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: Charity
I remember a discussion with Bryan, where he claimed that the average proportion of income donated to charity is about 1% or 2%. Say somebody makes $30K, that $300/year. I can easily imagine a religious person giving a few bucks a week to church ($2x52= $110) plus maybe some extra during fund raising drives at church and work ($200 total). So people are willing to give about $30 month to charity. Is that low or high? I'd say it's probably ok, most people can't afford to give much anyway, with mortages, student loans, children, etc. Only the wealthy could give thousands and still pay the phone bill. Fabio On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Jason DeBacker wrote: Why don’t more people give more money to charity? If you asked someone if they would rather see $50 used to feed a child for a month or on another month cable TV (or whatever), I can’t imagine someone not saying that the child should be fed. But almost no one gives $50 a month to charity and many give that to watch cable television (or spend it on other “frivolous” purchases). Why does this happen? A few possible reasons: - The history of charitable money getting into the wrong hands has scared people from donating. - There is some kind of market failure (a la the story of the woman being attacked while the whole block watched and no one stopping it or calling the police). - People really don’t care about helping someone else, but are ashamed to admit that. - People just don’t think about donating. Regards, Jason DeBacker
Re: Charity
People give as much as they care to. To the extent that they give less than they'd claim they'd want to see given, it's because the former is a revealed preference and the latter is an expressive preference. There's only failure involved inasmuch as we let things be determined by expressive preferences (at the ballot box) rather than revealed preferences. 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. Eric On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Jason DeBacker wrote: Why don’t more people give more money to charity? If you asked someone if they would rather see $50 used to feed a child for a month or on another month cable TV (or whatever), I can’t imagine someone not saying that the child should be fed. But almost no one gives $50 a month to charity and many give that to watch cable television (or spend it on other “frivolous” purchases). Why does this happen? A few possible reasons: - The history of charitable money getting into the wrong hands has scared people from donating. - There is some kind of market failure (a la the story of the woman being attacked while the whole block watched and no one stopping it or calling the police). - People really don’t care about helping someone else, but are ashamed to admit that. - People just don’t think about donating. Regards, Jason DeBacker
Re: Charity
--- Jason DeBacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't more people give more money to charity? - The history of charitable money getting into the wrong hands has scared people from donating. Yes, and also the fact that in many charities, most, even up to 80 percent or more, of the donations go to fundraising and expenses. - There is some kind of market failure. But we don't have a pure market, so there may be government failure mixed into this. - People really don't care about helping someone else, but are ashamed to admit that. But there is a great deal of charity giving as well as much volunteer time. Social entrepreneurs can stir up sympathy for a cause. There is also a great lack of information about the various charity options. For example, my favorite charity is the Pygmy Fund, which is helping the Pygmy people in the Congo (Zaire) to survive amidst the war and disease in the area. It is a small organization that hardly anyone knows about. I donate to it because I know the head man (Jean-Pierre Hallet) and am confident that all of my donation is going to the cause rather than to fundraising and plush offices. It seems to me there is an entrepreneurial opportunity to provide a comprehensive Guide to Charities that would list them and their expenses. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Timing of Mother vs. Lover Flowers
Also Mother's day always falls on a Sunday which reduces delivery options (not to zero but fewer options are available on Sunday) and raises the attractiveness of sending flowers to arrive on the Friday or Saturday prior. Alex If someone personally cuts some flowers from a garden (with permission) and puts them in a vase one already has, in the general American culture, who would likely think that this is a thoughtful gift because of the personal effort, and who would likely think the giver was being cheap? a) mother b) wife c) exclusive girlfriend d) non-exclusive girlfriend Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Fabio Rojas wrote: somebody makes $30K [a year] ... willing to give about $30 month to charity. Is that low or high? I'd say it's probably ok, most people can't afford to give much anyway, with mortages, student loans, children, etc. Only the wealthy could give thousands and still pay the phone bill. Huh? This can't possibly be right. People could choose a cheaper mortgage, fewer children, etc. In a world with a median income of ~$3000, someone who makes ten times that much surely can choose to spend thousands on charity if they want to. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
RE: Timing of Mother vs. Lover Flowers
My mom would think it was a thoughtful gift and my wife (she is my exclusive girlfriend) would call me cheap. Lynn -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Timing of Mother vs. Lover Flowers Also Mother's day always falls on a Sunday which reduces delivery options (not to zero but fewer options are available on Sunday) and raises the attractiveness of sending flowers to arrive on the Friday or Saturday prior. Alex If someone personally cuts some flowers from a garden (with permission) and puts them in a vase one already has, in the general American culture, who would likely think that this is a thoughtful gift because of the personal effort, and who would likely think the giver was being cheap? a) mother b) wife c) exclusive girlfriend d) non-exclusive girlfriend Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
TV seasons
Why does TV have seasons? I know it's customary to propose possible answers to questions posted here, but I'm really stumped. I can't think of any reason why television networks all premier their new shows in the fall and play re-runs in the summer, instead of spreading out the premiers and re-runs more evenly throughout the year, or having seasons that aren't synchronized with each other. Why doesn't the fact that the competition is a lot weaker in the summer attract more premiers? And here's another TV related question. The LA Times has an article today on the recent FCC vote. It says that the broadcast spectrum currently used for television may be worth as much as $400 billion in an auction. How are the 15% of households who still watch TV over the air able to prevent this spectrum from being sold for another use?
Re: The Vote-Cost of Scandal
Hart went on a boat with Donna Rice and two other friends. The media never had any more evidence than that that he had an affair, but they crucified him for having an affair just the same. The same news media for months pretended that they didn't beieve that Clinton was having sex with Monica, and played it up as a plot of the evil Religious Right. Last time around it took years to find Saddam's hidden WMD. This time in a matter of weeks we've found protective gear, vaccines, shell for delivering chemical/biological agents, Iraqis who worked on the WMD, and 18 buried mobile biological warefare labs. I'm not clear why anyone still thinks we haven't found WMD. Are we waiting until American soldiers come down with anthrax? You'll also recall that Mush II cited Iraqi support for Al Queda as a reason to go to war. Nobody seems to recall that anymore, but we have found Al Queda agents in Iraqi--and of course the Al Queda training camp up in the north of Iraq. In a message dated 6/3/03 9:59:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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
stock trade patterns could predict financial earthquakes
Public release date: 14-May-2003 Contact: Denise Brehm [EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-253-2700 Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/www/ Stock trade patterns could help predict financial earthquakes CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The stock market has its share of shakeups, but who would guess that large movements in this man-made system adhere to a similar pattern of predictability as earthquake magnitudes? After analyzing four years of data from the world financial markets, an interdisciplinary team comprising an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and physicists from Boston University discovered that large-scale events in the stock market adhere to distinct patterns. They believe that market analysts could use these new findings to partially predict the chance of a market crash, although prevention is not possible. The frequency of crashes such as those in 1987 and 1929 follow these patterns, said Xavier Gabaix, assistant professor of economics at MIT and lead author of the paper describing this research, which is appearing in the May 15 issue of Nature. But that doesn't mean we'll be able to predict with certainty when a change will occur or which direction the change will go. The patterns found by the scientists are power laws--which describe mathematical relationships between the frequency of large and small events. One such power law is used to forecast the chances that an earthquake of a given magnitude will occur. In short, the scientists have shown that stock markets have a mathematical elegance frequently found in natural systems. We have found that the artificial world of the financial markets follows a pattern similar to one found in our natural world, said Gabaix. Trading on the stock market has a lot of randomness, but at the end of the day you find that a pattern emerges that matches power-law patterns found empirically in data from systems as diverse as earthquakes and human language. The team also found that the actions of large market participants, like mutual funds, produce this power-law behavior when they trade stock under time pressure. We want to understand financial earthquakes in order to protect people like you and me, whose retirement is tied up in the markets, said Professor H. Eugene Stanley, director of the Center for Polymer Studies at BU and a co-author of the paper. Fortunately in Tokyo they build buildings so that they don't succumb to earthquakes. We need to do the same thing in economics. BU physicists Dr. Parameswaran Gopikrishnan and Dr. Vasiliki Plerou are also co-authors. But our research suggests that the forces that give rise to the power laws of stock market fluctuations are extremely robust, said Gabaix. So unfortunately, such crashes would be very, very hard to prevent. If you put an extremely large amount of friction--in the form of regulations--into the system, you could prevent the crashes. But moderate amounts of frictions will make no difference, he added. In any case, before we can give advice on policy, we need more research to better understand all those regularities in the stock market. When applied to a precise computer model, the power laws might allow market analysts to predict a crash, but not necessarily prevent it. We believe that the computer model presently used by most analysts undercounts the number of large, rare events. That is what we're looking at next, said Gabaix. If we combine physics methods and economic reasoning, we may be on the right track. EMERGING PATTERNS In their paper, the scientists show that--for the market as a whole and for an individual stock--the daily volume of stocks traded, number of trades and price fluctuations follow power laws. For example, the number of days when a particular stock price moves by 1 percent will be eight times the number of days when that stock moves by 2 percent, which will in turn be eight times the number of days when that stock moves by 4 percent, which will in turn be eight times the number of days that stock moves by 8 percent, and so on. The same relationship (called the inverse cubic pattern) characterizes the number of daily trades. A similar power law (the inverse half-cubic pattern) describes the number of shares traded each day. For instance, if 100,000 shares of Apple stock were traded on 512 days during a certain period, then you can predict that there would be 64 days when 400,000 shares of Apple stock were traded, and eight days when 1,600,000 shares of Apple stock were traded, and one day when 6,400,000 shares of Apple stock were traded. To understand these patterns, the scientists looked at the size of large traders, such as mutual funds with more than $100 million in assets. They found that their size also follows a power law. The number of funds that manage $1 billion is twice the number of funds with $2 billion, which in turn is twice the number of funds with $4 billion, and so on. (This pattern is called Zipf's Law, named after
