Re: the answer is...
Recognizing the striking political split between rural America and Metropolis America, would anyone care to speculate/analyze the underlying causes? Is it that one party offers comparative economic advantages to Metropolis America and the other party offers comparative economic advantages to rural America? Is it that one party tends to appeal culturally to those people who live in or migrate to Metropolis America, while the other party tends to appeal culturally to those people who live or migrate to rural America? Adding one more item of information to fuel speculation/analysis--reportedly, among the most striking cultural divides are white birth rates in Red areas vs. Blue areas. Walt Warnick -Original Message- From: William Dickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the answer is... Cyril Morong [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/16/04 04:39PM Could there be some collinearity with education or educational attainment? If people with more education make more income (and were more likely to vote for Kerry), maybe something else is going on. I actually don't know if Kerry got more support from the best educated. This is an interesting question. Historically Democratic support is strongest at the two ends of the education distribution (Less than HS and advanced degrees) while Republican support is strongest with the college educated. Early on in the campaign there was at least one poll that suggested that this had changed radically and that Bush was pulling only from the least well educated. But at least one set of exit polls showed the historical relationship (see attached provided to me by Eric Crampton). That said, there is no reason why the relationship at the state level should be the same as the relationship at the individual level. The reason I guessed .75 as the correlation is because I've run a similar correlation with AFQT scores a while back and had some idea of how strong and close to linear the relationship is between state characteristics and Democratic vote share. And yes, there is a lot of multicolinearity here. All these characteristics line up fairly well (education, income, IQ etc.). All this shows, is something else that we know from the post election discussion. Republicans are increasingly the party of rural America and the ex-urbs while the Democrats are the party of Metropolis. Even in the South most cities voted democratic while in the bluest of blue states the rural areas voted Bush. More rural states vote Republican more and have lower income, education and test scores. - - 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
RE: Cost benefit analysis
Oneproblem with applying CBA to policy formulation isensuring reliability and objectivity.Too often, CBA is manipulatedforpredetermined policy positions.EPA once produceda Regulatory Impact Analysis that contended that benefits fromthe phaseout of CFCsare $8 trillion to $32 trillion. In such cases, CBA does more to confound, rather than illuminate, rational policy formulation. Is there a practical way for policy makers to assess the reliability and objectivity of CBA? Walt Warnick -Original Message-From: Driessnack, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:56 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Cost benefit analysis In defense you can say that almost all of the weapons related spending (Procurement and RDTE budget almost half of the budget when you consider the spare purchases) is accomplished having gone through some CBA in the process of deciding the approach to develop, procure, and then maintain the equipment. An Analysis of Alternative is required along with estimates (actually by several layers of organizations). The other source to look at would be the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). This policy drives use of CBA for certain purchases. So you could estimate off of this policy! jdd John D Driessnack, PMP, CCE/A Professor, Defense Acquisition University PMT-250/352, DAU Risk/Tools Subject Matter Expert DAWIA PM, Acq Logi, FM Level III NE-Capital Campus, Faculty Department Program Management and Leadership 9820 Belvoir Rd, Building 205, Room 115B Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-5565 703-805-4655 (DSN-655) [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX 703-805-3728 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:16 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Cost benefit analysis Does anyone know how often CBA is actually used in making policy? What percent of the federal budget (or state or local) has been determined by CBA?Cyril Morong
RE: Tax cuts and US citizen responses
Despite what you may read in the press, the overall effect of the President's previous round of tax cuts was to make the tax system more progressive, not less progressive. In other words, those with high incomes end up contributing a higher percentage of tax revenues after the cuts than they did before the cuts. Regarding the current round of tax cuts, I would like to see an analysis of the expected net effect on progressivity (not that I am advocate for progressivity). While some provisions make the system more progressive, others make it less progressive, but what is the net effect on progressivity? Walt Warnick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tax cuts and US citizen responses In a message dated 1/13/03 7:33:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can anyone explain why ordinary Americans are not objecting to tax cuts (such as dividend tax cuts) that will only favour the top percentiles of the wealthy ? Koushik In absolute terms, the tax cut would favor those with higher incomes (rather than the wealthy) because those with higher incomes pay much larger absolute amounts of actual taxes. The top half of the income distribution in the US pays almost 100% of the taxes. If the government cuts the amount by which it taxes everyone by the lesser of his or her actual tax and, say $1,000 to simplify, the people paying $1,000 and above will obviously get much larger tax cuts than those paying less than $1,000. Proprotionally, however, everyone playing $1,000 or less gets a larger percentage tax cut (100%) than everyone paying more than $1,000. Someone paying $100,000 a year gets only a 1% tax cut. With my low income--let's say I'd have to pay $200 in tax otherwise--I get a 100% tax cut, which pays for weeks of groceries for me, I don't care that someone who pays $100,000 in taxes get times as large a tax cut as I do. Someone might say, hey, the rich got a tax cut five times as large as yours to try to get me angry, but meanwhile I get my100% tax cut and buy my groceries. I'm reasonably happy. If I compare myself at all with the person paying $99,000, I'm envious not of his or her 1% tax cut, but of his or her ability to earn so much income that he pays more in taxes than I earn in income. As a CPA tax-professional at the now-imfamous Arthur Andersen back in the 1980s I often prepared tax returns for clients who paid more in taxes than I earned in salary. :) David Levenstam
RE: Babynomics
For what it is worth to those on the list who are not parents, here is my experience as a parent. Children understand the concept of property before the age of 9 months. Before the age of 12 months, they understand that certain behaviors bring about favorable or unfavorable reactions from parents, which is tantamount to a trade of behaviors between parent and child. (My theory of parenting holds that parents are likely to be happy with the life-long behavior of their child if at the pre-toddler stage the child wants to please the parents; and the pre-toddler is most likely to want to please the parents if the parents (especially the mother) have encouraged an exchange of favorable and unfavorable behaviors.) Also by age 12 months, children can understand exchange of goods; e.g., give up one toy in exchange for a more desired toy; the concept of exchange is more easily grasped by the child than are the words that describe the exchange; in other words, the concept of exchange is more easily communicated by demonstration than by words, as the child's verbal understanding lags behind. Hope this helps those on the list who are not parents. Walt Warnick -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 10:46 AM 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
RE: (book review)The Case against Government Science
Francois-Rene Rideau reads much more into the discussion than was said. Except for 1) his incorrect inferences about my views about topics important to economics, 2) improperly paraphrasing what I wrote, and 3) the name calling, I agree with his points, and always have. As for being part of a statist economy, I plead guilty, along with many other members of this list whose salaries come from government schools, private schools sustained by government funds, and government agencies. It may be presumptuous of me to speak on behalf of those of us who are part of the statist economy, but I suspect that we would rather be judged by what we write or do (more precisely, which future among achievable alternatives do we help to create), than on where we work. Perhaps an analogy might help. In 1993, a popular movie was made about Oskar Schindler, who was a member of the Nazi party and a profiteer during World War II. But this is not why the movie was made; rather, the movie was made because Schindler saved lives; i.e., he created a future that was much preferred over achievable alternatives. While none of us on this list face anything like that degree of risk, my guess is that, with few exceptions, those on this list have consciously risked careers and opportunities to help create a future more consistent with the themes of this list. Walt Warnick -Original Message- From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:fare;tunes.org] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:28:04PM -0400, Warnick, Walt wrote: Anecdotal evidence abounds to show that basic research selected and funded by the Federal government has produced enormous benefits. [...] I am amazed to find here such a blatant example of the What is seen and what is not seen fallacy. The point is not whether government did some good. By that measure, the russians being richer in 1991 than in 1917, we could say that communism was a wonderful experience (please replace by whichever phenomenon you love to hate, that lasted long enough - absolute monarchy? slavery? protectionism? belief in a flat earth? some or some other official religion?). The fallacy is that you don't choose between the past and the future. You choose between several futures. Comparing the state of science in 1950 to the state of science in 1980, and saying hey, government did great! is an utter fallacy. What you must compare is the state of science in 1980 under some assumptions to the state of science in 1980 under some other assumptions - and then find which assumption is more favorable. But even then, science is not the only thing to consider so as to judge - and you must consider other factors, too. When comparing benefits, you must compare the cost - and time itself is part of the cost; it is a resource that could have been used in different ways. Said other wise: only choices matter. The only costs are opportunity costs, and so are the only benefits. Determining an optimal level of funding for basic research is a problem that has not, so far, yielded to analytic solution. Rather, setting levels of research is an entirely political process. In recent years, NIH has been growing by leaps and bounds. You speak like a technocrat: your discourse is full of anerisms, and false solutions to false problems. The emptiness of your discourse is directly tied to your statist point of view (see the origins of the word statistics, e.g. in the recent book Damn Lies and Statistics). Statist economy is an intellectual fraud, and I'm afraid you're part of it. I thought this mailing-list was precisely about showing how the praxeological economist point of view applies to all fields of human action. I suppose it also shows how statist economists may invade just any field of knowledge, so as to further their sick memes. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] There is no such thing as a necessary evil. If it's necessary, then it cannot be evil, neither can it be good: it's a datum.-- Faré
