Disqus - Latest Comments for stephen

Re: Why Americans Breed

stephen — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:45:20 -0000

I'll buy it. But mostly cause I want to.

There might be too many confounding variables to be sure; reminding me of a debunking Julian Sanchez gave to a Heritage Foundation study about divorce rates and pre-marital sex.

For instance, is there some value set X that gives rise to both flexible-labor-markets Y and high-birth-rates Z, such that Y is not causation for Z? Conservatives tend to value both; we are certainly more conservative then Europe.

In addition there might be pessimism in this country about other things that yields higher birth rates for whiteys. Because the State plays a lesser role in old age perhaps more people conclude that having children might be a good insurance policy for retirement in case something goes wrong. (I should note I don't really buy this one very much myself). This also might be an extension of the first argument.

Other then that, sounds like its time for some tequila.

Re: Why Americans Breed

stephen — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:22:28 -0000

We could probably increase birthrates with ruinously high tax rates and abolition of govt. old-age pensions. We’d need kids as insurance.

That is a really interesting conclusion on the trends you pointed out. I never would have seen that. And yes I agree, it would be a terrible idea.

Re: Mobility vs. Movement

stephen — Thu, 31 May 2007 10:39:43 -0000

This is true. Anecdote coming...

I could have made at least 1.25 to 1.5 the amount I make now if I had pursued the engineering specialty I was trained for in school. Even more if I decided to go to grad school. But I passed on the opportunity in order to pursue a possible indie rock career, which at the time was very plausible. Two things were necessary: remain in the same city, and acquire a well paying job that was flexible and ultimately disposable.

So I guess it is a story of opportunity costs. Although we had several label opportunities in the end the band just didn't have what it takes. This is fine, I am in the process of changing courses, yet again, and will succeed I am sure, although I will never accumulate the amount of wealth my parents were able to. But it doesn't matter because I was aware of the cost going in and was willing to pay it.

This is a very common theme I see all of the time, especially where I am from. Almost ever indie band coming out of Austin that you might have heard of (or might one day) comes from upper-middle to upper class families, and almost all have sacrificed college educations, or post graduate careers, in order to "make it". Most of them wont, but that is not the point. It is the vast amount of wealth, opportunities, and mobility we have in this country that allow individuals to make these kinds of choices and trade-offs to begin with.

Re: Happiness and the Ideological Mediation of Adaptation

stephen — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:31:21 -0000

Interesting. If true, would this say anything about the "left" leaning bias of Academia, and the "right" leaning bias in industry?

Re: Against Patriotism

stephen — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:42:34 -0000

Oh Will, you have got it ALL WRONG!

The true purpose of patriotism is to give meaning to the World Cup. Or adding value to how many players form your country make it to the 2nd week of Wimbledon...or, in this years case, the 3rd week.

Anyway, happy 4th to all.

Oh, and go Federer.

Re: Money and Status: It Really Is Up to You

stephen — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:11:24 -0000

Jacob

I don't think conspicuous consumption of the uber-wealthy is really the point. For that to be true there would have to be inter-"class" competition for status. Will, and others, as well as basic common sense has shown this not to be true: the guy making 100k doesn't compete for status with Bill Gates, hence he doesn't care what Bill "conspicuously consumes". In addition I am not convinced that there are no positive externalities to the consumption habits of the wealthy, even ones that seem based on status seeking. Almost all art, music, design, and so on seem to have their origins in the need for wealthy people separate themselves from each other. A good case for this could also be made for a lot of tech innovations and “useless” scholarly research.

......

I really wonder how much Ezra and others really buy into this hooey. It seems, to me, a case of conformation bias. He already believes in a highly progressive tax schedule and would like to increase it, a new study/argument come along that supports his belief, so he defends it even though its obviously stupid. He is too smart for that.

It reminds me of extreme supply-siders who put an excessive amount of weight on the “increased revenues” part of the theory. Not only is this not provable (if anything its actually false) but its also the weakest reason to support tax cuts. It seems to me to be superfluous and defeating to defend such weak arguments. Just let them go.

Anyway, the main problem with governing the status seeking habits of individuals is that there is no end in sight. And it also seems to me that non-monetary status races are the most brutal. Winding up with the lesser house or car is pretty easy to get over, but coming in second when your chasing women or prestigious tenured position, well that just sucks. But, of course, that’s probably just my preference order.

Re: The Paid Vacation Laffer Curve

stephen — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:36:37 -0000

An government-ordered increase in paid vacation time is a reduction in the supply of labor

This is so boneheaded.

A decrease in the labor supply would be a reduction in workers, not a change in how they are compensated. Which is why, all things remaining the same - after all the number of workers has not changed!- wages will drop. Sorry, no free ponies.

Re: More Chait Action

stephen — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:41:49 -0000

Oh man, now you’re picking on the "empiricism" thing again. What did this dude ever do to you?

It's just not fair - he is a journalist after all. You should cut him some slack.

Re: More Chait Action

stephen — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:48:16 -0000

Oh BTW, Will, if you have not seen King of Kong yet you need to. I couldn't stop thinking about your theories on relative status hierarchies while watching it. That's all.

Re: Eat Local, Yokel

stephen — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:22:38 -0000

The funniest part of the whole thing, to me anyway, is the arbitrary nature of “local”. Once upon a time it was “Made in the USA” before that wasn’t good enough. Now you have to buy at the state level, or within a city, which is the ultimate. But why stop there? Why not “buy north side of town”, or “south-east quadrant”? And of course the dude who grows his own tomatoes and his own ipod wins. That’s my goal “localist consumer of all”. To do it, I am going to define “local” as “the Earth”. That way I can rock the lingo and have the largest basket of goods available.

Re: Obama Is Not

stephen — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:10:07 -0000

ok, ok, now tell us what winston thought of the "Debate!?" and, of course, you must show a picture during transmission.

Re: Inerrant Conduit of the General Will

stephen — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:00:16 -0000

totally sweet.

Re: Obama’s Economic Xenophobia

stephen — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:34:45 -0000

thanks for watching that for me. or us. whatever, thanks, dog.

Re: The Crisis of American Financial Dirigisme

stephen — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:42:09 -0000

3 more times. its going to take 3 more iterations of history doing the same thing until we realize. ok, maybe 4. but that is as high as i go.

Re: Let’s Measure Meaning!

stephen — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:51:39 -0000

i dug both, but the B-side was better. 100% will, no ice.

Re: Tyler on Voting

stephen — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:16:03 -0000

yeah, whatevs. there is no wrong answer on this one. i only voted so i could say no on some pretty lame local ballot initiatives, and so went the straight "Lib" ticket to simplify the rest. in the end i am too many standard deviations from the mean to ever have a meaningful candidate to vote for, but the local elections actually do matter - kinda.

Re: Why Talk About Corporatism In the Abstract

stephen — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:51:19 -0000

our will is an awsome will!

dude, you have been cracking me up for about two weeks now. its like crack.

Re: Getting the Numbers Right

stephen — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:40:18 -0000

who is your control group? are they going under too?

Re: Canada’s Leading Public Intellectual

stephen — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:05:24 -0000

"what she's against is ideologically driven theory, be it left or right."

just had to see that again. thats all, carry on.

Re: Pre-Dawn Elephant Groping

stephen — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:21:00 -0000

what would be totally rad is if you posted a response from this dood. being the sole arbitor rad, in my world, i know this.

http://www.winterspeak.com/2008/12/does-not-und...

Re: The Lost World

stephen — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:37:31 -0000

look, all i know is that the hardest part about being a rollerblader is telling your dad you're gay. especially if he happens to be a skier, those guys are nazis.

Re: Tyler Cowen Fans

stephen — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:25:45 -0000

dude, what did you put in that straw? that is some good shit!

Re: Don’t Grow Up to Be Shepherd Fairey

stephen — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:11:00 -0000

hear that will? how dare you question the leader! 'cause, like, bush, and cheney, and something or other!

anyway, robert (and history!) are coming for you, and they are armed with google, and a 27 by 40 poster!

Re: More Fun With Polls

stephen — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:33:35 -0000

the trade offs in this poll were so intense. i apparently don't care as much about the size of goobberment as much as i thought!

this changed my life. forever. or, until we get new buttons to push.

by the way, buttons definitely are the most superior of superior ways to actuate stuff.

Re: Morality: A Kludge of Kludges

stephen — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:33:58 -0000

will, this is a great lecture. for the first 30 minutes or so all i could think about was leon kass. i am glad stich brought him up, and then gave him as much time as he deserves. anyway, you should totally get dan kelly on bhtv, for realz.

Re: Place. Limits. Liberty.

stephen — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:02:43 -0000

will, dude,

i have been waiting for you to take on the front-porch-kibbutz for awhile now. thank you for engagement.

btw. have you checked e.d. kain's post, at ordinary gentlemen, on prosperity yet? please read it, please comment. for me? thanx. the short: because of the boom and bust nature of our false individualist/consumerist culture it is obvious we are better off subsistence farming, or something.

Re: Bloggingheads TV with Joseph Heath on Filthy Lucre

stephen — Sat, 02 May 2009 05:31:39 -0000

Well, his story is that moral hazard, which varies from one type of insurance to the next, makes insuance impsossible if large enough in any particular market.

Although all insurance creates some moral hazard it is hard to tell a story about how life insurance would increase moral hazard all that much. People don't seem to be in a rush to collect on their policies!

I wouldn't say that government has crowded out auto insurance however, private auto insurance markets opperate perfectly well as far as I know. Mandating liability coverage, for those who choose to drive, isn't the same as government supplied insurance.

Anyway, I too enjoyed that part of the conversation!

Re: Should Freedom-Loving Americans Fear the Mexican Voter?

stephen — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:43:01 -0000

First, it is wrong to take a preference for redistribution to say much about liberty at all–even economic liberty

I disagree. Maybe it doesn't matter all that much but who is to say? Thats the problem with determining quantitative values for ambiguous concepts like "economic liberty", preferences differ across individuals.

This is why these indexes tend to be kind of silly, weighted averages of different variables can't be done objectively. If you want to measure a certain variable and compare then do so, but why stuff several variables, with subjective weights into a single average and call it the such-and-such-index? What do I really get from this?

To take an absurd example, what if I come from a region that produces 99% of all global goods and services, yet levies a 100% tariff on all imports, the value received for "trade freedom" in this scenario would be about zero. What weight should I attach to this value? The Heritage index would give it 10%, I would give it zero. I would say I don't feel any less free from this tariff.

In addition, as Andrew Gelman has pointed out,sometimes the variation in some variables across regions may be quite small but relatively large for other ones. So what winds up happening is that the the index becomes a measure of only a couple of the variables yet reports to be a measure of a wider range. I consider this misleading. Although, I should say, this is a a complaint about relative ranking indexes in general, I haven't had the time to go through the Heritage index properly.

As for whether or not Mexican immigration will increase redistribution pressure in the American political system, no one really knows. You don't think it will, I do, I guess only time will tell. Lets say for arguments sake that Mexican immigration does increase redistribution, I see no reason why someone concerned with "economic liberty" couldn't oppose it as a result.

Re: The Bailouts are Like Paying Off Molested Children

stephen — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:38:46 -0000

"We redistribute out of a desire to fix structural imbalances that unduly harm some.

To rip off Hanson a bit, perhaps "we" redistribute to signal solidarity and concern for the poor. Maybe not, but I buy it.

For instance:

"I can see an argument where it is unfair to have your money taxed away from you. To think that this unfairness is equal or even comparable to the unfairness of being born into poverty and all of its attendant suffering just doesn't compute for me."

So in this scenario being born poor and having your money are both considered unfair, albeit unequally. Taxation is necessary because some people are poor, and some people are poor because they were born poor. It would then follow that both unfairnesses have same root cause: poor people having children. The logical solution would be to require people to have the means to pay for their children before they have them. But, of course, this would send the wrong signal.

Re: The Bailouts are Like Paying Off Molested Children

stephen — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:24:21 -0000

But "my" proposal would do that. And, yes, it would be very controversial.

Re: Is Poverty a Violation of Human Rights?

stephen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:58:42 -0000

It seems that the only interesting question here is whether or not to consider prosperity a natural right. All of the reasons why the social contract argument won't get very much purchase concerning international claims have already been stated.

The thing that keeps swimming around in my head is how trivial the concept of natural rights becomes once we allow positive liberties into the category. It seems there is an infinite number of positive liberties with low probabilities of access and no responsible party that could fit the profile, prosperity being only one. For instance, why not let in access to immortality? Sounds good to me.

Anyway, I am not saying that access to prosperity shouldn't be considered a natural right, I just feel that allowing for it makes the concept marginally more meaningless.

Re: Is Poverty a Violation of Human Rights?

stephen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:02:31 -0000

...Assuming, of course, that the concept of natural rights is meaningful in the first place.

Re: The Poor but Unusually Chipper and Long-Lived Index

stephen — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:02:49 -0000

I have a certain fondness for ridiculous, made-up statistical identities that have utterly meaningless units that get paraded around as if some new law of physics has been discovered. And of course you can't just pull a meaningless variable out of your ass without adjusting and normalizing it to get the conclusion you started with, thats what we call Science, baby.

On the other hand, maybe we have finally discovered the true consequence of Colonialism, an oppressively high Alpha-Coefficient!

Anyway, equal entitlement per person is easy to reject and most (all?) people do, including "believers", as evident by the way they actually live. Some people add a high amount of value to society, some don't. Some societies add a high amount of value to global human welfare, and some don't. That was easy.

Re: Health Care and Income Inequality

stephen — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:41:21 -0000

About % 90 of health care consumption, in the U S of A, is paid for by third parties. That is up from about % 50 in the 1950's. It is a pretty well known trend. You can check out these charts, the data comes from the OECD Healthcare Database.

http://www.piie.com/realtime/?p=595

Re: Gregory Clark Uses Computer over Phone, Predicts “Economic Redundany” of Working Class

stephen — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:55:18 -0000

The debate about education, intelligence distributions and how much they can be shifted aside, I think Greg has a pretty strong point about the shift from cyclical unemployment risk to structural unemployment risk. No matter how smart or educated a person is it takes a long time to build up a certain kind and amount of human capital, and if demand for that capital permanently declines the probability of retraining is low and inversely proportional with age. If automation starts to replace large segments of the labor market at a fast enough rate this could be a problem, at least in theory.

Anyway, I think we are seeing a shift from cyclical to structural unemployment as a result of hyper-specialization and I think it is a real difference from the last 200 years. Arnold Kling has been making this point for a while now and I am curious to hear what he has to say about Greg's Op-ed.

On a lighter note, I certainly welcome the overlords crowding us all out so we can play music and tennis all day. Work is boring after all.

Re: Health Care and Income Inequality

stephen — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:22:48 -0000

Anne

You are definitely right about the ambiguity. I can't tell exactly what they meant by "financed out of household income". Are they referring to people whipping out the credit card or dipping into personal savings, or are they including premiums and medicare/medicaid payments in the income definition? I took it to mean the former and you are making a good case for the latter, in which case it it does seem like a hard circle to square.

I should say however, if I remember correctly, the inequality calculation does not include tax transfers, which would definitely include Medicare and Medicaid which accounts for about %50 of all health care spending. I have no idea, though, if employer paid premiums are included. Either way your point is well taken.

Re: Gregory Clark Uses Computer over Phone, Predicts “Economic Redundany” of Working Class

stephen — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:49:31 -0000

On second reading, I see that Greg never made this point. Sorry about that, I read his piece yesterday. Sometimes I really have no idea how my memory of what I read is what it is.

Re: What We Are Not Embarrassed Of

stephen — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:46:07 -0000

What's really embarrassing is to believe that Marx (who even said before he died, "I am not a Marxist") would have approved of 20th-century Marxist movements

This claim was never made.

On the other hand, Rand would have championed the rise of neoliberalism

A) Who cares.

B) If she would have preferred neo-liberalism to Marxism that would have made her "correct". Ditto for Karl.

18,000 people die in each year from lack of health insurance.

The spurious nature of this claim aside, you are right about one thing, societies dealing with abject poverty usually are not too concerned with wonky details about the provision of insurance.

Re: What We Are Not Embarrassed Of

stephen — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:19:55 -0000

Fact is, commitment to some kind of socialism and fluency in the jargon of Marxism used to be mandatory for serious intellectuals. And there’s something glamorous in the very idea of the intellectual....So it is not only possible proudly to confess Marx’s influence on one’s thought, but it remains possible in some quarters to impress by doing so.

I would love to hear what Robin Hanson would have to say.

Re: America Lost

stephen — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:20:03 -0000

S'all good, the FBI is now in charge. Problem solved.

Seriously, I wonder if Tyler is right. Will exposing the torture that has taken place actually create popular support in some weird screwed up way? I guess we will see.

Re: Guns and Presidents

stephen — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:07:33 -0000

"The value of keeping gun carriers from intimidating others at political events"

It seems to me that the packing of heat at a political event is a signaling mechanism similar to the way people will sport signs, partisan clothes, or participate in silly chanting. It seems that guns are now a part of the mix. The "content" of the message is pedestrian and beside the point. Signaling which team you play for is the real game.

I could be wrong, but signaling tells a more plausible story, to me anyway, then raw intimidation.