can be found at the fringe of every political movement, throughout all of history. Technology has amplified them in recent years. First with talk radio and then with cable TV, the extremists found larger and larger audiences.
The Internet provides the ultimate extremist platform. Every blogger can reach millions, and given the lack of scrutiny or review over content, there is little accountability. Indeed, the more over-the-top the discourse is the better -- because it is entertaining. Ancient Romans watched gladiators in much the same way that we read angry bloggers.
That seems to be the case with Joe Romm, a blogger with strong views about global warming and what he calls "climate progress." In a recent series of blog posts, Romm levels one baseless, bald charge after another. What provoked this? The best summary I've seen comes from a comment by DaveyNC to the Freakonomics blog which says:
No, no, no, no -- you have committed apostasy; heresy! You are not allowed to speak of warming except in the most emotional, alarmist tones!
You are not allowed to follow an objective, skeptical line of reasoning in this matter. You are not allowed to consider whether or not it is cost-efficient or even possible to cease all carbon emissions; you simply must do it.
That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell. SuperFreakonomics dares to comment on climate issues in a manner that Romm sees as contrary to his agenda, so he sets out to smear the book and me as a figure in the book.
Romm's method of attack is pretty simple. He takes as many statements as he can, interprets them -- or misinterprets them in the worst possible way -- and then subjects them to ridicule. As an example, he goes on and on about a comment that I made about how solar photovoltaic cells have a problem because they are black. Romm attacks me as if I think that this means that solar cells are bad. Yet that wasn't the point in SuperFreakonomics at all. I am quoted in the book as follows:
As an example he points to solar power. "The problem with solar cells is that they
domingo, 18 de octubre de 2009
sábado, 17 de octubre de 2009
viernes, 4 de septiembre de 2009
1899: A Very Good Year for Books
According to Google Books, it's the year Raymond Chandler's Killer in the Rain was published, along with Stephen King's Christine and a landmark biography of Bob Dylan -- not to mention the Italian edition of Freakonomics and Portuguese edition Super Crunchers. These are mistakes, obviously, and they point to even more troubling errors that bedevil Google's digital library project, as Geoffrey Nunberg explains. Update | 4:51 p.m. See a response from Google's metadata team here.
miércoles, 2 de septiembre de 2009
Biblical Property Rights
Photo: Kevin Lallier
Deuteronomy 23:25-26 reflects the limits on altruism:
When thou comest into thy neighbor's standing corn, then thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn.
It's O.K. to take a bit of the owner's produce for sustenance; but to ensure that what is taken is not for commercial purposes, the taker cannot use machinery (a sickle) that would raise his marginal productivity and thus raise his output beyond what might be for immediate sustenance.
The owner does have some protection, but he is also supposed to charitable. This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise between altruism and property rights.
Deuteronomy 23:25-26 reflects the limits on altruism:
When thou comest into thy neighbor's standing corn, then thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn.
It's O.K. to take a bit of the owner's produce for sustenance; but to ensure that what is taken is not for commercial purposes, the taker cannot use machinery (a sickle) that would raise his marginal productivity and thus raise his output beyond what might be for immediate sustenance.
The owner does have some protection, but he is also supposed to charitable. This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise between altruism and property rights.
miércoles, 26 de agosto de 2009
To Catch a Criminal, It's All About Presentation
Dallas's police department changed the way it lines up its suspects for identification. Instead of the common "six pack" method where the victim looks at six photos at once, detectives (blind to who the suspect is) started showing the photos one at a time, reports the Associated Press. This small change, according to the AP, can lower misidentification rates by 39 percent. (HT: Daniel Lippman)
jueves, 6 de agosto de 2009
Conservation By Urination
According to the Brazilian environmental organization SOS Mata Atlantica, a household that flushes its toilet one less time per day saves more than 1,100 gallons of water per year. So the organization has launched a TV ad campaign encouraging Brazilians to avoid a flush by peeing in the shower. The ad shows cartoons of everyone -- from aliens to King Kong -- urinating in the shower and ends with the slogan:
miércoles, 5 de agosto de 2009
The Paradox of Road Choice
Two physicists and a computer scientist used Google maps to study traffic in Boston, London, and New York, and found that when people use real-time driving maps to try to pick the fastest routes, traffic slows down. Their solution: close a few roads so drivers have fewer options. (HT: Kottke)
viernes, 24 de julio de 2009
FREAK Shots: Eclipsing Anxiety
Wednesday's eclipse didn't cause mayhem; it didn't even affect Shanghai
lunes, 20 de julio de 2009
Captain Steve Answers Your Airline Questions
A while back, we began soliciting reader questions for Captain Steve, a captain with a major U.S. airline. He made his debut here, with his rather spirited take on the state of the modern pilot, and now is back with his first round of answers to reader questions. Thanks to him, and to you -- and please leave new questions for Captain Steve in the comments section below.
Q Seriously, how does my keeping my iPod on affect flights taking off? It
Q Seriously, how does my keeping my iPod on affect flights taking off? It
miércoles, 15 de julio de 2009
Crime, Punishment, and Typewriter Tape
We blogged a while back about how cassette tapes have found a niche in prisons, where the retro tech is considered a safe alternative to CD's. Where else is old technology hanging on? In New York City police stations, where typewriters are still regularly used to fill out paperwork. The N.Y.P.D. spent nearly $1 million on typewriters in 2007. Just because a technology has been superseded doesn't make it completely irrelevant.
lunes, 6 de julio de 2009
Do Taste and Smell Adjectives Signal Value, or Do They Create It?
We may disagree about our favorite artists and musicians, but it
jueves, 2 de julio de 2009
Not Darwin's Year?
According to a Zogby poll taken this year, Darwin's 200th anniversary, Americans favor intelligent design over Darwinian theory. According to the poll, 33 percent of respondents said they agreed with Darwinism, but 52 percent agreed that
miércoles, 1 de julio de 2009
Bubble Science
Gary Stix looks at recent developments in the science of human decision-making and economic bubbles. Stix examines the growing influence of behavioral economists, the neuroscience behind various economic phenomena, and the research of George Akerlof and Robert Shiller, Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, and Andrew Lo.
Is Free Free?
Wired editor and Long Tail author Chris Anderson sees free things everywhere -- Google, YouTube, even The New York Times -- and concludes that $0.00 the price has revolutionized the modern world as much as zero the concept revolutionized the ancient world. Anderson's book on the subject, Free: the Future of a Radical Price, goes on sale next week for the decidedly un-radical price of $26.99. You can, however, read Malcolm Gladwell's not-so-friendly review of the book online for free. Free, except of course for the price you paid for your computer, mobile device, electricity, and internet connection. This hitch is just one problem Gladwell has with Anderson's idea. (Separately, Anderson seems guilty of Wikiplagiarism.)
viernes, 19 de junio de 2009
Will the "Green Revolution" Ever Hit Africa?
To most people in the developed world, agricultural science is a bit of an afterthought. We go to the grocery store and decide between small, vibrantly red cherry tomatoes and charmingly misshapen heirloom tomatoes. We buy big, juicy oranges and know that when we peel them the juice will run over our fingers and the sticky scent will linger. We can choose between 10 different kinds of apples, no matter the season. At no point during our shopping do most of us stop to think about the technology used to produce this bounty.
Despite the nostalgia many Americans feel for the image of a farm in the country with a red barn, only 2% of Americans are still classified as farmers by the government
Despite the nostalgia many Americans feel for the image of a farm in the country with a red barn, only 2% of Americans are still classified as farmers by the government
martes, 16 de junio de 2009
Leap Months and Kings
The Hebrew calendar is lunar, so that a leap-month has to be inserted every once in a while to keep the seasons and holidays at appropriate times. But when to insert the month, and what group should decide?
According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 18b), the king was excluded from the group. Because he paid his soldiers on an annual basis, it was felt that he would have an incentive to insert extra months, since that lengthened the year and saved him money.
If the king only expected to be in power for a few years, or if he had a very high discount rate and didn't care about the future, this explanation might make sense. But the calendar couldn't get too far off because the king couldn't keep inserting months year after year. Otherwise, for example, harvest holidays would come during planting times. One might even argue that the king had the opposite incentive: by avoiding excessive intercalations, he would demonstrate to the soldiers and the people his confidence in a long reign. (Hat tip: M.A.H. and S.C.H.)
According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 18b), the king was excluded from the group. Because he paid his soldiers on an annual basis, it was felt that he would have an incentive to insert extra months, since that lengthened the year and saved him money.
If the king only expected to be in power for a few years, or if he had a very high discount rate and didn't care about the future, this explanation might make sense. But the calendar couldn't get too far off because the king couldn't keep inserting months year after year. Otherwise, for example, harvest holidays would come during planting times. One might even argue that the king had the opposite incentive: by avoiding excessive intercalations, he would demonstrate to the soldiers and the people his confidence in a long reign. (Hat tip: M.A.H. and S.C.H.)
viernes, 12 de junio de 2009
Friend Turnover
Seven years from now, a new study reports, your friend group will probably look entirely different, even though it'll still be the same size. Utrecht University sociologist Gerald Mollenhorst surveyed 604 people about their friends and again seven years later, and found that only 48 percent of people's original friends were still part of their network after that time period. How will social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter affect the rate of friend turnover in the next seven years?
lunes, 8 de junio de 2009
viernes, 5 de junio de 2009
jueves, 4 de junio de 2009
Fantasy Stocks
For those who are still too scared to invest in the stock market, you can buy some imaginary stock at UpDown, a "practice investing" site that simulates the stock market and lists real-life companies without meting out real-life consequences.
viernes, 29 de mayo de 2009
The Opposite of Repugnance
Al Roth is a truly interesting economic thinker, with an emphasis on what has come to be known as market design. He has created systems that help new doctors find an appropriate residency, that help students find an appropriate high school, and that help people dying of kidney failure find a new kidney.
None of these results would have been possible without a keen understanding of game theory; his solutions are market-based but also highly cognizant of strategic intent, psychology, and even mood.
We touched on Roth's work in a column we wrote a while back about the possibility of a market for human organs. One big hurdle in establishing such a market is what Roth calls the repugnance factor. For a variety of reasons, the idea of buying and selling human organs is one that people find repugnant -- at least at this point in time, and in our country but not in every country.
What is interesting about repugnance is how it shifts over time. My favorite example is life insurance. Until the mid-19th century, this concept was widely held to be repugnant -- it meant placing a bet, after all, on the untimely death of a loved one. As the sociologist Viviana Zelizer has written, people thought that life insurance "transformed the sacred event of death into a vulgar commodity."
That, of course, has changed. So have many other onetime repugnancies.
Now, on his Market Design blog, Al Roth writes about something that's perhaps even more interesting: the opposite of repugnance. Or, as he puts it, "transactions that, as a society, we often seek to promote, for reasons other than efficiency or pure political expediency."
Here are the items he lists:
+ Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman
+ Home ownership in the U.S.
+ Food production by small farmers
+ Fishing by small fishing boats
+ The right to purchase guns
His readers chime in with a few more ideas:
+ Donating to charity
+ Education
+ Hiring the disabled, veterans, ex-cons, and other members of "historically underrepresented groups."
I am surprised nobody claimed "universal health care."
I would encourage you to add Roth's blog to your reading list; if more people thought like Roth does the world would be a considerably more rational place.
None of these results would have been possible without a keen understanding of game theory; his solutions are market-based but also highly cognizant of strategic intent, psychology, and even mood.
We touched on Roth's work in a column we wrote a while back about the possibility of a market for human organs. One big hurdle in establishing such a market is what Roth calls the repugnance factor. For a variety of reasons, the idea of buying and selling human organs is one that people find repugnant -- at least at this point in time, and in our country but not in every country.
What is interesting about repugnance is how it shifts over time. My favorite example is life insurance. Until the mid-19th century, this concept was widely held to be repugnant -- it meant placing a bet, after all, on the untimely death of a loved one. As the sociologist Viviana Zelizer has written, people thought that life insurance "transformed the sacred event of death into a vulgar commodity."
That, of course, has changed. So have many other onetime repugnancies.
Now, on his Market Design blog, Al Roth writes about something that's perhaps even more interesting: the opposite of repugnance. Or, as he puts it, "transactions that, as a society, we often seek to promote, for reasons other than efficiency or pure political expediency."
Here are the items he lists:
+ Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman
+ Home ownership in the U.S.
+ Food production by small farmers
+ Fishing by small fishing boats
+ The right to purchase guns
His readers chime in with a few more ideas:
+ Donating to charity
+ Education
+ Hiring the disabled, veterans, ex-cons, and other members of "historically underrepresented groups."
I am surprised nobody claimed "universal health care."
I would encourage you to add Roth's blog to your reading list; if more people thought like Roth does the world would be a considerably more rational place.
jueves, 21 de mayo de 2009
viernes, 15 de mayo de 2009
What to Do for an Encore? My Preakness Picks
There is likely no prediction I can make for the Preakness that will generate as much entertainment value as my ill-fated Kentucky Derby picks.
But here goes anyway.
More or less, my system says to just bet against the favorite, and only filly, in the race, Rachel Alexandra.
The horse my computer program likes best in terms of betting value, believe it or not, is longshot Flying Private. I also liked that horse in the Kentucky Derby, and he rewarded my faith by finishing dead last, more than 40 lengths behind the winner. Based on that disastrous run, he will likely go off at huge odds.
There are a handful of horses that my system more or less likes. These are the horses, along with Flying Private, I will build a superfecta ticket around: Musket Man, Papa Clem, General Quarters, PioneeroftheNile, Friesan Fire, and Mine that Bird.
Essentially, though, these are all the major contenders,
minus the favorite. So basically I am just betting against
the favorite.
The most important piece of information, however, given my
past history, is the fact that there is one horse that stands
out as by far the worst in the field: Luv Gov.
But here goes anyway.
More or less, my system says to just bet against the favorite, and only filly, in the race, Rachel Alexandra.
The horse my computer program likes best in terms of betting value, believe it or not, is longshot Flying Private. I also liked that horse in the Kentucky Derby, and he rewarded my faith by finishing dead last, more than 40 lengths behind the winner. Based on that disastrous run, he will likely go off at huge odds.
There are a handful of horses that my system more or less likes. These are the horses, along with Flying Private, I will build a superfecta ticket around: Musket Man, Papa Clem, General Quarters, PioneeroftheNile, Friesan Fire, and Mine that Bird.
Essentially, though, these are all the major contenders,
minus the favorite. So basically I am just betting against
the favorite.
The most important piece of information, however, given my
past history, is the fact that there is one horse that stands
out as by far the worst in the field: Luv Gov.
martes, 5 de mayo de 2009
The Importance of Sample Size, Swine Flu Edition
What made swine flu so worrisome was the high death toll it wrought in Mexico. Most of us assumed that the virus would be at least as lethal wherever it spread. It wasn't. With the virus temporarily in retreat, current estimates show all but one of the swine flu deaths were confined to Mexico, and all but a few of those were in Mexico City. Why? Rampant poverty, for one, which kept many in Mexico who contracted swine flu from going to the doctor until it was too late. Swine flu isn't much more dangerous than seasonal flu, it just struck a particularly vulnerable population. That didn't prevent a public panic, of course: the Mexican economy could lose as much as $5 billion before tourism and economic activity recovers.
lunes, 27 de abril de 2009
lunes, 20 de abril de 2009
Another Reason to Hate Spam
The conventional wisdom holds that electronic correspondence is unequivocally better for the environment than snail mail, but a new study finds a surprising result concerning the 62 trillion spam emails sent last year. The energy used to transmit, process, and filter spam could have powered 2.4 million homes, or all the foreclosed homes in the U.S., for a year. (HT: Jeffrey Bladt)
martes, 14 de abril de 2009
Early Spring
Did you know that in 1965 the U.S. Department of Agriculture planted a particular variety of lilac in more than 70 locations around the U.S. Northeast, to detect the onset of spring -- in turn to be used to determine the appropriate timing of corn planting and the like? The records the U.S.D.A. have kept show that those same lilacs are blooming as much as two weeks earlier than they did in 1965. April has, in a very real sense, become May.
That's from a RealClimate blog post about a new book by Amy Seidl called Early Spring. The subtitle is An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World -- so no, it doesn't appear that Seidl is blaming the lilacs for global warming.
That's from a RealClimate blog post about a new book by Amy Seidl called Early Spring. The subtitle is An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World -- so no, it doesn't appear that Seidl is blaming the lilacs for global warming.
viernes, 10 de abril de 2009
Vortex Voyeurism
| Next month, a small army of meteorologists armed with 40 sensor-loaded vehicles and a flying drone will stalk America's southern plains, trying to get an unprecedentedly detailed look at tornadoes as they form. The project, the largest and most ambitious of its kind, aims to unravel some mysteries of how these giant storms are born. Once we understand that, can tornado power plants be too far behind?
miércoles, 8 de abril de 2009
Better Air Travel: Just Add Recession
| The economic boom of the mid-2000's brought horror stories of an air travel system straining to operate well over capacity. But fewer people flew in 2008, and a survey shows that translated into better service -- fewer delays and cancellations, fewer lost bags, and fewer overbookings. Maybe it's time to add airline service quality to the list of economic indicators. But is it a leader or a laggard?
lunes, 6 de abril de 2009
Lunch-Hour Viewing
| We can't decide whether this blog is best before, during, or after lunch: delicious sandwiches, brought to your screen by an ordinary scanner. Naturally, it's called scanwiches. (HT: Liz Bloomfield)
jueves, 2 de abril de 2009
"Our Rollers Are Worried"
The new tax hike on tobacco products went into effect yesterday. There are few better examples for Econ 1, and the players involved clearly understand the issues. For cigars, my smoke of choice, the tax on good domestically produced cigars rises from 5 to 40 cents. "Many of our rollers are worried," Hector Ventura, operations manager for El Credito, told the Associated Press. "They think that if we have less sales, they will lose their jobs. We know for sure the tax increase will reduce our sales. It's not good for our business, not good at all."
He's right that his sales will drop; and his workers understand that labor demand is derived from product demand, so the demand curve for labor will shift rightward.
As always, the important question is, "How much?" Evidence suggests that the demand for tobacco products generally is not very price-elastic; and I'd bet that the demand for better cigars is less elastic than for most tobacco products. So I don't think sales or employment will drop much. And some of the reduction will come because those who like risk -- and want the very best -- switch to untaxed but illegal Cuban cigars: the number of Cohibas and Montecristos smoked in the U.S. will rise!
He's right that his sales will drop; and his workers understand that labor demand is derived from product demand, so the demand curve for labor will shift rightward.
As always, the important question is, "How much?" Evidence suggests that the demand for tobacco products generally is not very price-elastic; and I'd bet that the demand for better cigars is less elastic than for most tobacco products. So I don't think sales or employment will drop much. And some of the reduction will come because those who like risk -- and want the very best -- switch to untaxed but illegal Cuban cigars: the number of Cohibas and Montecristos smoked in the U.S. will rise!
Did Those Sexy Missiles Sell?
| Earlier, we asked blog readers whether an Israeli arms firm could actually sell missiles to India with a Bollywood song-and-dance number. Apparently, they've sold quite a few -- but despite, not because of the commercial, which reportedly evoked "incredulity and derision" from the Indian public and defense establishment. One senior defense officer told the Times of India: "We are buying a whole host of missiles ... and other equipment from Rafael. Their products are good. But this advertisement is quite tacky ... like a C-grade Hindi movie song." (HT: Mayur Misra)
lunes, 30 de marzo de 2009
Who Said This, When, and About What?
| "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010." That's Sen. Byron Dorgan (D.-North Dakota), from a 1999 Times article on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The repeal was a major step toward deregulating the banking industry, which probably helped germinate our current financial mess, and (unintentionally) contained the damage somewhat as the meltdown began. (HT: GOOD)
viernes, 27 de marzo de 2009
Funny Math
| For admirers of Indexed, we bring you: New Math. On this site, Craig Damrauer offers up one new formula each Monday to describe our world. In case you were wondering: Carjacking = Can I borrow your car? - No, you can't.
jueves, 26 de marzo de 2009
Taking Cities in Stride
Last post, I let you know about Walk Score, the website that tallies a district
martes, 24 de marzo de 2009
The Downside of Google's Data Obsession
| He didn't announce it via cake, but Doug Bowman quit his job as head of Google's visual design team last week, citing the company's "reliance on data" for design decisions as the main reason for his departure. Bowman writes on his blog that he'll miss Google's "incredibly smart and talented people" and the "occasional massage," but not "a design philosophy that lives or dies strictly by the sword of data." We've asked before whether too much data can endanger patients and cause bad writing; might it also diminish a company's workforce? (HT: Noah Harlan)
lunes, 23 de marzo de 2009
Time's 100 Most Influential People
For the last few years, Time magazine has compiled a list of the 100 people who
jueves, 19 de marzo de 2009
By Your Own Emissions
| We reported a while back that the true private mortality cost of smoking a pack of cigarettes is close to $222. It turns out smoking has a serious environmental impact as well. Assuming all 5.5 trillion cigarettes produced around the world each year get smoked, smokers produce 84,878 tons of particulate air pollution annually -- about half the pollution put out by all the cars in America.
March Madness, Hedge-Fund Style
| When entering your office pool this season, check out the collective wisdom on winners and losers, then bet against it. Slate's Chris Wilson explains.
lunes, 16 de marzo de 2009
Fear Begets Fear
| White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers recently summed up our economic trouble this way: "Greed gives way to fear. And this fear begets fear. That is the paradox at the heart of the financial crisis." Daniel Gross sees the economy hunkering on a ledge, and he has one word of advice: "Jump!"
miércoles, 11 de marzo de 2009
The Morning News
| In the 1930's, Franklin Roosevelt started his day by reading half a dozen newspapers in bed. Today, you can read the printed front pages of more than a dozen major newspapers from around the world side by side right here on your browser, thanks to a feed from the Newseum, arranged by the design company Rayogram.
domingo, 1 de marzo de 2009
Another View of Los Angeles
Eric Morris has been busting L.A. transportation myths lately with his Fact and Fiction posts.
For yet another unusual view of Los Angeles, check out this beautiful set of photos in Good magazine by Mathieu Young, who set out on a 20-mile walk across the city, taking photos of everyone he met along the way.
A few examples:
Mathieu Young
Mathieu Young
Mathieu Young
For yet another unusual view of Los Angeles, check out this beautiful set of photos in Good magazine by Mathieu Young, who set out on a 20-mile walk across the city, taking photos of everyone he met along the way.
A few examples:
Mathieu Young
Mathieu Young
Mathieu Young
miércoles, 25 de febrero de 2009
Quantifying the President's Speech
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Our friends at speechwars.com have put together a really fun tool to help you mine their database of the full text of all State of the Union Addresses (even though this wasn't technically such an address) as well as inaugurals. It
Our friends at speechwars.com have put together a really fun tool to help you mine their database of the full text of all State of the Union Addresses (even though this wasn't technically such an address) as well as inaugurals. It
jueves, 19 de febrero de 2009
Security Blanket -- With Sleeves!
From theslanket.com
The marketing hook for the suddenly-everywhere Snuggie is that its form-fitting coziness helps you keep down your home-heating bills. (O.K., that's only one hook: the ads also claim that ordinary blankets are too cumbersome and may, tragically, entrap your hands.)
There are a host of other blankets-with-sleeves (a.k.a. "robes") on the market, from the "original" Freedom Blanket to the socially conscious but awkwardly named Slanket. One upscale version, the Nuddle, even includes a pocket in front for your hands and another at the bottom for your feet (the Nuddle is so upscale that it doesn't have sleeves, it has slats).
Niche-marketed blankets didn't catch on last winter, when home heating costs skyrocketed with rising fuel prices.
So why now?
The marketing hook for the suddenly-everywhere Snuggie is that its form-fitting coziness helps you keep down your home-heating bills. (O.K., that's only one hook: the ads also claim that ordinary blankets are too cumbersome and may, tragically, entrap your hands.)
There are a host of other blankets-with-sleeves (a.k.a. "robes") on the market, from the "original" Freedom Blanket to the socially conscious but awkwardly named Slanket. One upscale version, the Nuddle, even includes a pocket in front for your hands and another at the bottom for your feet (the Nuddle is so upscale that it doesn't have sleeves, it has slats).
Niche-marketed blankets didn't catch on last winter, when home heating costs skyrocketed with rising fuel prices.
So why now?
miércoles, 18 de febrero de 2009
The Great Giveback
Whatever we end up calling this recession/depression, I think we can safely name one small part of it: The Great Giveback.
There seems to be a rebate fever among firms trying hard to keep their customers happy, or keep their customers at all. JetBlue just announced it will give full ticket refunds to customers who lose their jobs. A few weeks back, Hyundai started letting buyers walk away from their purchases if certain "adverse life events" (including layoffs) intervened. (And it seems to be working.) And the Spanish firm Banco Santander has decided to compensate private clients whose money Santander invested with Bernard L. Madoff.
Discounts are one thing; every consumer these days has come to expect a discount. But a rebate: well, that's a way to radically distinguish yourself from the competition and grab market share when brand loyalty is shaky, at best.
I would be very interested to hear from readers other examples of rebates being offered -- and/or rebates that should be offered.
There seems to be a rebate fever among firms trying hard to keep their customers happy, or keep their customers at all. JetBlue just announced it will give full ticket refunds to customers who lose their jobs. A few weeks back, Hyundai started letting buyers walk away from their purchases if certain "adverse life events" (including layoffs) intervened. (And it seems to be working.) And the Spanish firm Banco Santander has decided to compensate private clients whose money Santander invested with Bernard L. Madoff.
Discounts are one thing; every consumer these days has come to expect a discount. But a rebate: well, that's a way to radically distinguish yourself from the competition and grab market share when brand loyalty is shaky, at best.
I would be very interested to hear from readers other examples of rebates being offered -- and/or rebates that should be offered.
Let the Human-Capital Exodus Begin
One effect of President Obama's $500,000 salary cap on the executives of bailed out firms (if it has any effect at all; Gary Becker thinks it won't) could be an exodus of human capital from the top echelons of the finance industry.
A new paper suggests that talented people are likely to leave finance in droves anyway, once tighter regulations set in. Contrary to popular belief, bankers didn't always command sky-high salaries. Tomas Phillipon and Ariel Resheff found that, over the last 100 years, finance workers have mostly been paid wages proportionate to professionals in other industries -- except for two periods: in the 1920's through the start of the Great Depression, and in the 1980's through the start of this economic downturn. During the boom times, wages in banking skyrocketed and talent flowed into the industry. During the bust cycles, that wage premium vanished.
What kept down wages in between? According to the paper, the culprit is a strict regime of federal regulations on banking enacted in the 1930's and gradually repealed starting in the 1980's. The authors conclude that regulations on banking stifle innovation, which keeps down earnings and wages, drawing fewer talented workers into the field.
Tamping down the level of innovation in the financial sector, of course, might not be an entirely bad thing. (Credit default swaps, anyone?) Furthermore, as financiers' wages became far higher than those of government regulators, it made it that much harder for the latter industry to attract top talent.
Accordingly, the authors note, "the flow of talented individuals into law and financial services might not be entirely desirable, because social returns might be higher in other occupations, even though private returns are not."
If all of this talent does start to flow out of the banking sector and into the rest of society, what other good could come of it?
(Hat tip: Free Exchange)
A new paper suggests that talented people are likely to leave finance in droves anyway, once tighter regulations set in. Contrary to popular belief, bankers didn't always command sky-high salaries. Tomas Phillipon and Ariel Resheff found that, over the last 100 years, finance workers have mostly been paid wages proportionate to professionals in other industries -- except for two periods: in the 1920's through the start of the Great Depression, and in the 1980's through the start of this economic downturn. During the boom times, wages in banking skyrocketed and talent flowed into the industry. During the bust cycles, that wage premium vanished.
What kept down wages in between? According to the paper, the culprit is a strict regime of federal regulations on banking enacted in the 1930's and gradually repealed starting in the 1980's. The authors conclude that regulations on banking stifle innovation, which keeps down earnings and wages, drawing fewer talented workers into the field.
Tamping down the level of innovation in the financial sector, of course, might not be an entirely bad thing. (Credit default swaps, anyone?) Furthermore, as financiers' wages became far higher than those of government regulators, it made it that much harder for the latter industry to attract top talent.
Accordingly, the authors note, "the flow of talented individuals into law and financial services might not be entirely desirable, because social returns might be higher in other occupations, even though private returns are not."
If all of this talent does start to flow out of the banking sector and into the rest of society, what other good could come of it?
(Hat tip: Free Exchange)
martes, 17 de febrero de 2009
Mind the Electric Gap
Thirty percent of U.S. electricity consumption could be erased through gains in energy productivity, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute. (Related: see R.M.I. chairman Amory Lovins's recent guest post.) The institute's analysis arrived at electricity productivity stats for all 50 states by dividing each state's G.D.P. by the kilowatt hours of electricity it consumed.
New York state topped its list. For each kilowatt hour of electricity (the equivalent of burning one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours) the Empire State consumes, it generates $7.18 in G.D.P. Mississippi, squarely on the bottom of the electric productivity list, generates just over $3 per kilowatt hour. The R.M.I. claims significant cutbacks in carbon emissions could be made (pdf) if all 50 states could increase their productivity to match the top 10 most productive states (in descending order: New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Colorado). They call it "closing the efficiency gap."
See for yourself. To visualize its data, R.M.I. has launched a cool interactive map, where you can see how your state stacks up in energy productivity, and the potential carbon savings it could make through productivity enhancements alone.
The institute is currently at work on a follow-up paper that will offer some solutions for closing that gap. What kinds of strategies should they use?
New York state topped its list. For each kilowatt hour of electricity (the equivalent of burning one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours) the Empire State consumes, it generates $7.18 in G.D.P. Mississippi, squarely on the bottom of the electric productivity list, generates just over $3 per kilowatt hour. The R.M.I. claims significant cutbacks in carbon emissions could be made (pdf) if all 50 states could increase their productivity to match the top 10 most productive states (in descending order: New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Colorado). They call it "closing the efficiency gap."
See for yourself. To visualize its data, R.M.I. has launched a cool interactive map, where you can see how your state stacks up in energy productivity, and the potential carbon savings it could make through productivity enhancements alone.
The institute is currently at work on a follow-up paper that will offer some solutions for closing that gap. What kinds of strategies should they use?
lunes, 16 de febrero de 2009
What Else Acts Like Cheap Wine and Cigarettes?
Denis Defreyne
It's interesting to see how people's spending patterns respond to a (presumably) temporary decline in income during the recession.
Which items are more or less income-elastic in the short run? A pediatrician friend of ours mentions that he is seeing less business; when there are three kids with coughs, for example, a parent will bring in one, get him diagnosed, then treat the other two the same way at home -- thus saving two co-payments.
The Austin marathon, the biggest race of the year, will not have its usual corporate sponsors, and thus no elite runners either. I expect that, as in the last recession, there will also be a large decline in plastic surgeries.
All of these appear to be postponable luxuries -- and I wonder what are other weird examples? Also, aside from the usual suspects (grocery purchases being the standard example), what else doesn't decrease much? Pornography, cigarettes, cheap wine?
(Hat tip: AS)
It's interesting to see how people's spending patterns respond to a (presumably) temporary decline in income during the recession.
Which items are more or less income-elastic in the short run? A pediatrician friend of ours mentions that he is seeing less business; when there are three kids with coughs, for example, a parent will bring in one, get him diagnosed, then treat the other two the same way at home -- thus saving two co-payments.
The Austin marathon, the biggest race of the year, will not have its usual corporate sponsors, and thus no elite runners either. I expect that, as in the last recession, there will also be a large decline in plastic surgeries.
All of these appear to be postponable luxuries -- and I wonder what are other weird examples? Also, aside from the usual suspects (grocery purchases being the standard example), what else doesn't decrease much? Pornography, cigarettes, cheap wine?
(Hat tip: AS)
Something for Nothing
From Muxtape.
The streaming music site Muxtape has returned as a free platform for musicians to promote their music.
Emerging in a time when cassette tapes had long been an anachronism, Muxtape became a go-to site for music fans to string together their favorite songs and share the virtual mix tapes with friends and internet passers-by. Founded in early 2008, the site quickly became ensnared in licensing disputes and was shut down last August.
In its new life, Muxtape still lets users create their own mix tapes. Only now, the tracks users select from will be legally licensed for streaming -- and not for download.
Will more visitors use the site as a substitute for buying music or as a way to sample music they will later buy?
One recent study found that free, sanctioned streaming of TV shows actually increased the number of hours people spent watching network programming, combining traditional TV viewing and streams from official network sites.
Downloading, both legal and illegal, has long been the focus of the debate over digital music. But what impact will streaming sites like Muxtape have on the future of the music industry?
The streaming music site Muxtape has returned as a free platform for musicians to promote their music.
Emerging in a time when cassette tapes had long been an anachronism, Muxtape became a go-to site for music fans to string together their favorite songs and share the virtual mix tapes with friends and internet passers-by. Founded in early 2008, the site quickly became ensnared in licensing disputes and was shut down last August.
In its new life, Muxtape still lets users create their own mix tapes. Only now, the tracks users select from will be legally licensed for streaming -- and not for download.
Will more visitors use the site as a substitute for buying music or as a way to sample music they will later buy?
One recent study found that free, sanctioned streaming of TV shows actually increased the number of hours people spent watching network programming, combining traditional TV viewing and streams from official network sites.
Downloading, both legal and illegal, has long been the focus of the debate over digital music. But what impact will streaming sites like Muxtape have on the future of the music industry?
viernes, 13 de febrero de 2009
It's a Boy! (With All the Extras You Ordered)
gabi_menashi
Ian Ayers recently blegged you about boy-specific or girl-specific Happy Meal toys from McDonald's.
But forget about toys; when was the last time your doctor asked if you'd like to choose your child's sex?
The Wall Street Journal reports on a Los Angeles clinic that will soon let parents choose the sex of their unborn children. Their designer options also include physical traits including hair color, eye color, and even skin color.
This raises a mountain of questions, ethical and otherwise. But what might the unintended consequences be? Dubner and Levitt have written about how sex-specific abortions in Asian countries have created a huge gender gap in countries like India, China, and Pakistan. Would a designer-baby boom create a gender gap here -- and in which direction?
If your doctor gave you the choice to customize your unborn child to your preferences, would you take it? And what would you choose?
Ian Ayers recently blegged you about boy-specific or girl-specific Happy Meal toys from McDonald's.
But forget about toys; when was the last time your doctor asked if you'd like to choose your child's sex?
The Wall Street Journal reports on a Los Angeles clinic that will soon let parents choose the sex of their unborn children. Their designer options also include physical traits including hair color, eye color, and even skin color.
This raises a mountain of questions, ethical and otherwise. But what might the unintended consequences be? Dubner and Levitt have written about how sex-specific abortions in Asian countries have created a huge gender gap in countries like India, China, and Pakistan. Would a designer-baby boom create a gender gap here -- and in which direction?
If your doctor gave you the choice to customize your unborn child to your preferences, would you take it? And what would you choose?
miércoles, 11 de febrero de 2009
When Was the Last Time Someone Answered "Yes" to One of These Questions?
In order to become a U.S. citizen, one has to complete the Immigration and Naturalization Service
lunes, 9 de febrero de 2009
Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants? A Guest Post
Amory Lovins
Amory B. Lovins is the energy maven's energy maven, viewed variously as a visionary or a heretic in his assessments of how the U.S. and the world should be generating and using energy. More specifically, he is the chairman and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a man who has won many awards, written many books, and, as if that weren't enough, was a fan favorite for Energy Secretary when we asked blog readers a few months ago to give incoming President Obama some advice.
Lovins has written a guest post for us today, which I am guessing that everyone who cares about energy will find instructive in one way or another. It is especially interesting in light of forward-looking projects like this one about battery-exchange stations for electric cars -- for as eager as we may be to wean ourselves from oil, it's worth remembering that all that newly-demanded electricity doesn't grow on trees.
Photo: Lady_lbrty
Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?
By Amory B. Lovins
A Guest Post
If I told you,
Amory B. Lovins is the energy maven's energy maven, viewed variously as a visionary or a heretic in his assessments of how the U.S. and the world should be generating and using energy. More specifically, he is the chairman and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a man who has won many awards, written many books, and, as if that weren't enough, was a fan favorite for Energy Secretary when we asked blog readers a few months ago to give incoming President Obama some advice.
Lovins has written a guest post for us today, which I am guessing that everyone who cares about energy will find instructive in one way or another. It is especially interesting in light of forward-looking projects like this one about battery-exchange stations for electric cars -- for as eager as we may be to wean ourselves from oil, it's worth remembering that all that newly-demanded electricity doesn't grow on trees.
Photo: Lady_lbrty
Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?
By Amory B. Lovins
A Guest Post
If I told you,
Can Newspapers Stop Global Warming?
Newspapers are disappearing faster than alpine glaciers, and a new paper by journalist-turned-public-policy scholar Eric Pooley suggests the two may be related.
Pooley's paper argues that newspapers have failed as referees of the public debate on preventing climate change, reporting junk economics and good economics with equal weight. In these muddied waters, Pooley suggests, it's harder for the government to push sound policy to stop global warming.
As an example, he points to the failure, last year, of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The bill was the most serious climate-change-prevention legislation ever to make it to the Senate. It failed, Pooley argues, in part because journalists emphasized dubious claims about the short-term economic costs of reducing carbon emissions over the long-term costs of doing nothing. More rigorous reporting might have sussed out those differences and translated into more public support for climate change action.
So why don't newspapers do better climate reporting? Editors are devoting ever fewer resources to solid climate reporting, meaning fewer journalists can stay on the beat long enough to develop the nuanced scientific understanding necessary to report fairly and accurately. And with newspaper revenues shrinking, money for good environmental reporting will be even scarcer.
Why does that matter?
Print journalism has been in decline at least since newspapers began experimenting with online journalism in the early 1980's. But whether print news survives is beside the point. The real value of newspapers, James Warren writes in The Atlantic, is as institutions that train and support professional journalists to referee our public debates and help us make sense of the complexities of modern life:
A very shrewd journalist-entrepreneur I know, Steve Brill, asks that one just imagine walking into a library and seeing the pages of all the books scattered on the floors and stairwells. To be sure, editors are human and subjectivity plays a role, but a newspaper places those pages -- and thus the news -- in some sensible order.
We've written before about how aggressive newspaper reporting can keep members of congress more accountable to their constituents -- and more likely to break with party doctrine under scrutiny of their positions.
Engaged newspapers can keep local politicians honest. But can they shape better environmental policy and help stop global warming?
Pooley's paper argues that newspapers have failed as referees of the public debate on preventing climate change, reporting junk economics and good economics with equal weight. In these muddied waters, Pooley suggests, it's harder for the government to push sound policy to stop global warming.
As an example, he points to the failure, last year, of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The bill was the most serious climate-change-prevention legislation ever to make it to the Senate. It failed, Pooley argues, in part because journalists emphasized dubious claims about the short-term economic costs of reducing carbon emissions over the long-term costs of doing nothing. More rigorous reporting might have sussed out those differences and translated into more public support for climate change action.
So why don't newspapers do better climate reporting? Editors are devoting ever fewer resources to solid climate reporting, meaning fewer journalists can stay on the beat long enough to develop the nuanced scientific understanding necessary to report fairly and accurately. And with newspaper revenues shrinking, money for good environmental reporting will be even scarcer.
Why does that matter?
Print journalism has been in decline at least since newspapers began experimenting with online journalism in the early 1980's. But whether print news survives is beside the point. The real value of newspapers, James Warren writes in The Atlantic, is as institutions that train and support professional journalists to referee our public debates and help us make sense of the complexities of modern life:
A very shrewd journalist-entrepreneur I know, Steve Brill, asks that one just imagine walking into a library and seeing the pages of all the books scattered on the floors and stairwells. To be sure, editors are human and subjectivity plays a role, but a newspaper places those pages -- and thus the news -- in some sensible order.
We've written before about how aggressive newspaper reporting can keep members of congress more accountable to their constituents -- and more likely to break with party doctrine under scrutiny of their positions.
Engaged newspapers can keep local politicians honest. But can they shape better environmental policy and help stop global warming?
viernes, 6 de febrero de 2009
Freakonomics: A Lighthearted Romantic Comedy Starring Drew Barrymore
New York magazine, riffing on Drew Barrymore
jueves, 5 de febrero de 2009
How Much Does It Cost to Apologize for Porn?
Despite NBC banning sexually explicit ad content from the Super Bowl broadcast, Comcast customers in parts of Tuscon were exposed to about 30 seconds of a pornographic film which interrupted Comcast's Super Bowl coverage on Sunday.
According to The Huffington Post, Comcast suspects the work of hackers.
The company is paying each of its affected customers a $10 refund.
Blog reader Philip Ravenscroft e-mailed us with this question: "How did they decide $10 was the correct amount?"
Furthermore, if $10 is Comcast's estimation of the damage 30 seconds of porn incurred on the average viewer, should it have paid more to families watching the game with small children, or -- since the porn clip interrupted the game right after Larry Fitzgerald's last touchdown in the game -- Cardinals fans?
And most important, what about the people who enjoy porn? Should they send back the refund -- perhaps with an extra dollar or two?
According to The Huffington Post, Comcast suspects the work of hackers.
The company is paying each of its affected customers a $10 refund.
Blog reader Philip Ravenscroft e-mailed us with this question: "How did they decide $10 was the correct amount?"
Furthermore, if $10 is Comcast's estimation of the damage 30 seconds of porn incurred on the average viewer, should it have paid more to families watching the game with small children, or -- since the porn clip interrupted the game right after Larry Fitzgerald's last touchdown in the game -- Cardinals fans?
And most important, what about the people who enjoy porn? Should they send back the refund -- perhaps with an extra dollar or two?
viernes, 30 de enero de 2009
Treasury Hero
The details are tedious and inscrutable. There's often no obvious link between cause and effect. It will drag on probably twice as long as you want it to.
These are just a few of the ways The Bailout Game mirrors our dreary market slowdown.
In the game, you impersonate the Secretary of the Treasury, driving a dump truck down Wall Street and shoveling bailout cash to deserving banks. Only some banks don't deserve a bailout, apparently, and you must determine which is which. The clever video scenes spice up The Bailout Game, which is a kind of Guitar Hero for armchair central bankers.
It's a good way to kill time before the recession ends, or at least until the release of Bassoon Hero III.
These are just a few of the ways The Bailout Game mirrors our dreary market slowdown.
In the game, you impersonate the Secretary of the Treasury, driving a dump truck down Wall Street and shoveling bailout cash to deserving banks. Only some banks don't deserve a bailout, apparently, and you must determine which is which. The clever video scenes spice up The Bailout Game, which is a kind of Guitar Hero for armchair central bankers.
It's a good way to kill time before the recession ends, or at least until the release of Bassoon Hero III.
viernes, 23 de enero de 2009
Please Embrace This Commercial Interruption
Photo: grenade
In a plot twist worthy of Lost, it turns out that TV commercials aren't obnoxious interruptions after all. They're helpful interruptions, which increase your enjoyment of TV by periodically reminding you how much you'd rather be watching your favorite show.
That's according to a new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research, which found that commercials restore a sense of novelty to TV programming by breaking up the cycle which we become bored with following what's on the screen.
In one of several experiments, the study's authors screened the sitcom Taxi for two groups. One group saw an episode with commercial interruptions, and the other saw an episode with no interruptions. Those who saw Taxi with commercial breaks enjoyed it more, by a decisive margin.
In the authors' words: "t every given moment, watching the sitcom will still be more enjoyable than watching a detergent commercial." That contrast could be one factor that kept the show fresh for viewers in the experiment.
But aren't TV shows more fun with commercial breaks included precisely because they're written with these interruptions in mind? Filmmakers don't seem to need commercial breaks to keep audiences interested. Or could Sam Mendes have pushed his Revolutionary Road into a Golden Globe for best drama by chopping it up with a few well-timed words from his sponsors?
(Hat tip: Ars Technica, via Sam Kallen)
In a plot twist worthy of Lost, it turns out that TV commercials aren't obnoxious interruptions after all. They're helpful interruptions, which increase your enjoyment of TV by periodically reminding you how much you'd rather be watching your favorite show.
That's according to a new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research, which found that commercials restore a sense of novelty to TV programming by breaking up the cycle which we become bored with following what's on the screen.
In one of several experiments, the study's authors screened the sitcom Taxi for two groups. One group saw an episode with commercial interruptions, and the other saw an episode with no interruptions. Those who saw Taxi with commercial breaks enjoyed it more, by a decisive margin.
In the authors' words: "t every given moment, watching the sitcom will still be more enjoyable than watching a detergent commercial." That contrast could be one factor that kept the show fresh for viewers in the experiment.
But aren't TV shows more fun with commercial breaks included precisely because they're written with these interruptions in mind? Filmmakers don't seem to need commercial breaks to keep audiences interested. Or could Sam Mendes have pushed his Revolutionary Road into a Golden Globe for best drama by chopping it up with a few well-timed words from his sponsors?
(Hat tip: Ars Technica, via Sam Kallen)
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)