Libertarian Paternalist!
Great news for me ... I'm a Libertarian Paternalist! I've long what I am, but just not the name. I ESPECIALLY like the need of humans to direct money flow into different accounts. I support many gov't individual accounts: a forced savings retirement account (SMART or whatever)--the second pillar in 3-pillar pension reform schemes like Slovakia (first pillar is poverty income to all, almost irrespective of contribution; third pillar is optional tax-advantaged savings, like IRAs). Health care catastrophic insurance would be good, too. I'd like an individual unemployment account; required to donate until it reaches enough to pay you half your last year's salary (or poverty income for year plus half the difference). I'd like automatically elligible educational tax-loans, where you pay back the loan by using some 50% of your tax payment; possibly plus a 5-10% surtax on income above poverty level. The point is to make voters have their own accounts, so they are mostly benefiting from their own money. Only then, I believe, will we be able to start making progress against the immorality of using gov't violence in order to claim other people's money. And, maybe, even start reducing that corporate welfare that sucks up so many tax resources. NOT a libertarian socialist -- a paternalist. Tom now have a new address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Kolko 40 Years Later -- homelessness data?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The main good it provides is a negative one, that of keeping homelessness and starvation to a low enough level to prevent political instability. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This of course presumes that the welfare state reduces homelessness and starvation rather than encouraging it. In politics the appearance is usually more important than the reality. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ --- While I, too, fully agree (statements and inuendos) ... I'd like to challenge the Armchair list for objective data showing the welfare state reducing homelessness, or increasing it, or not. I don't think there are any good studies with good conclusions. Tom Grey
RE: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
Sorry, David, you misunderstood me (or at least what I thought I meant). I first tried to point out that gov't money was one thing, not so much socialism. But SS is something else -- I guess I should have said most folks would agree that social security is a form of socialism, but would add that it's pretty good. I certainly meant that SS is prolly the most recognized socialism/ socialist policy in the US. One of the ways to save SS is the, so far unpopular, means testing. The huge drugs bills should all include means testing. I certainly oppose forcing the poor to save or subsidize the rich! Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 June, 2003 12:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon I would agree that not every government infringement of liberty warrants the label socialist, although on a larger level a rose by any other name still has thorns. It's ironic, however, that Tom chose pension reform as an example to illustrate the point that not all government infringement of liberty is socialism, both because our Social Security system represents a massive transfer of income from poor young minority workers to idle, elderly white women--surely one of the vilest forms of socialism--and because German Marxists in league with Bismark out-maneuvered German (classical) liberals to produce pension reform as their first socialist success. Most polls, incidentally, demonstrate that most Americans under the age of 40 do not believe that Social Security will be around to take care of them. Whether or not people need to be forced to save for themselves represents a value-judgement, not some sort of postulate of economics. I think we all agree that no poor person needs to forced to save for a wealthy person. DBL
RE: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon -- pension reform
Yes, many feel that, since they contributed, they should get the benefits. This lie is pernicious. All politicians should be stating that the money paid in has already gone out -- and money received by retired folks now is money taxed by current workers. On the other hand, that's also not sooo different than normal banks. I actually think a 3 pillar program for America might work, too: with a statement of exactly how much each worker has contributed (NO interest? same interest as on US savings bonds?) with that total lump sum being calculated and treated as the first (min benefit) and second pillars. A full second pillar includes forced savings, which becomes the property of the individual. And a third, IRA type optional pillar, which would reduce the basic benefits in some 1:2 proportion. Tom Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon Thanks for the clarification Tom. I do agree that government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. I wonder though if most folks would agree that social security is socialism. Americans don't like to admit that they like socialism. and FDR sold social security by giving it its own devoted tax and claim that the tax is a retirement contribution. Millions of Americans view Social Security benefits as their right, not because they see the benefits as socialist redistribution, but rather because they view the benefits as socialist redistribution but rather as the result of their own contirbutions. It's no wonder that the primary beneficiaries of Social Security oppose means-testing. David
RE: The Vote-Cost of Scandal
I don't believe Gary Hart was ruined by scandal, per se. First, he supported a very unpopular, but I think kinda OK, 50 cent/gal tax on gasoline. When gas about $1/ gal (including taxes). This made the unsure very unsure. Only second did he publicly claim something like he would never cheat/ have an affair ... and reporters are welcome to follow him ... and then he did have an affair and it was seen by the reporters who followed him. It wasn't even so much hypocrisy, like Bennett's critics of his (because his gambling) moralizing -- it was Hart's public lie. I am honest, no affairs, you can follow me ... what a joke. I actually think this was most like George I read my lips ... followed by a tax increase, and a total loss of credibility. And as I write this, the flap about WMDs is because Bush II, and Blair, essentially guaranteed that Iraq had them. Not finding them becomes a threat to their ability to guarantee anything; no trust, no vote. Clinton's scandal(s) did not materially affect his supporter's trust in him on the issues. Tom Grey --- Steve Miller wrote: Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is perceived as liberal on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having an affair than is someone who runs on a family values platform. Gary Hart was a liberal in good standing, but he is the textbook case of a politician ruined by a scandal. Clinton is probably a bigger hypocrite given his effort to co-opt the family values stuff. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan
RE: [Forum] Quoth who?
Whenever a government creates a body to regulate a trade for the benefit of the people, the trade gains control of the body for the benefit of the trade at the expense of the people. Sorry for no help in the particular, but I remember a paper I wrote 20 years ago making this point, and almost using those words. Let me here describe the individual mechanism (as I recall): The new gov't body has a head regulator. He's new, he's important in DC. Maybe he gets wined and dined by the politicians, he certainly gets noticed by the politicians, and the news folk. For about a week. Then the news is covering something else, the politicians have other crusades. The few, low paid pro-consumer lobbyists are glad HE's responsible, and trust him to do a good job. Which he's trying to do. Of course, he HAS to talk with representatives of the regulated industry, to get basic info. He makes a lunch appointment with the enemy. But they're SO NICE!!! They buy him lunch, they are polite, they are RESPECTFUL. They care what he says, and agree he has good points. Plus, if he's not sure of some basic data, they usually have the data, and provide it. They mostly agree with all his principles, but on just this one detail, they want the regulatory phrasing to be just a little different, since it gets virtually all the benefits at less cost, saving jobs, etc. And nobody else knows or really cares about THAT detail, certainly not at the detailed level of the highly specialized experts, in the trade industry the regulatory body. And of course, the top politically appointed regulator prolly won't be a regulator FOR EVER, but his detailed, expert knowledge of the industry, and its regulations, will SURELY make him very valuable to a future employee. ... The point is not so much that the trade gains control of the body, (true), but that the body is seduced by the only serious suitor -- the trade. How could it be otherwise? (I believed it true then, have been libertarian since; and believe it now, too.) Tom Grey
RE: Fw: why Iraq? here's one theory
Bill says the whole (too long) report is nonsense. I mostly agree, BUT with a caveat. If switching to petro Euros has no affect on foreign investment into the US, then I'd agree the report is useless. However, if the switch to Euros, or the war in Iraq, or a feeling that US assets are overpriced, or it's the anniversary of the internet bubble bursting ... or for any reason, a significant amount of current foreign investment dries up, there could, indeed, be significant US econ impacts. I note, for example, the huge number of advertisements to refinance your home; converting home equity into debt. What happens if there is house price bubble pop and a 10-20% drop in home asset values? Please educate me Bill, how big a decrease in foreign investment would there have to be before it was, in your view, a significant problem? Thanks, Tom Grey PS. I wish there had been a link posted, and just a few quotes from the article. Here are a couple I extracted: start Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario. ... By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56 percent premium compared with emerging markets. The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win. end of exerts So, mostly hysterical leftist anti-war hodge-podge (dollar denomination does NOT make it a US asset!); but I do think the capital account surplus finances the US trade deficit. And the Mid East money might be looking elsewhere. -Original Message- From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Utter and complete nonsense. The reason the press doesn't discuss the issue is because it is a non-issue. The only necessary harm done to the US by the Euro becoming the world's primary reserve currency (or sharing the status with the Euro) is a loss of a few hundred million in revenue for the Fed. Should OPEC set oil prices in Euros and hold their cash reserves in Euros what would be the real consequences for the US? 1. A tiny increase in risk wrt oil prices (we know its tiny because the cost of currency hedging is minimal). 2. A tiny loss of income for the Fed from being able to print cash and create reserves as cash is repatriated and foreign banks accounts in dollars are reduced. 3. Some tendency for the dollar to depreciate which can be completely offset by slower money growth (this and 2 are really the same thing). Perhaps slightly more foreign exchange risk for companies doing business with countries that cease to peg to the dollar. - - Bill Dickens
A visiting Slovak in April May
Hi folks, hope some of you can help me. My friend and colleague, Jan Oravec from Slovakia, has received an Eisenhower Fellowship for a couple months, end of March to end of May. These fellowships allow bright young guys to network in the US. He's the President of the F.A. Hayek Foundation (Nadacia -- NFAH) in Slovakia, a fine think tank with which I'm associated. (Less than I'd like.) http://www.hayek.sk/ You can see some of the things done, including sponsoring the Mt. Pelerin Society meeting in 2001 There were also excellent seminars on pension reform and the flat rate tax. Both of these reforms are actively being discussed, proposed, and likely to be passed, in some form, in Slovakia. (After fine 2002 elections.) Help request: Who should he meet to increase the effectiveness of his fund raising efforts? Are any of you available to offer advice, a few contacts, your own pet theory of the most important next reform needed? Writing directly to him, or the foundation, or me, might be best, although Libertarian think tank fundraising issues seems quite appropriate for armchairs, too. Thanks for any help, ideas, suggestions, contacts -- phone numbers of people willing to meet. Tom Grey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Lott
Thanks for the link about Slate, but there is something fairly annoying. Lott claims: In 98 percent of the cases, such polls show, people simply brandish the weapon to stop an attack. Tim Noah, disputes this, yet also FAILS to say what the polls do show. But polls by the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart show no such thing. So what do they show? 95% 50% 88.8%? If it's over 90%, then Lott's exageration is not such a big deal. Tim's other attack is on the fake persona. But I agree more with D. Friedman about accepting fakes on the internet. As an aside, CIAO is an org where, among other things, reviewers review lots of stuff -- including other reviewers. And they can signify trust in various reviewers. On the other hand, Lott doing this makes me trust him much less. Tom Grey
RE: Questions about the stagflation episode... Advice to journalists
First off, if macro is at all close to a science, there should be near unanimity, among macro experts, on exactly: why did the dot.com bubble keep growing, even after Greenspan's 1997 (?) irrational exuberance comments? Why did Argentina turn into such a mess? I don't think there is agreement. Until macro-economics can reliably provide policy prescriptions to avoid turning any given country into such mess, or to avoid such bubbles, it is ridiculous to call it a science. Please, please inform me if I'm wrong. (Alex?) (Those who claim macro is pre-science can say these are cases of are what is too complex.) It's very interesting to me to see how: somebody does decide on the national interest rate, but, nobody decides on the unemployment rate, nor does anybody decide on the trade deficit. The Pres. Congress do decide on the Federal budget deficit and tax rates, but nobody decides on the number of bankruptcies, loan defaults, business starts; not even housing starts. Economics is a mix of decisions taken at different levels. This is why the rational actor is so important, as well as why micro is more important, it's where the real decisions are being made. My point is that macro, as a descriptive exercise, useful for understanding what has happened, may be a science like (very recent) archaeology. (Of course, I never liked, nor believed, the Samuelson Keynesianism I was taught, so I might well be missing current macro thought) But what politicians want, which Keynesianism promised much More than Mises-Hayek Austrians, is policies for control. Thus, even more than stories, journalists are interested in how to use (very simplified) economics to explain (support/ criticize) specific political policies. Krugman, for instance, feeds this desire for using econ to criticize policies, or advocate others. As do the Freidmans and other quoted economists. They also, occasionally, make predictions. I think the simple concepts most important are: 1) trade is not a zero sum game - trade increases wealth. 2) All markets depend on the definition of property rights, and the enforcement of contracts. 3) The correct (min) gov't role is to define property rights well, to enforce contracts, and to punish theft and fraud. 4) The vast majority of world poverty is caused by government failure to do its job. 5) Policies have unintended consequences, which can be predicted based on analyzing incentives. eg. policies to reduce corporate raiders from taking over underperforming companies meant that top management insiders were able to get all the available money instead of the investors. Tom Grey -Original Message- From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Subject: Re: Questions about the stagflation episode... I think that today there is a unified macro (Bill recognized that saying there wasn't was going out on a limb). Macro is now in a period of normal science. The profession has decided that the corect way to do macro is using a stochastic dynamic general equilibrium model. Some people include sticky prices in such models and others do not but either approach is well within the mainstream. Also, almost all the profession will now also agree that sticky prices or not a large fraction of what we call business cycles are the natural responses of an economy to real shocks. Although stagflation opened the door to new ideas what has driven the process more than anything is the internal dynamic to make macro models more micro-based. Alex -- Alexander Tabarrok
RE: European Soveriegnty
I think there is no pure economic explanation for most things European (or American, for that matter). There may also be a rather larger difference between the average European and the average European leader with respect to EU power vs national sovereignty. Certainly the UK is an active voice against loss of excessive soveriegnty. The economic history of the EU includes the early beginnings with coal steel agreements, and the beginnings of a European Free Trade Zone. However, the economic competition with the US, which Europe keeps losing (and is doomed to lose to a greater extent in the future), has their leaders looking for a magic bullet of economic success. The Maastricht treaty of Monetary Economic Union was seen by most of Europe as a way to spread Germany's monetary stability and strong economy to the rest of Europe. The benefits: more internal trade, more stable money, much easier internal travel. But Germany wouldn't accept a common Euro without the Stability and Growth Pact, which stipulated maximum budgetary deficits and a maximum gross gov't debt. The enforcement of such a pact, when push comes to shove, includes some loss of sovereignty. Like all treaties, only more so. And, as Germany France Italy are all on the wrong side of the Pact, pushing and shoving is starting. Brief by Tom Grey (from Slovakia, one of the candidate countrieshoping to join the EU, and NATO, as soon as possible, and get more foreign investment, and move up soon from an average wage of $300/month and some 16% unemployment) -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 3:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: European Soveriegnty Is there an economic explanation of why Europeans seem to want to give up soveriegnty to the EU or the UN? Fabio
RE: Neutral taxation? with respect to what?
Fred, ( Susan) even more than direct/indirect, you need to specify what is neutral. You have not yet adequately done so. As I try to do this, I realize that neutral must apply to some other characteristic, like a car's neutral color, or a car in neutral (gear). So, a policy change can be revenue neutral, clearly meaning total revenue is the same before, and after, the policy change. Thus, increasing a land tax and decreasing other local taxes can be revenue neutral, (and I would support such a change) but insofar as it will encourage some behavior and discourage other (eg idle land will cost more), it is NOT incentive neutral. Reducing dividend taxation will encourage more companies to pay out dividends, and more capital investment (stock price increases) in those companies that do pay more out (often not tech companies). I must say I favor ALL tax reduction proposals that mean less total gov't revenue, despite relative favoring of some less evil taxes (gas tax) as compared to more evil (income tax). Tom Grey
RE: Neutral taxation?/was Re: questions about dividend tax cut
Dan, even more than direct/indirect, you need to specify what is neutral. Given democracy, one (adult) person, one vote, a strong case can be made for a neutral poll tax. Of course it is not progressive like most income taxes. Flat rate taxes, sales/VAT taxes, even land taxes, affect some more than others. My own preferences are more towards a flat(er) tax, with a large (poverty level) deduction, and rates tending down (to zero?); a land tax, split between local, state, and federal (1/3 each? 50-25-25?); and ever increasing taxes on pollution. I am constantly annoyed at the greens wanting huge regulation but unwilling to support higher pollution taxes. Um, to get rid of the last 5% of income taxes, I'd even support deficit spending printing money (inflation, another fairly neutral tax, of about 2-3% per year). But of the course the MAIN problem is on the benfit side -- so many voters want, claim, demand, and only-vote-for those politicos who offer their favorite benefits. The demand for benefits drives the demand for tax revenue. And the coming (2020) Social Security baby boomer elephant-sized funding gap is gonna be a HUGE increase in benefit demand. Europe is even more vulnerable than the US or the UK. Sigh. What is to be done? (someone said that... I know, what's is name the commie!) Tom Grey But this assumes that taxes can be neutral. I would tend to agree with Larry Sechrest here -- viz., there are no neutral taxes. (Sechrest's position is laid out in his Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes in _The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies_ 1(2).) Do any of you agree? Cheers! Dan http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
RE: going on about 'statists' -- what tax policy works best?
Title: RE: going on about 'statists' Joe, I agree with you, in essence, yet also support Fred's technicalities. I'm not at all sure that the freedom of anarchy, perhaps with chaos/spontaneous order,is as bad as Corporate State (or even what we have now); and I'm pretty sure that Libertarian policies "would be abject failures" -- NOT. But I certainly agree that the most short term relevant debates are in the "middle" ground mixes of "us" and "them", since the VAST majority of US voters consistently vote in a more statist way than I do, or than I think is optimal. 20 years ago, I was more optimistic for faster change, such as school vouchers/ tax credits (a neo-lib? position). You are also very right to imply that it is extremely unlikely that any large geographic area on Earth will be without some local organized 'monoply on the final use of violence' -- and such an org is the essence of gov't. Leading me ... to tax policy. I know most anarchists oppose most taxes, but it seems clear to me that some taxes are worse than others. I think corporate income taxes, for instance, are better than taxes on dividends; one moral reason being that corporations enjoy, justified or not, limited liability. Similarly, land resource taxes, including pollution, seem excellent candidates for higher taxes, to reduce income taxes. Help please -- is there a good tract on Austrian tax policy, ordering or ranking various taxes? And I'm familiar with, and support the idea that lower taxes generally increase growth Tom Grey When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It "makes the trains run on time" and that's what people will accept rather than the "freedom" of anarchy. So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an "us" that can restrain the various "me's" that make up a society. -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: going on about 'statists' --- "Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... A world with the all inclusive Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we debate at the margins of the "middle" ground for the best mix of "us" and "me" that works best. Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be some other necessary distinction. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: U of Cal scientists question efficient market hypothesis
--- Alypius Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A statistical physics model is predicting that the US stock market recovery suggested by recent rises will only last until spring next year, before tumbling yet further. Why would this contradict efficient markets? If this prediction is correct, there will be more doubt about the efficient market theory. But it won't disprove the theory, since further predictions need to be made from the model for this model to be considered accurate. And, of course, if the model IS accurate, today; and is thought to be so, such that money can be made based on its predictions, then certainly in the near/ mid future (2-4 years?), the behavior of money maximizing agents will change to incorporate this model's results -- and in the process nullify the money making opportunity, or at least greatly reduce the opportunities. Even if the model is accurate today, for the near future -- it will become inaccurate as human actors adjust their game-playing strategies. (While a free market is not zero-sum, nor the stock market, quite--it seems pretty close in the short term) A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton G. Malkiel, basically claimed, empirically, that the markets were fairly efficient. Irrational Exuberance, by Robert J. Shiller By history's yardstick, Shiller believes this market is grossly overvalued, and the factors that have conspired to create and amplify this event--the baby-boom effect, the public infatuation with the Internet, and media interest--will most certainly abate. amazon review of the book published in March, 2000 -- around the beginning of Great Fall. Funny, there doesn't seem a single date for the begining of the internet bubble collapse? Greenspan made the remark at the end of 1996. He, and many others, thought (knew?) the market was overvalued. http://www.allianceforlifelonglearning.org/course.jsp?c=2105 A course! by: Course Author: Robert J. Shiller, Stanley B. Resor Professor of Economics, Yale University, Yale University Profile Online Instructor: Andrey D. Ukhov; Sunil Gottipati; Chian Choo $250 tuition, $35 material (book out of stock, maybe this is why?) It has always seemed to me that the greater fool theory is incompatible with market efficiency. I think so too; and there are two main issues not well incorporated into the efficient market theory (or my brief hobby economists' view): 1) timing -- how long can a market be temporarily and inefficiently priced? 3 years? (1996-1999?) 2) principal agent theory -- what happens when the agents in the market who are paid to provide, and trusted to provide, accurate information (like H. Blodget*), but have a huge personal economic incentive to mislead? USA Today: On several occasions, Blodget was publicly bullish on stocks that he dismissed as garbage privately. Most of the companies were giving Merrill investment banking business. (4/14/02) The markets may or may not be efficient, but the term must be defined in some way that has enough objective meaning to be analyzed and tested. Actually, as is often the case, non efficiency is assumed, in some theory, and then disproven. As I think will happen to the anti-bubble theory, if it tries for too many predictions. Tom Grey AEI quote: The problem with the incessant push for the public to buy equities is that it ultimately leads to lower returns. If everyone obeys the exhortation to buy stocks, share prices will be driven up so high that expected returns on equities will collapse at the first sign of doubt about earnings prospects. The further stock prices rise, the further they subsequently fall given anything but improving news on earnings, as they have done since March 2000. As this Outlook goes to press, the NASDAQ Index is now at approximately 1400, down from 5,100 in March 2000, having fallen by 73 percent in just thirty months. The broader SP Index has fallen 32 percent, at an average rate of 14.6 percent a year, since early March 2000. * Merrill Lynch's famed Internet Bull made his reputation by setting a price target of $400 on Amazon.com when it was trading at $243.
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Wei Dai wrote: People don't mind competition if it's voluntary, but you can't opt out of economic competition. I think it's a necessary evil, not something to be desired for its own sake. Clearly some people do enjoy competition, and they should certainly be able to participate, but what's the point of forcing competition on people who hate it, besides efficiency? Sure you can opt out. Reduce your expectations. Settle for less. The same, of course, is true of e.g. athletic competition. If you aren't good enough to compete, you opt out. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan (To Bryan-a fine Mary Poppins quote) Wei Dai added here a fine contrarian note (for this list). But in the opting out, Bryan is not clear/blunt enough: (1) you can choose to be homeless, take no jobs nor responsibility, and peacefully beg from others who, if it's voluntary, can give to you (or not) with no moral problems. (This includes living with parents or other loved ones, from whom receipt of resources isn't quite begging from strangers.) (2) You can become a thief, and take other's property by force/ fraud/ in secret -- illegally, until you get caught punished. (3) You can voluntarily offer to do work/ be useful to somebody else, in return for money--welcome to the rat race. Honest voluntary, that's where I'm at and most normal folks. Because begging and stealing are not attractive options, many may wrongly fell that you can't opt out of competition. There does exist option (4): beg from the government, who will steal/ take other's money, for you. (A case could be made that most academics are in this category -- but prolly a majority of folks in the US get at least a portion of their income from gov't supported programs, depending on the indirect inclusiveness.) And the problem with gov't redistribution is that the gov't collection is NOT voluntary; it is NOT something that folks can opt out of. I truly don't see any other living alternatives, forced by reality. The free market and honest capitalism is all about (3), making (and keeping) the best voluntary agreements. And the materialist benefits available ONLY to such market participants is usually enough incentive to join up. But nobody has challenged you, Wei: do you know anybody admirable who hates competition? Ghandi comes to mind as a stereo-type, living in rags, spinning his own cotton threads, a very unhappy wife ... Tom Grey
RE: Self-assesment vs. Rationality
Good link, Eric. On the other hand, if you had just quoted this paragraph: The concept of rational expectations asserts that outcomes do not differ systematically (i.e., regularly or predictably) from what people expected them to be. The concept is motivated by the same thinking that led Abraham Lincoln to assert, You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. From the viewpoint of the rational expectations doctrine, Lincoln's statement gets things right. It does not deny that people often make forecasting errors, but it does suggest that errors will not persistently occur on one side or the other. --- I would have preferred it, and not looked it up myself -- but would have missed the fine link. Then the question about irrational behavior becomes more focussed on that which is regular or predictable. At which time, I have a big preference for general ideas to be illustrated by at least one concrete, perhaps hypothetical, example. Thanks, Tom Grey -Original Message- From: Eric Crampton [mailto:ecrampto;gmu.edu] Check Sargent's short piece on rational expectations for a primer: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RationalExpectations.html
RE: disintermediation
have been solely as a result of money actually leaving the system to go into more secure things like money market instruments, Money does not leave the system. When one person sells stocks, another person is buying. But evidently much new money is going to money market funds. Fred Foldvary I think money does, in fact, enter and leave the stock-money system. (It might be there are different definitions of money and system, please educate me if so.) In an IPO, new shares enter the system, and the share issueing company receives some money. This is new money which has entered the stock-money system. If the share price increases, the first investor can sell at a higher price; this is new money entering the system. If this later higher price then decreases, the second investor can sell at a lower price; and money has left the system, since the third investor puts in less money for the same shares. While it's that first investor who sold at profit who gets the money that left, it's not clear that the money has, in fact, left, until the second investor gets a loss with the sale to the third investor. And where that first, profiting (maximizing?) investor then invests in, bonds or money market, or real-estate, or other shares, will be getting new money. If the system is the entire financial system of all assets - all money, which surely includes bank loans collateralized by assets at some valuations, than certainly money/ asset valuations can leave the system. This is shown in Japan, whose Tokyo real estate bubble burst in 1989, with every Japanese bank being technically insolvent if they marked to market value of their real estate loans. This may be just clarifying my ignorance, but it's how I think the money system is. Tom Grey
RE: Return to Education and IV
Data that includes going to college almost certainly includes SAT scores. (I also think they correlate strongly with IQ, but haven't looked for that data). I'm sure that the effect of more schooling is higher on those with higher SAT scores. In addition, I'd guess the data includes average, rather than median, income increases, so it is more easily skewed upward by those achieving super-rich status (those overpaid CEOs -- yes, I do think overpaid -- for instance). Tom Grey PS. part of the great benefit of this list is that, often, asking a good question allows somebody else to answer it who has already researched it, or part of it ... so that I don't have to. I'm probably not too much of a free rider. Now I won't argue that some people who get two years of college and then drop out without a degree might not have been better off getting a two year degree of certification, but the first order effect is something like at least a 6.5% increase in income for each year of school completed whether you get a degree or not. - - Bill
The Greenspan bubble Argentina
I have now read many instances of the Argentina problems being blamed on the fact that tying the Argentine currency to the US dollar made that economy seriously uncompetitive. But I thought the measure of an uncompetitive currency was falling exports rising imports. And that Argentina had had slowly rising exports. Where are the most authoritative figures for such export/ import measures and claims for currency competitiveness? Thanks, Tom Grey
RE: Charity and Races as Complements
From: Robin Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] People can also run some other charity, like for a cancer, and solicit donations to support that charity. The question is why these two charities are so often combined. Many people would not give money to someone soliciting for a race by itself, or for someone soliciting for a cancer charity by itself, but they do give money to someone soliciting for a cancer run. Why the extra willingness to donate to this combined solicitation? Maybe it's a function of the product of the guilt? They don't give cancer money, but feel a bit guilty (say 3). They don't exercise themselves, but feel a bit guilty (say 4). Total guilt they avoid by donating: 3*4 (Maybe quantifying is silly but the combinatorial aspect is valid) Tom Grey
RE: Charity and Races as Complements
From: Robin Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Fabio wrote: ... The participants also get to socialize with other healthy people with disposable income and who share similar values. So both sides benefit. OK, this suggests that health, income, and values are complements as features of people you socialize with. Why these as opposed to any other set of three positive features (such as humor, intelligence, residence, etc.)? I don't think there is such a strong current-income correlation, and even less for similar values. I think a large number of runners, who so often run alone, occasionally in small groups, are happy to affirm their membership in the community of runners. If you took 10 000 runners, split out those that had run in at least 1 (2? 3?) charity race in the last year (2? 3?), and then compared incomes and similar values, I'd guess little difference between the two groups. If Fabio had merely stated get to socialize with other runners, I'd agree totally. In fact, the inclusiveness of runners prolly extends to a general non-objection to virtually all charities. Other sponsorship might engender some runners towards self-exclusion (eg tobacco sponsors), where even unsupported unliked charities generally wouldn't. I also think that most organizers of running events barely cover the organizing costs through reg fees. But (very cheap me), I would usually run unregistered just to run--I didn't there was a big free runner problem. Tom Grey
RE: Public Opinion On Spending -- order of magnitude
Usually one order of magnitude more is about 10 times more. So, increasing from a range around 8 to around 80 is an increase in an order of magnitude. It is more debatable, but not uncommon, for each digit to be its own order of magnitude: 1-9 / 10-99 / 100-999. Unfortunately, my whatis definition reference, http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci527311,00.html doesn't answer the implied range question either. [It does mention: multipliers from septillionths (10)^-24 to septillions (10)^24, a span of 48 orders of magnitude.] I'd say 8 going to 110 is only a single order of magnitude increase; my own rough range is based on 50% of the next higher, so I wouldn't call it a second order of magnitude until it was over 400, half of 800. Now I am also interested in knowing what is the smallest number that is two orders of magnitude larger than the original 8 billion estimate ? Tom Grey Relying on the adage---the only stupid question is the one not asked---I ask for an explanation of an order of magnitude. I had understood it to mean an approximation of an amount associated with whatever subject was under discussion. However, in reading David Levenstam's comment (see related excerpt below) it appears that an order of magnitude is generally viewed as 10's, 100's, 1000's etc. Responses welcome. All my books remain packed in boxes, so I can't look up the figures, but I seem to recall that the Congressional proponents of Medicare projected an ten-year federal outlay of some $8 billion, as opposed to the annual outlay of $110+ billion now. I can't conceive of the vast majority of Americans supporting a program that would have cost two orders of magnitude greater than projected.
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
Irrespective of the objective truth of the Bible, the superiority of a Bible believing society is a position I strongly believe, Doesn't your position commit you to believing that the people in our society who do not believe in the Bible are in fact mostly selfish mean criminals? What empirical support is there for this claim? Most folks criminals/immoral? Not at all, only generally more immorally acting people as belief goes down. Further, I derive support for this from limited thought experiments: Society A: more Atheist, Society B: more Bible Believing. In which society do I expect more fraud? more cheating spouses promiscuity? more theft? more murder? Well, even without empirical support, I believe B will be better for me to live in, whether I, personally, am a weak Episcopalian/ agnostic/ atheist/ or devout believer. I'd be very interested in your answers to the following: 1) Which of the two Societies, more Atheist or more Believing, do you believe would be better? 2) Do you have empirical support for your belief? 3) Does empirical support matter in this case? Recall this is my initial attempt to answer Alex's question about what changes peoples' minds. But my 2 3 challenges above also touch on the Occam's razor issue earlier and the burden of proof with respect to the existence of God. I do not think the atheist has to prove there is no God -- his job is much harder. He has to prove, empirically, that an more atheist society is better than one with more believers. Until he can do so, it seems quite rational for believers who want a better overall society to remain believers--don't you think? Not to leave it unsaid, the recent Nazi Commie attempts at atheistic societies in practice (empirical evidence?) make me think any anti-believer has a lot of problems. Tom Grey, an American Libertarian/neo-conservative, happily living in ex-Commie Slovakia (you're welcome to write me directly too) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
some history! RE: economic history question
A friend told me about her grandfather, on a striking picket line at Ford Motor Co. in freezing winter, during the Depression. The poor workers, peacefully striking on government streets, were sprayed with water by the Detroit fire department, who was there with the police. The water rapidly cooled towards freezing. This kind of gov't cruelty to protect the rich and their property rights is, to a large extent, the impetus to the creation of such socialistic/leftist orgs as the ACLU, etc. I'm sure most of FDR's New Deal was based on an attempt to solve The Problem of the Poor People. And very subject to the various existing political influences. If there was a capitalistic system with very few or no poor people, it's answer to the question of the poor would be extremely interesting. Until there are better answers, in practical examples, of systems that are more capitalist with fewer poor, the socialist example (threat?) remains seductive to many, many people. I'm keeping my eye out for answers, including this Armchair list. Tom Grey PS I found this Abstract on the net: - Katherine Baicker, Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz NBER Working Paper No.w5889* Issued in January 1997 Abstract - Unemployment compensation in the United States was signed into law in August 1935 as part of the omnibus Social Security Act. Drafted in a period of uncertainty and economic distress, the portions that dealt with unemployment insurance were crafted to achieve a multiplicity of goals, among them passage of the act and a guarantee of its constitutionality. Along with the federal-state structure went experience-rating and characteristics added by the states, such as the limitation on duration of benefits. The U.S. unemployment compensation system is distinctive among countries by virtue of its federal-state structure, experience-rating, and limitation on benefits. We contend that these features were products of the times, reflecting expediency more than efficiency, and thus that UI would have been different had it been passed in another decade. But how different is the UI system in the United States because of these features, and how have they affected the U.S. labor market? We present evidence showing that more seasonality in manufacturing employment in 1909-29 is related to higher UI benefits from 1947 to 1969, if a state's manufacturing employment share is below the national mean. Lobbying activities of seasonal industries appear important in the evolution of the parameters. We also present suggestive evidence on the relationship between declining seasonality and experience-rating. *Published: Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the TwentiethCentury. Edited by Michael D. Bordo, Claudia Goldin, and Eugene N. White,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998, pp. 227-263. You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery. Information for subscribers and others expecting no-cost downloads If you normally receive free downloads but are having trouble with the new system, please contact us and use this link to download the paper. --
RE: Ph.D. proliferation
Bryan, for some reason some recent posts of mine to this list have not been posted -- am I off the list for some reason? (There was a time when my company email was down for a week, it might have bounced too much mail or something). Tom Grey Here's a very relevant John Adams quote: I must study war and politics so that my children shall be free to study commerce, agriculture and other practicalities, -- you are here so that their children can study painting, poetry and other fine things. -- John Adams
RE: monopoly justice vs free market justice (A.S.U.; R.N., RIP)
Robert Nozik, author of the fine Anarchy, State, and Utopia, seems to end up with a minimal state primarily enforcing contracts and protecting property. I was sad to read that he recently joined Hayek Keynes in the long run, i.e. dead. (I was looking for info on life expectancy at age 50, or 60, or 70, but didn't quite find it in a quick search, prolly my own user error, but didn't find help on the NCHS site, either) As a minarchist, generally believing in a minimal state, I no longer have as much patience for the (potentially endless) discussions on the different endpoints: if we are in agreement, or very close, that the current government is too big, it seems to me that any viable path towards Anarcho-Capitalism requires many steps. Each step is, in a certain sense, the end of that step, so discussing alternative steps and their economic implications is more interesting for me. Subject: monopoly justice vs free market justice On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:54:22PM -0800, Fred Foldvary wrote: --- Eric Crampton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While we're at it, why don't we make it illegal for people to kill each other. If it were illegal, with stiff fines, we'd surely get rid of murder. Do you deny that we have less murder with laws penalizing it than if we had no such laws? If so, do you wish to eliminate all criminal codes? I don't know about Eric, but I definitely think that there would be less murders if there were no laws against them, and similarly for robbery, rape, fraud, etc. Crimes would instead be settled in civil courts, and murderers would be greatly indebted to the heirs, and the fact of criminals paying back their debt would make the whole process economically efficient. Settling crimes in any court, civil or criminal, essentially requires a standard, like thou shall not kill, or thou must fulfill contractural obligations. Whether they are called codes, norms, commandments, customs, traditions or what-not, they define crimes, and they are essentially laws. And we should use law for those actions which, when violated, create a situation of injustice that courts can act upon. Usually injustice is fairly black white. Justice, on the other hand, is a grey area (I changed my name partly for this reason.) I support punishment; and segregation from society -- especially after 3 or more violations. I more strongly support restitution, especially in the robbery, fraud, monetary crimes. The question of whether, for a murder, more punishment, more rehabilitation, more restitution, or more segregation is better for the victim; the victim's family, the rest of society, and the murderer and his (or her) family--that question is more interesting to me than mono-justice vs market justice. And what I support most strongly now, is a democratic change to allow more experimentation. Also, legalization of drugs would most greatly reduce murders. Finally, to recall the SPAM issue, clearly the monopoly system would, if implemented, fail to be protective but increase everybody's problems. The free market system will, over time, work better -- most spam is actually sales info of one kind or another, and they have some interest in mostly reaching interested folks. On the other hand, I always remember: how many free marketeers does it take to change a light bulb? Tom Grey ... none, the free market will take care of it.
RE: Credit scoring and insurance premiums
(Still not finished with year end work at work ...) Recently finished Prof. Caplan's fine Stigler-Becker vs Myers-Briggs paper. I believe strongly in MBTI (MB Type Indicator) (I'm an NTP, E/I). I like the Five Factor Model addition, but not name, of Neurotic, and don't like the names of the other 2 FFM that are different. However, the Conscientiousness category (more J, not P) of personality traits might be at work here -- other things seemingly equal, low scorers might be worse credit risks AND have higher losses. I strongly favor freedom (oppose restrictions) on categories insurance companies can use, ESPECIALLY those somewhat behaviourist: it's not your fault if you're a man instead of a woman under 25 -- it IS your fault that you didn't pay your credit card. Or missed a payment and paid later. etc. Tom Grey
RE: Armchair attachments Austrian school
OK, I didn't open it -- so what does it say? I went to the web site referenced, but didn't see an obvious path. I like the idea of having more files on a server; maybe Professor Bryan Caplan's Armchair File Cabinet? I guess I missed the fireworks between the Austrian Economists and Bryan, who is ...Not an Austrian Economist. Since another friend of mine had negatively recommended Rothbard, I hadn't read him; felt Austrian due more to Hayek. Being way out of the profession, references to the many neo-classical non-Austrian advances was quite good. Is there a good, short paper/article response on why the Austrian school deserves to remain a separate school? Thanks, Tom Grey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I apologize for the attachment --- it was a virus sent to me by a colleague ... don't open it. Pete Prof. Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director HomePage: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke Editor, THE REVIEW OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS
RE: Signaling
In an era of paper-covered hardbacks and paperback books, there is also the competitive question: What else if not a blurb? Art? White/colored paper? A note from the Author (eg. This paperback edition, and no other, has been authorized ... JRR Tolkien)? In Slovakia (like the Czech Republic), we have some books that include company advertisements of sponsors, for instance Slovnaft, a huge oil refinery--I like blurbs better, but getting money from the sponsor to put out a (classical) liberal book is better than NOT publishing it at all. For novels, having some summary of the book or an exciting scene in lieu of more blurbs seems more the practice. For non fiction today, being WITHOUT a blurb would be exceptional, and may well be negatively disorienting to a prospective buyer who expects one. Signalling is evolving nicely at Amazon.com, with multiple reviewers. Ciao is even better, with reviewers who are rated -- and even get PAID to write reviews (very small amount), based on their ratings. (www.ciao.com to choose Euro country) Tom Grey Technical note -- I failed to get the original Signalling posting (did get many copies). Don't know what else I've missed. [Very unimportant-] All time most memorable (not a) blurb to Bored of the Rings: Note: This paperback, and no other, was written with the sole intention of making a few quick bucks. Those who believe in courtesy to a certain other living author won't touch this gobbler with a ten-foot battle lance. (As I remember from 20 years ago -- so naturally I bought it. ) -Original Message- From: jsamples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 10:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Signaling A marketing professional in book publishing adds: Maybe having friends, especially famous (in their fields) ones, sells books. A 1999 study of consumer behavior in buying books listed blurbs as the 7th most important factor in deciding to buy a book. (Number 4 was recommended by someone I know.) John
RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
The Fight or Flight adrenaline effect is yet another (possibly clever?) explanatory note; the specific adversity/disaster is important. I don't believe in any general happiness while hungry or happiness while in pain. But when the crummy circumstance was caused by a more specific threat, the adrenaline creates a chemical mood change, at least temporarily. In war, repeatedly. It's not clear if EP tests given to the Russians during the war would give the same results as those same tests a few years after the war -- I think not; what's too painful to remember, we simply choose to forget; so it's the laughter, which we remember... Another issue is solidarity -- when people can join together to fight against the bad situation, and those nearby are similarly enduring the problems. Not misery loves company, but we shall overcome and we're all in this together. Mob pyschology / holy spirit in gatherings (?); the US 60's protests generated intense feelings, and many ex hippies never felt generally as good again. And one more issue, the lack of regret about decisions, especially in war. Most soldiers follow orders, which they're not really responsible for. For many people, too many choices, too much freedom, causes unhappy indecisiveness about what is desired and what should be chosen. In a stressful time when there are few or no other choices, there is no opportunity-lost regret about what wasn't done. The clarity of pure action implementation, do, or do not; there is no try, allows a focus of effort and, if successful, a pure enjoyment. This is also related to the enjoyment of trying your hardest, really giving 100% of yourself, to a worthy goal. This sounds like sports; when I played ultimate at lunch, it was great to stop thinking about work and the world etc., and just strive to be the best I could be. It also sounds like cramming for tests in university. Insofar as lack of choice is important, then it's probably a little outside of utility maximizing considerations. Whether disaster raises happiness; or, if there's more happiness under adversity, then why? is really interesting and leads down many paths. Tom Grey -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust Well, the second-hand report supplied by me was just one bit of evidence in support of the more general observation that some people report that they are happiest in situations of adversity - a point raised by Robin. Someone volunteered that a survey had shown that some Russians were happiest during WWII, when millions were killed or starved to death. The question is whether this situation - happiness during adversity - is typical for certain contexts. That't empirical. The theoretical question is Robin's: if it is true that you can increase your happiness in crummy circumstance, then is that not a challenge to the utility maximizing hypothesis that modern economics is based on? Fabio
RE: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
I think the popularity of Nightmare on Elm Street, etc., including with many young women, is fairly relevant, and supportive of stress arousal. I'd suspect a strong second order effect in women: the men are more than usually aroused; which leads to more than usual arousal in the women. I'd suspect women who are NOT more than usually aroused with such men to be at a doubly severe evolutionary disadvantage: a) fewer children overall, and b) less likely to keep a father around to help with the kids she does have. Tom Grey -Original Message- From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust I think this is a good EP explanation for men, but there is a problem with it as an explanation for women. I have to admit that I don't know if women are aroused by stress as well, but from the woman's perspective it would seem that her offspring would be most likely to succeed if she waited for the guys to come back and then picked from that bunch. They would presumably be a more fit sub-sample of the original population and would be more likely to be around to help provide for the children. - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 10:19PM With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young.
RE: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
-Original Message- From: Technotranscendence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 4:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics ... Of course, there's no need to wait for the Nobel people to do that. You can always just form another award and hand that out on the criteria you feel are more relevant. I believe there are too many awards and too many awards ceremonies. I'm more interested in the work then the award or the awards process. I guess they are signaling devices, but some of them seem woefully distorted and I wonder what they really signal. (The Nobel Prize might be one of the better ones, in terms of this, BUT look at who gets the peace prize. In the past decade or so, it looks more like a popularity contest than anything else.) Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/ --- Because government violence must be used to protect intellectual property rights, I have mixed feelings about such protection when copying does not take anything material from the one with the original. Yes, copying reduces market value, and therefore market rewards for creativity, etc., and if there were no patents or copyrights, possibly progress would be inhibited. Still, when my car is stolen, I don't have it. When my idea is copied, I still do. That's a huge difference, to me. I can imagine many, many, different and varied awards (ad nauseum?), as an alternative market reward for the creative innovators, especially those whose ideas are most frequently copied. It's a pleasant fantasy, as I burn my own CDs... Tom Grey PS sorry about the other post. Send, delete, what's the difference?
RE: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
-Original Message- From: Technotranscendence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 4:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics On Friday, September 21, 2001 9:27 PM fabio guillermo rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other nobel prizes have been awarded to individuals that weren't formally trained. Some literature winners were not fiction writers, a recent physics went to an engineer and medicine/physiology often goes to non-MD biologists. If people started thinking contribution to economic thought, then we might open it up to people in b-schools, psychologists and others. thne it might get interesting. Of course, there's no need to wait for the Nobel people to do that. You can always just form another award and hand that out on the criteria you feel are more relevant. I believe there are too many awards and too many awards ceremonies. I'm more interested in the work then the award or the awards process. I guess they are signaling devices, but some of them seem woefully distorted and I wonder what they really signal. (The Nobel Prize might be one of the better ones, in terms of this, BUT look at who gets the peace prize. In the past decade or so, it looks more like a popularity contest than anything else.) Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
