Re: Women Don't Ask

2004-01-28 Thread john-morrow
Following the analogy of price control, any evidence that the group advocating
aggressive relationship bargining are the same ones who would generally benefit
by such a policy?  On a related note, do the strength of male/female bargining
positions in a long term relationship change as male libido decreases over their
20's and 30's and female libido peaks around 35-38?  (Think Battle of the
Sexes over several periods...)  Wild conjectures welcomed.

-- John Morrow

Quoting Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 I just read the well-reviewed *Women Don't Ask* by Babcock and
 Laschever.  Main thesis: Women should bargain harder.

 It is frankly kind of silly.  The whole book makes it sound like
 aggressive bargaining is a strictly dominant strategy, so women will
 definitely be better off if they do more of it.  It never considers the
 obvious possibility that women will price themselves out of a job.  Nor
 does it explore the interesting possibility that one reason female
 employees are doing so well in spite of obvious child-related drawbacks
 is precisely that employers know that they are less likely to demand
 more money.

 The book also tries to get women to bargain more aggressively in
 relationships.  I think this is another case where feminist norms are
 likely to function as a price control - some women will get a better
 deal, but a lot of others will be unable to get married because their
 standards are too high.
  Prof. Bryan Caplan
 Department of Economics  George Mason University  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 I hope this has taught you kids a lesson: kids never learn.

 --Chief Wiggum, *The Simpsons*


2004-01-20 Thread john-morrow
I don't know if this is true, but I have been told the #1 shoplifted item is
Preparation H and like ointments -- this seems to fit in well with the theory
that people want to remain anonymous in purchasing V!agra...

Many choices

2004-01-04 Thread John Morrow
Although I would gamble Schwartz has more ideological than empirical
reasons for his conclusions, is there trend data available over multiple
years?  I don't think a point estimate is any way to gauge something like
happiness with respect to time.  As for surveys, from what I know of the
experimental literature, economists seem to put very little credence in
surveys aside from gathering rather concrete data (e.g. demographics,
independently verifiable data).  My impression is that survey research is
generally looked down upon -- if for no other reason than similar research
in other fields is often highly contestable and unsophisticated (in both
senses).  Surveys also beg the question of the incentive and ability of
respondents to answer in an externally valid way.  Monetary incentives used
to help ensure externally valid behavior seem to be a publishing
requirement of modern experiments -- incentives completely lacking by
nature in a survey.  However, this may be completely different in
particular subfields.
-- John Morrow

Re: Why is a dollar today worth more than a dollar tomorrow?

2003-12-06 Thread John Morrow
I recall a Japanese econ grad student telling me that in fact real interest
rates were negative for some span and people were STILL saving in the late
nineties in Japan.  He also blamed several bubbles at the time (notably,
real estate in Japan) on this.  Interesting if true...  (Anyone know the
details and can they justify the connection without resorting to framing
biases of investors?)

Fred, I think you answered your own question -- even if many people
would save some of their money even if the risk-free interest rate
were zero, the quantity of funds demanded by borrowers at this rate
would exceed the amount saved.  So, a positive interest rate induces
some people to defer consumption (save) and others to borrow less,
until the market clears.
And this would be the case even if there were no risk of nonpayment,
and no inflation/deflation.
By the way, there have been times and places where the measured real
interest rate was essentially zero; I think this happened in Japan in
the 1990s.

Re: Socialist health and starvation

2003-09-29 Thread john-morrow
I believe that even quite recently (in the last year or two) China was found
to be inflating its growth estimates significantly, and I have some
economically minded Indian friends who claim Indian estimates are also
intentionally inflated.  I believe at the collapse of the Soviet Union it was
found that may growth estimates were also inflated back into the Seventies at
least, so I would look towards number tampering in general as being a
contributing cause.

Quoting fabio guillermo rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 In preparing a lecture about socialist economies, I have come across the
 claim that socialist nations had decent life expectancies. How can that
 be?  We know that:

 (a) there have been episodes of mass starvation in the largest
 socialist nations (USSR, China)

 (b) socialist nations have often engaged in destructive wars
 against other nations (USSR) and against their own populations

 (c) chronic shortages of consumer goods, and in some cases,
 shortage of basic food stuffs (think of wheat imports to Russia
 and North Korea)

 (d) Socialist nations tend to be stressful places with mass arrests
 the like

 I could think of a few mechanisms: socialist nations tend to invest in the
 kind of infra-structurers that extend life (Education, sanitation, etc.),
 a vibrant black market, or most likely - vital statistics from these
 nations are hugely misleading.

 Any comments?