Exogenous Policy
If we look at empirical evidence, it seems that people do not vote in a self interested way, but rather vote based on group-interest. Given this fact, is policy really endogenous? It seems that the most important characteristics in the liberal/conservative divide are age, race, gender, ethnicity, religion- things not easily influenced by policy. Income, education, and employment status matter little relative to these other personal characteristics. So (ignoring any effects of the social choice mechanism), is policy determined only by these exogenous characteristics? -- As opposed to policy being shaped by characteristics that are in turned shaped by policy outcomes. I'd interested in hearing thoughts on how policy influences the ideological distribution. Jason DeBacker
Re: Exogenous Policy
I think you are mixing up correlation and causation here. On what basis do you say that most important characteristics in the liberal/conservative divide are age, race, gender, ...? Perhaps on the basis that we have polling data that can be broken down by these categories? As for Income, education, and employment status -- how are these any less group characteristics than personal characteristics? My basis for saying that these are important characteristics was simply that they are correlated with voting a certain way. Certainly income, education, etc. can be used as a classification for a group, but these characteristics would seem to be more highly correlated with an individual's utility level than race or gender (at least under the normal assumptions economists make), and that is the basis for the differentiation here. If you show me evidence that people vote on the size of a gov't transfer based on current income, that might be a sign of self interested voting or group voting, but if you show me that people vote on this transfer based on gender, I'd cite that as evidence for group-interest voting. All you seem to have found is that people's votes are not easily changed by changes in their fortunes -- in other words, if you believe X while you are poor and/or unemployed, you tend to still believe X after you get a job and get rich. Why is that surprising? Do you think people should always vote based on their current short-term self-interest, without regard to what situations they may otherwise find, or have found themselves in, let alone what they might believe is right morally? What counterfactual are you imagining here? I don't expect people to vote only based on their current circumstances. The question here is whether the ideological distribution changes because of influences from policy- which might have short or long run effects on material consumption or some kind of moral value. If ideology is formed from characteristics such as religion, race, gender, it is hard for me to think of ways policy could influence ideology (immigration policy is one). It would surprise me if policy didn't influence the ideological distribution- i.e. the number of liberals/conservatives is purely a function of exogenous shifts in the demographics of the population. Jason DeBacker
Re: Krugman on Rep and Dem virtue
Those guys are Marginal Revolution already got to that Economist article: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/05/iq_hoax.html Also, I was thinking of an endogeneity problem here. If you are in a state with lots of marital and family value type problems, you are more likely to support the republican platform that claims to solve these. If you are in Massachusetts, you are less likely to know someone affected by these problems and thus have little reason to put much weight on that when choosing a candidate. Regards, Jason Quoting William Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Actually, the Economist ran an article a while back suggesting a strong correlation between the average IQ in a state and the fraction voting for Gore in 2000. Higher IQ people are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce. They are also less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Perhaps this explains what you are finding? - - Bill Dickens Jason DeBacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/05/04 06:21PM This doesn't agree with my prior, but a quick search turned up this: http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html Where 12 of the top 14 states in terms of low divorce rates were blue in 2000 and 2004 (with the exception of Iowa, this year)-- and 26 of the bottom 28 were red in 2000 and 2004 (with the exception of New Mexico). I don't know if it will explain away all the difference, but you can't get divorced unless you are married, and those that are married are more likely to be Republican. Also, if you have a child, you are more likely to be a Republican and if you have an out of wedlock birth, you have a child (and you didn't have an abortion). Older people are also more likely to be Republican, increasing the time and thus the chances of having a marital problem or a unexpected pregnancy, as long as the probability of either is not zero for Republicans. So the propensity of Democrats to get divorced or have an out of wedlock birth may be higher when you control for time married, age, and whether or not you have had a child. Both divorce and out of wedlock childern are correlated with low income, I'd guess. Does anyone know if Democrats have higher incomes that Republicans once you control for age, race, religion, etc? Regards, Jason
political economy and macroeconomics
What is the list's view of macro political economy models like those by Krusell, Rios-Rull, and others? Can these answer important political-economic questions well? I like the emphasis on theoretical models and the idea of matching moments that macro emphasizes. However, I am disappointed that none of the models of this type that I have seen include expressive voting or voter irrationality. Regards, Jason DeBacker
Re: Charity
Is it not possible that there is some common goods problem? People not helping b/c they think others will? The general welfare of others is a public good afterall, right?- (non-rival, non-excludable) I think it is reasonable to say that there is not an efficient level of charity (at least in the third world charity market), and if the answer is that people don't really care to give more, then you are saying it is efficient. I can envision this being the case, but it is hard to imagine. Jason - Original Message - From: Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 8:26 AM Subject: Re: Charity Jason DeBacker wrote: And the answer is: - People really dont care about helping someone else, but are ashamed to admit that. How could it be anything else? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] The game of just supposing Is the sweetest game I know... And if the things we dream about Don't happen to be so, That's just an unimportant technicality. Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein, *Showboat*
Re: Charity
Fabio, I dont know it 1 or 2% is low or high either. I was mostly considering at the margin, people would seem to support more charity, yet dont. Sure, few could give thousands, but many could give up a nice restaurant dinner, a couple rental movies, or some such thing each month, and would make a large difference to someone in a third world country. This fact is not mentioned often and acted upon even less often, though I think people would admit that it is worthwhile. Fred Foldvary wrote: It seems to me there is an entrepreneurial opportunity to provide a comprehensive Guide to Charities that would list them and their expenses. I was actually thinking about this! Jason
Re: Charity
Eric Crampton wrote: Your imagination is clearly too limited if you can't imagine anyone who would baldly state that they prefer the cable TV. I certainly prefer spending my $67/mth on Dish Network top 100 plus HBOs plus locals plus built-in TIVO to sending the money off to save an arbitrarily large number of children in a foreign country. If I didn't have that rank ordering of preferences, I'd get rid of the Dish. -- I listed as one possibility that people are ashamed to admit their preferences. I feel the same way as you do, but I am not sure all people think like that. Some probably actually care about saving lives instead of having HBO, but for some reason do not act on that preference- I don't know why, though. Jason Jason
Re: Fwd: [Forum] Quoth who?
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Babynomics
Animals are economic actors. as to: For example, at what age are children able to understand the concept of interest?- any baby knows that something is better now then tommorrow. At what age do children understand that exchange can make you better off?- if you read the popular media, it seems they never do. Jason -Included Message-- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:45:59 -0600 (CST) From: fabio guillermo rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Babynomics Question: At what can humans engage in economic behavior? Are there studies showing when children learn to trade ? Fabio Humans start to engage in economic behavior as soon as they are born. Trade is not a necessary characteristic of economic behavior. The issue is rather whether infants are consciously choosing their actions. It seems to me that the genetic basis for behavior is the same in an infant as in an adult. Fred Foldvary I think this is a vacuous answer. By that logic, animals are economic actors - animals seem to choose their actions. Perhaps, then, my original question was vague. The question I have is: when do humans start to engage in *sophisticated* economic behaviors not found in animals? For example, at what age are children able to understand the concept of interest? At what age do children understand that exchange can make you better off? Fabio -End of Included Message--
Re: Return to Education and IV
Is there a significant difference in the returns to education for those who get schooling in top ranked programs? I thought I remember a Newsweek a couple years back that had a story about SAT scores of successful people (two profiles were G.W. Bush and Gore so I guess it was around 2000), and the point they were trying to make was that those who make the most money generally have SATs in the 1200 and 1300s- good students, but not top students. In addition, the book The Millionaire Next Door describes those that accumulate the most wealth as not necessarily being the top students or having degrees from prestigious universities- and, I believe the authors said that if you make $100,000 per year or more, then years of education is negatively correlated with wealth. Also, the argument that opportunity cost is the largest cost of college, is often used to encourage people to not worry about student loans and and look at more prestigious universities, but is this the case for those who are choosing a top school? With tuitions at $35K + per year, do you make back your investment with a higher expected salary as compared to a school on a lower tier? Jason DeBacker
books
Would any of you like to share your favorite books- particularly related to economics and/or libertarian philosophy? I am starting a reading list as tommorrow is the last day of any undergraduate work and I should have some time for plenty of reading. So far I have: J.S. Mill- On Liberty Brennan and Lomasky- Democracy and Decision Richard Posner- Economics of Justice David D. Friedman- Law's Order, Hidden Order, Intermediate Price Theory Murray Rothbard- Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, The Ethics of Liberty Jason DeBacker
Re: odds and terrorism
One could also argue that the current bills being considered for airport security are killing people. More bags scanned, more security workers, and higher salaries for them will result in higher ticket prices. This raises the cost of flying and thus more people drive on their vacations- a much riskier form of travel... Jason DeBacker - Original Message - From: Alex Tabarrok [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:40 AM Subject: odds and terrorism Here is a nice article on the odds of various events and terrorist related odds. It's familiar material to this audience but might make a good discussion item in a class. Best Alex http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7812-2001Nov23.html -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
