Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of
Mission accomplished! Mike Redler wrote: Agh!! Now ya did it. I got that stupid music from the Heineken Light commercial ringing in my head. Don't you wish your girlfriend was a freak like me... Mike Weaver wrote: Oh, you just like the Freak part pf Freakonmics! Michael Redler wrote: Doug wrote: I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. I would agree that there is a detachment but, I'm not sure that it's denial. I mean, denial is a defense mechanism, right? Have they become defensive or do they see a close attachment to moral issues as a leash which keeps their research within current moral boundaries. I want to be careful not to make blanket statements because some economists may depend on moral issues because it's within the scope of their research. Those who don't include those issues (IMO) have grown accustomed to certain methods and have created their own obstacles in reaching their objective. Personally, I'm equally interested in the public reaction to economists research. I think the degree by which people interpret research as a call to action is a measure of how our culture submits to fear and hatred. ...my $.02 Mike [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of
Oh, you just like the Freak part pf Freakonmics! Michael Redler wrote: Doug wrote: I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. I would agree that there is a detachment but, I'm not sure that it's denial. I mean, denial is a defense mechanism, right? Have they become defensive or do they see a close attachment to moral issues as a leash which keeps their research within current moral boundaries. I want to be careful not to make blanket statements because some economists may depend on moral issues because it's within the scope of their research. Those who don't include those issues (IMO) have grown accustomed to certain methods and have created their own obstacles in reaching their objective. Personally, I'm equally interested in the public reaction to economists research. I think the degree by which people interpret research as a call to action is a measure of how our culture submits to fear and hatred. ...my $.02 Mike */Doug Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Hi Robert I'm afraid that I have to disagree your general dismissal of Levitt Dubner's book Freakonomics. Not all of the book was particularly gripping but I thought the book provided ammunition for both the conservative and liberal camps. The correlation between legalize abortion in the US and the dramatic decline in some crime rates was controlled for other factors such as increased police budgets, stiffer penalties, altered policing methods, etc. yet Levitt was still able to attribute a large majority of the diminished crime rate to legalized abortion. For me, the argument clincher was that several states legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade and those states had crime rates fall before the rest of the country. The author even stated that legalize abortion was clearly not the direct cause of a decline in the crime rate. Rather Levitt proposed that perhaps children who were not rejected at birth by their parents are more likely behave in a socially condoned manner. Nor was all of the research in the book based strictly on correlational analysis. The section dealing with drug dealers who live with their mothers was based on evidence obtained from some sociological fieldwork that recovered a detailed set of accounting books and records used by a MBA grad turned drug kingpin. I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. That doesn't necessarily mean that the analytical tools they have developed over the years cannot be used for good. The burgeoning fields of ecological and true cost economics are two examples of the application of the statistical economic tools being used to address some of the issues that concern many people on this list. I just hope that they hurry up and spread the word a little faster, actually a lot faster. You may want to check out this link as a place to start http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/economists.html Doug -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of robert and benita rabello Sent: June 20, 2006 12:38 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics Darryl McMahon wrote: There is an oblique reference to this in the archives. I have just finished reading the book, and recommend that people put it on their reading lists. (No time like the present to get on your public library's waiting list.) Yes, I think I'm the one who referenced it. This is one of my stockbroker sister's favorite books. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, even learned a thing or two. I was aware of the gun-related items, but I had not previously made the crime rate drop connection in the U.S. with Roe vs. Wade. The causal relationships the author mentions are tangential, at best. I'm sure a correlation can be made with the drop in crime rate versus GDP too. In fact, I'll bet you could correlate a drop in crime rate with the introduction of Viagra . . . Nice piece of de-spinning work. So many more subjects need more such treatment. It's a great book for NeoCons. From the epilogue: But the fact of the matter is that /Freakonomics/-style thinking simply doesn't traffic in morality. As we suggested near the beginning of this book, if morality represents an ideal world, then economics represents the actual world. If only we had reliable numbers . . . If only we could tabulate how much
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics
Darryl McMahon wrote: Actually, I've done some x-y correlation research in my day, and while it's been a while, the text of the book rings true with my experience. It strikes me that Levitt has done a reasonable job of substantiating his conclusions, as much as anyone can in the social sciences where running conscious control populations can be tricky. However, he's done a pretty good job of finding reasonable controls for comparisons from data typically collected for other purposes. I'm not ready to concede the point to you. The argument presented in the book didn't seem convincing to me because there are too many other factors that influence crime rates. Others have also questioned Mr. Levitt's analysis. For instance: http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5246700 Now the following words come from Christopher Foote from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, but they underscore my point pretty well: " " But now economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston are taking aim at the statistics behind one of Mr. Levitt's most controversial chapters. Mr. Levitt asserts there is a link between the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s and the drop in crime rates in the 1990s. Christopher Foote, a senior economist at the Boston Fed, and Christopher Goetz, a research assistant, say the research behind that conclusion is faulty. " Long before he became a best-selling author, Mr. Levitt, 38 years old, had established a reputation among economists as a careful researcher who produced first-rate statistical studies on surprising subjects. In 2003, the American Economic Association named him the nation's best economist under 40, one of the most prestigious distinctions in the field. His abortion research was published in 2001 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, an academic journal. (He was the subject of a page-one Wall Street Journal story1 in the same year.) " The "Freakonomics" chapter on abortion grew out of statistical studies Mr. Levitt and a co-author, Yale Law School Prof. John Donohue, conducted on the subject. The theory: Unwanted children are more likely to become troubled adolescents, prone to crime and drug use, than are wanted children. When abortion was legalized in the 1970s, a whole generation of unwanted births were averted, leading to a drop in crime nearly two decades later when this phantom generation would have come of age. "The Boston Fed's Mr. Foote says he spotted a missing formula in the programming of Mr. Levitt's original research. He argues the programming oversight made it difficult to pick up other factors that might have influenced crime rates during the 1980s and 1990s, like the crack wave that waxed and waned during that period. He also argues that in producing the research, Mr. Levitt should have counted arrests on a per-capita basis. Instead, he counted overall arrests. After he adjusted for both factors, Mr. Foote says, the abortion effect disappeared. [Emphasis mine.] " "There are no statistical grounds for believing that the hypothetical youths who were aborted as fetuses would have been more likely to commit crimes had they reached maturity than the actual youths who developed from fetuses and carried to term," the authors assert in the report. " Correlating cause / effect relationships is a slippery business at best, and the biggest assumption Mr. Levitt made was that abortion eliminated a significant percentage of unwanted babies, who would, in turn, have become criminals because of their lack of familial love and guidance. However, statistics concerning illegitimate births in the US indicate a RISE after abortion was legalized. How can that correlate with "wantedness" and result in reduced crime? The whole exercise was mindless, in my view. (Neocons) Interesting perspective. I certainly did not see it that way. In fact, I would have thought NeoCons would have hated it. I suppose anyone can find something they like in here, but NeoCons and the whole book, that I don't see. Maybe my definition of NeoCons is off. I tend to associate them with the current White House crowd (Bush II, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc) and the American religious right. Those people use religion to promote a very secular agenda. To them, economics is twisted into a scheme that increases profit. Religion and pious-sounding talk serve to lull the masses to sleep. They're a hawkish bunch who promote "free trade" only when it suits them. (Don't get me started about softwood lumber!) My sister (and most of the people in my family, for that matter) fall quite nicely into the NeoCon camp. News that two American soldiers were recently tortured and brutally slain in Iraq brought outraged responses from solid, church-attending people who think that we ought to "bomb them all to hell" for this. Now the reason NeoCons in my family LOVE this book, is that they say Freakonomics lays out a persuasive case for
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of
Agh!! Now ya did it. I got that stupid music from the Heineken Light commercial ringing in my head. Don't you wish your girlfriend was a freak like me... Mike Weaver wrote: Oh, you just like the Freak part pf Freakonmics! Michael Redler wrote: Doug wrote: I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. I would agree that there is a detachment but, I'm not sure that it's denial. I mean, denial is a defense mechanism, right? Have they become defensive or do they see a close attachment to moral issues as a leash which keeps their research within current moral boundaries. I want to be careful not to make blanket statements because some economists may depend on moral issues because it's within the scope of their research. Those who don't include those issues (IMO) have grown accustomed to certain methods and have created their own obstacles in reaching their objective. Personally, I'm equally interested in the public reaction to economists research. I think the degree by which people interpret research as a call to action is a measure of how our culture submits to fear and hatred. ...my $.02 Mike [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of
Hi Robert I'm afraid that I have to disagree your general dismissal of Levitt Dubner's book Freakonomics. Not all of the book was particularly gripping but I thought the book provided ammunition for both the conservative and liberal camps. The correlation between legalize abortion in the US and the dramatic decline in some crime rates was controlled for other factors such as increased police budgets, stiffer penalties, altered policing methods, etc. yet Levitt was still able to attribute a large majority of the diminished crime rate to legalized abortion. For me, the argument clincher was that several states legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade and those states had crime rates fall before the rest of the country. The author even stated that legalize abortion was clearly not the direct cause of a decline in the crime rate. Rather Levitt proposed that perhaps children who were not rejected at birth by their parents are more likely behave in a socially condoned manner. Nor was all of the research in the book based strictly on correlational analysis. The section dealing with drug dealers who live with their mothers was based on evidence obtained from some sociological fieldwork that recovered a detailed set of accounting books and records used by a MBA grad turned drug kingpin. I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. That doesn't necessarily mean that the analytical tools they have developed over the years cannot be used for good. The burgeoning fields of ecological and true cost economics are two examples of the application of the statistical economic tools being used to address some of the issues that concern many people on this list. I just hope that they hurry up and spread the word a little faster, actually a lot faster. You may want to check out this link as a place to start http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/economists.html Doug -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of robert and benita rabello Sent: June 20, 2006 12:38 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics Darryl McMahon wrote: There is an oblique reference to this in the archives. I have just finished reading the book, and recommend that people put it on their reading lists. (No time like the present to get on your public library's waiting list.) Yes, I think I'm the one who referenced it. This is one of my stockbroker sister's favorite books. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, even learned a thing or two. I was aware of the gun-related items, but I had not previously made the crime rate drop connection in the U.S. with Roe vs. Wade. The causal relationships the author mentions are tangential, at best. I'm sure a correlation can be made with the drop in crime rate versus GDP too. In fact, I'll bet you could correlate a drop in crime rate with the introduction of Viagra . . . Nice piece of de-spinning work. So many more subjects need more such treatment. It's a great book for NeoCons. From the epilogue: But the fact of the matter is that iFreakonomics/i-style thinking simply doesn't traffic in morality. As we suggested near the beginning of this book, if morality represents an ideal world, then economics represents the actual world. If only we had reliable numbers . . . If only we could tabulate how much it REALLY costs to rape the environment, destroy human life and elevate the welfare of the wealthy over the welfare of the poor. At its core, morality IS economics, but the paradigm is upside down. The most likely result of having read this book is a simple one: you may find yourself asking a lot of questions. Many of them will lead to nothing. But some will produce answers that are interesting, even surprising. Or entirely stupid. Take your pick! Sorry Darryl, but I'm simply NOT impressed . . . robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of
Doug wrote: "I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues."I would agree that there is a detachment but, I'm not sure that it's denial. I mean, denial is a defense mechanism, right?Have they become defensive or do they see a close attachment tomoral issues as a leash which keeps their research withincurrent moral boundaries.I want to be careful not to make blanket statements because some economists may depend on moral issues because it's within the scope of their research. Those who don't include those issues (IMO) have grown accustomed tocertain methods and havecreated their own obstacles in reaching their objective.Personally, I'mequally interested in the public reaction to economists research. I think the degree by which peopleinterpret research as a call to action is a measure of howour culture submits to fear and hatred....my $.02 MikeDoug Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi RobertI'm afraid that I have to disagree your general dismissal of Levitt Dubner's book Freakonomics. Not all of the book was particularly grippingbut I thought the book provided ammunition for both the conservative andliberal camps. The correlation between legalize abortion in the US and thedramatic decline in some crime rates was controlled for other factors suchas increased police budgets, stiffer penalties, altered policing methods,etc. yet Levitt was still able to attribute a large majority of thediminished crime rate to legalized abortion. For me, the argument clincherwas that several states legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade and thosestates had crime rates fall before the rest of the country. The author evenstated that legalize abortion was clearly not the direct cause of a declinein the crime rate. Rather Levitt proposed that perhaps children who werenot rejected at birth by their parents are more likely behave in a sociallycondoned manner.Nor was all of the research in the book based strictly on correlationalanalysis. The section dealing with drug dealers who live with their motherswas based on evidence obtained from some sociological fieldwork thatrecovered a detailed set of accounting books and records used by a MBA gradturned drug kingpin.I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme stateof denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. That doesn'tnecessarily mean that the analytical tools they have developed over theyears cannot be used for good. The burgeoning fields of ecological and truecost economics are two examples of the application of the statisticaleconomic tools being used to address some of the issues that concern manypeople on this list. I just hope that they hurry up and spread the word alittle faster, actually a lot faster. You may want to check out this linkas a place to starthttp://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/economists.htmlDoug-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of robert andbenita rabelloSent: June 20, 2006 12:38 AMTo: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] FreakonomicsDarryl McMahon wrote:There is an oblique reference to this in the archives. I have justfinished reading the book, and recommend that people put it on theirreading lists. (No time like the present to get on your publiclibrary's waiting list.)Yes, I think I'm the one who referenced it. This is one of mystockbroker sister's favorite books.I thoroughly enjoyed the book, even learned a thing or two. I was awareof the gun-related items, but I had not previously made the crime ratedrop connection in the U.S. with Roe vs. Wade.The causal relationships the author mentions are tangential, atbest. I'm sure a correlation can be made with the drop in crime rateversus GDP too. In fact, I'll bet you could correlate a drop in crimerate with the introduction of Viagra . . .Nice piece of de-spinning work. So many more subjects need more suchtreatment.It's a great book for NeoCons. From the epilogue:"But the fact of the matter is that Freakonomics-style thinkingsimply doesn't traffic in morality. As we suggested near the beginningof this book, if morality represents an ideal world, then economicsrepresents the actual world.If only we had reliable numbers . . . If only we could tabulate howmuch it REALLY costs to rape the environment, destroy human life andelevate the welfare of the wealthy over the welfare of the poor. At itscore, morality IS economics, but the paradigm is upside down."The most likely result of having read this book is a simple one: youmay find yourself asking a lot of questions. Many of them will lead tonothing. But some will produce answers that are interesting, evensurprising."Or entirely stupid. Take your pick!Sorry Darryl, but I'm simply NOT impressed . . .robert luis rabello"The Edge of Justice"Adventure for Your Mindhttp://www.newadventure.ca___ Biofuel mailing list
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of
Hi Mike, Yes, you are right. I should not have accused most economists of being in denial. I needed to be clearer. What really bugs meare those economists in the public eyewho make normative, positivistic statements about things that are really subjective matters of opinion. Both Keynesians andConservatives do so but I find the neoconsparticularly reticent to acknowledge that their anti-government faith/beliefprovides the theoretical underpinnings to most of their positions. I take issue withthose economists whoportray themselves as completely scientific and objective.Economists mustmake assumptions about the fundamental nature of human existence. A favourite example is the assumption that human beings are ration. There are clearlymany examples of when this is not true onat both the individual and societal levels. Nevertheless the assumption of rationalityremain generally accepted. Such assumptions cannot help but be biased by personal values yet they claim to be objective. If you are interested, a few years ago George Soros wrote an article called "The Capitalist Threat" in Harpers that touches on some of these issues. I recently re-read the article and was struck by the continued relevance of much of his argument. I should be clear that not all economists ignore these issues. It just seems that the ones who have a voice seem to gloss over the significant problems that exist within the field. Personally, I think that you are right about the public reaction to some economic research. I also feel that in many cases the public prefers to hear that there is a simple fix for incredibly complex problems. I'm just not certainthatthose pulling the levers recognise thatthe simple solutions may get them elected but they rarely solve the problems. Anyway, that's my $0.02. Now it's time to jump down from this soapbox. Doug -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Michael RedlerSent: June 20, 2006 11:52 AMTo: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics - in defence of Doug wrote: "I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme state of denial regarding their relationship to moral issues."I would agree that there is a detachment but, I'm not sure that it's denial. I mean, denial is a defense mechanism, right?Have they become defensive or do they see a close attachment tomoral issues as a leash which keeps their research withincurrent moral boundaries.I want to be careful not to make blanket statements because some economists may depend on moral issues because it's within the scope of their research. Those who don't include those issues (IMO) have grown accustomed tocertain methods and havecreated their own obstacles in reaching their objective.Personally, I'mequally interested in the public reaction to economists research. I think the degree by which peopleinterpret research as a call to action is a measure of howour culture submits to fear and hatred. ...my $.02 Mike Doug Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi RobertI'm afraid that I have to disagree your general dismissal of Levitt Dubner's book Freakonomics. Not all of the book was particularly grippingbut I thought the book provided ammunition for both the conservative andliberal camps. The correlation between legalize abortion in the US and thedramatic decline in some crime rates was controlled for other factors suchas increased police budgets, stiffer penalties, altered policing methods,etc. yet Levitt was still able to attribute a large majority of thediminished crime rate to legalized abortion. For me, the argument clincherwas that several states legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade and thosestates had crime rates fall before the rest of the country. The author evenstated that legalize abortion was clearly not the direct cause of a declinein the crime rate. Rather Levitt proposed that perhaps children who werenot rejected at birth by their parents are more likely behave in a sociallycondoned manner.Nor was all of the research in the book based strictly on correlationalanalysis. The section dealing with drug dealers who live with their motherswas based on evidence obtained from some sociological fieldwork thatrecovered a detailed set of accounting books and records used by a MBA gradturned drug kingpin.I do agree with you that most present day economists are in an extreme stateof denial regarding their relationship to moral issues. That doesn'tnecessarily mean that the analytical tools they have developed over theyears cannot be used for good. The burgeoning fields of ecological and truecost economics are two examples of the application of the statisticaleconomic tools being used to address some of the
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics
robert and benita rabello wrote: Darryl McMahon wrote: There is an oblique reference to this in the archives. I have just finished reading the book, and recommend that people put it on their reading lists. (No time like the present to get on your public library's waiting list.) Yes, I think I'm the one who referenced it. This is one of my stockbroker sister's favorite books. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, even learned a thing or two. I was aware of the gun-related items, but I had not previously made the crime rate drop connection in the U.S. with Roe vs. Wade. The causal relationships the author mentions are tangential, at best. I'm sure a correlation can be made with the drop in crime rate versus GDP too. In fact, I'll bet you could correlate a drop in crime rate with the introduction of Viagra . . . Actually, I've done some x-y correlation research in my day, and while it's been a while, the text of the book rings true with my experience. It strikes me that Levitt has done a reasonable job of substantiating his conclusions, as much as anyone can in the social sciences where running conscious control populations can be tricky. However, he's done a pretty good job of finding reasonable controls for comparisons from data typically collected for other purposes. So you might find a correlation between Viagra and crime rates, but could you posit a reasonable causal relationship, and show it across multiple time-frames and jurisdictions while consciously controlling for other likely connections? And that the reverse action leads to the reverse result. If so, I'd like to see the work backing that up. Nice piece of de-spinning work. So many more subjects need more such treatment. It's a great book for NeoCons. Interesting perspective. I certainly did not see it that way. In fact, I would have thought NeoCons would have hated it. I suppose anyone can find something they like in here, but NeoCons and the whole book, that I don't see. Maybe my definition of NeoCons is off. I tend to associate them with the current White House crowd (Bush II, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc) and the American religious right. I would not expect that crowd to welcome a positive correlation between free choice access to abortion and a lower crime rate. Or that for many categories of crime, harsher sentences are not a significant deterrent. Perhaps the NeoCons like the example that pools are more dangerous for toddlers than guns. However, it's not like Levitt is trying to extrapolate that result to the general population, and doing so is disingenuous. From the epilogue: But the fact of the matter is that iFreakonomics/i-style thinking simply doesn't traffic in morality. As we suggested near the beginning of this book, if morality represents an ideal world, then economics represents the actual world. If only we had reliable numbers . . . If only we could tabulate how much it REALLY costs to rape the environment, destroy human life and elevate the welfare of the wealthy over the welfare of the poor. At its core, morality IS economics, but the paradigm is upside down. I disagree. I don't think morality has much of a relationship with economics, any more than physics. If a meteorite strikes the earth and kills people, that's reality that can be explained by physics, but I don't ascribe any morality to the event. Economics attempts to explain the actions of individuals relative to their choices in the use of resources. Levitt gives a couple of cases where the economic incentives are in conflict with the presumed moral choice. Which one wins depends on the individual. The take-away for me is that we should be doing a better job of aligning incentives with morality as a society, not putting them in conflict to see which wins. If we want to expend the effort, I'm sure we can get a reasonable estimate of how much it costs to destroy the environment, and human life and extracting wealth from the poor for the benefit of the rich. (That may come in a later post; I'm currently reading The Weather Makers by Flannery; in a word-terrifying.) I trust you feel this direction is counter to your morality; it is counter to mine. So, I would not expend the effort on the accounting analysis. Economics is a tool, like a shovel. You can use a shovel to cultivate the garden, or stove in your neighbour's head. The shovel has no inherent morality. Economics can be used to our benefit (e.g. Schumacher) or our detriment (e.g. Reagan supply-side economics, and I would argue Friedman's monetarism - but that's another debate). So long as we permit social policies to incent action that is contrary to our morality, it is not the fault of economics that it can explain the mechanism or keep score; it is our fault for permitting the policy to remain in effect. The thing I hope most people take away from this
[Biofuel] Freakonomics
There is an oblique reference to this in the archives. I have just finished reading the book, and recommend that people put it on their reading lists. (No time like the present to get on your public library's waiting list.) I thoroughly enjoyed the book, even learned a thing or two. I was aware of the gun-related items, but I had not previously made the crime rate drop connection in the U.S. with Roe vs. Wade. I passed the book to my 16-year-old son. His impression was also favourable. Nice piece of de-spinning work. So many more subjects need more such treatment. From the epilogue: But the fact of the matter is that iFreakonomics/i-style thinking simply doesn't traffic in morality. As we suggested near the beginning of this book, if morality represents an ideal world, then economics represents the actual world. The most likely result of having read this book is a simple one: you may find yourself asking a lot of questions. Many of them will lead to nothing. But some will produce answers that are interesting, even surprising. -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Freakonomics
Darryl McMahon wrote: There is an oblique reference to this in the archives. I have just finished reading the book, and recommend that people put it on their reading lists. (No time like the present to get on your public library's waiting list.) Yes, I think I'm the one who referenced it. This is one of my stockbroker sister's favorite books. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, even learned a thing or two. I was aware of the gun-related items, but I had not previously made the crime rate drop connection in the U.S. with Roe vs. Wade. The causal relationships the author mentions are tangential, at best. I'm sure a correlation can be made with the drop in crime rate versus GDP too. In fact, I'll bet you could correlate a drop in crime rate with the introduction of Viagra . . . Nice piece of de-spinning work. So many more subjects need more such treatment. It's a great book for NeoCons. From the epilogue: But the fact of the matter is that iFreakonomics/i-style thinking simply doesn't traffic in morality. As we suggested near the beginning of this book, if morality represents an ideal world, then economics represents the actual world. If only we had reliable numbers . . . If only we could tabulate how much it REALLY costs to rape the environment, destroy human life and elevate the welfare of the wealthy over the welfare of the poor. At its core, morality IS economics, but the paradigm is upside down. The most likely result of having read this book is a simple one: you may find yourself asking a lot of questions. Many of them will lead to nothing. But some will produce answers that are interesting, even surprising. Or entirely stupid. Take your pick! Sorry Darryl, but I'm simply NOT impressed . . . robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
