Credit rationing

[Hentrich, Steffen]

Dear armchairs,

i'm looking for a current review of capital market imperfection as an infant industry 
argument. Do you have any recommendations?

Thanks,

Steffen

Re: Republican Reversal

[fabio guillermo rojas]

 These are all good comments on the Republican reversal.  Thus, I take it
 that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the
 wishes of the voters.
 Alex

I'd say democracy reflects general trend in voter opinion pretty
well, although some policies may be way out of whack. For example,
who would argue that either Bush or Gore is very far from the median
voter (except on abortion)? Or that conservative states like Idaho
tend to have more conservative policies?

Fabio  

Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem - Puzzle

[Alex Tabarrok]

Here is a nice application/proof of Brouwer's Theorem in one
dimension from Mark Rubinstein's page 

http://www.in-the-money.com/

which has some other nice material as well.

--
One morning, exactly at sunrise, a Buddhist monk began to climb a tall
mountain.  The narrow path, no more than a foot or two wide, spiraled
around the mountain to a glittering temple at the summit.  The monk
ascended the path at varying rates of speed, stopping many times along
the way to rest and to eat the dried fruit he carried with him.  He
reached the temple shortly before sunset.  After several days of fasting
and meditation he began his journey back along the same path, starting
at sunrise and again walking at variable speeds with many pauses along
the way.  His average speed descending was, of course, greater than his
average climbing speed.

Prove that there is a spot along the path that the monk will occupy on
both trips at precisely the same time of day.
--

   One can prove this by showing that the puzzle satisfies the
assumptions of Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem but there is an intuitive
and satisfying answer also.  The answer can be found in Rubinstein's
page but I'll also post it in a follow up-message - but no cheating!

Alex

-- 
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]

RE: Republican Reversal

[John Samples]

There is some political science on this question. Perhaps the leading article in 
Dynamic Representation by James Stimson and his colleagues, American Political 
Science Review, 1995. They argue policy follows public opinion closely. 
 
John Samples
Washington, DC

-Original Message- 
From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wed 6/26/2002 1:48 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Republican Reversal



 These are all good comments on the Republican reversal.  Thus, I take it
 that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the
 wishes of the voters.
 Alex

I'd say democracy reflects general trend in voter opinion pretty
well, although some policies may be way out of whack. For example,
who would argue that either Bush or Gore is very far from the median
voter (except on abortion)? Or that conservative states like Idaho
tend to have more conservative policies?

Fabio 







winmail.dat
Description: application/ms-tnef

RE: Republican Reversal

[John Samples]

I always thought the Republican challenge was given voice by an elderly woman in USA 
Today who said, when asked about the government shutdown, They can close the whole 
thing down as far as I'm concerned as long as they get the Social Security checks 
out.
 
John Samples
Washington, DC

-Original Message- 
From: Carl Close [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tue 6/25/2002 8:18 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Republican Reversal



Alex asks whether the Radical Republicans that were swept into the
House in '94 were co-opted by institutions (Hypothesis #1), or
co-opted by their constituents' softer views (Hypothesis #2)?

I am inclined to hold Hypothesis #2. Why? Two reasons: First, if the
Republican politicians softened while their constituents remained
hardliners, then in the next elections they would have lost to
challengers who castigated them for selling out.

Second, the Radical Repubican Revolution didn't run deep in the
electorate. Much of the Radical Republican strategy and image was
forged by Newt Gingrich, who convinced many freshman Republicans to
sign the so-called Contract with America.

Gingrich saw the public's anger with Clinton (re: tax hikes, health
care, and don't ask, don't tell) as an opportunity to shoot for a
radical Republican agenda, but apparently misread the public, or at
least misread its support for Gingrich himself, who lost popularity
when his efforts contributed to temporary shutdowns of federal
services. (Remember federal buildings being forced to close down
for a day at a time, due to budget uncertainties?)

With the demise of Gingrich, the Radical Repubicans lost their
figurehead, and the so-called Radical Republican movement
evaporated. It evaporated because it was thin to begin with.

I don't think the above fully answers Alex's call for a way to
distinguish between Hypothesis #1 and Hypothesis #2, but perhaps it's
a good enough story to satisfy some of us.

Comments? Criticisms?

Carl

Remember when the Republicans took control of the house in 1994 for
the first time in something like 40 years and all the new young blood
was talking about cutting government programs and scaling back
everywhere?  Remember all the newspaper reports about how everything
would now change.  Yeah, I can hardly remember it either.  How distant
those days seem.  Notice that in recent days the Republicans have been
proudly asserting how much *more* expensive their prescription drug plan
is than the one Democrats have proposed.

   There are different ways of interpreting this volte-face.  One way
is to assert that this shows how corrupting the institutions of
Washington are, how even people with good ideas are sucked in to the
spending way of life etc.  Calls for term limits etc. follow.

  An alternative interpretation, but ultimately perhaps the same
thing, is to say that the public didn't really want what the Republicans
said they were offering and the failure of the cut government group is
simply a reflection of the public's desires.  In this view it's the
American people who are to blame for their government and not peculiar
institutions.

Comments?  Ways to distinguish these explanations?

Alex
--
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]







winmail.dat
Description: application/ms-tnef