Author Archive for Steve Landsburg

The Wrong Tool for the Job

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 19, 2012
in Bad Reasoning, Economics and Paul Krugman
. 43 Comments

Paul Krugman, defending the IS-LM (a/k/a “old Keynesian”) model of the macroeconomy as a non-rigorous but useful “scratchpad”, misses the point by a mile:

It’s a simplified model that more or less gets at what you think are the essentials of an issue, and is easy to work with, so you can use it to reach quick first-pass judgments about policy or whatever.

………

But IS-LM isn’t the prime example of a scratchpad. What is?

The answer is, supply and demand.

It is not easy to derive supply and demand curves for an individual good from general equilibrium with rational consumers blah blah. And it’s definitely not easy to justify consumer and producer surplus as measures of welfare. And there have always been some purists who condemn any use of the S and D curves we all grew up with, the use of triangles to measure welfare loss, and all that.

But for the most part nobody pays attention. The supply-and-demand framework is so convenient, while pretty much getting at what you want to get at, that it’s what almost everyone uses to get a first-pass analysis of economic issues.

Okay, look. Supply and demand (and, especially, triangles of welfare loss, etc) are not entirely rigorous, but they’re good useful simplifications that actually give useful (though approximate) answers to important policy questions. Sort of like Ohm’s Law for electrical circuits.

But IS-LM is not like that at all, because IS-LM does not even address the key policy questions in macroecomics. IS-LM can tell you, perhaps, how to fight a recession, but it can’t tell you whether the recession is worth fighting — not even loosely, because the model contains no individual utility functions and no social welfare function. It therefore does not allow you even to formulate the question of whether a given policy is worth its costs, because it provides no framework for weighing costs against benefits.

Continue reading ‘The Wrong Tool for the Job’

Share

Free to Choose

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 18, 2012
in Philosophy
. 92 Comments

The subject of free will came up earlier this week, and I notice that Sam Harris has a new book on the subject, which I have not yet read. Some of you have asked for me to elaborate on my remarks on this subject in The Big Questions. Here are a few bullet points:

Continue reading ‘Free to Choose’

Share

The Long Now

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 16, 2012
in Musings, Oddities, Philosophy and Self-Promotion
. 24 Comments

Here is a link to my piece in today’s issue of Time.com; and here’s the executive summary:

Deep inside a West Texas mountain, engineers are building a clock designed to click for 10,000 years. Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos has sunk $43 million into this project and that’s just a start. What’s the purpose? “To foster long-term thinking and responsibility in the framework of the next 10,000 years”, say the organizers.

Now thinking and responsibility are two different things, but it’s hard to see how this project is likely to encourage either. Re thinking: The question of what we owe to future generations is subtle and difficult and requires close attention to difficult arguments; it’s hard to see how a ticking clock will do to foster that kind of effort. And as for responsiblity — if responsibility means making a better life for our distant descendants, then Bezos’s $43 million would almost surely be better spent on lobbying for lower capital taxes. Whether the goal is thinking or responsibility, a giant clock seems like a giant waste of time.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

Charting the Tax Plans

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 16, 2012
in Back of the Envelope, Bad Reasoning, Current Events, Paul Krugman, Policy and Politics
. 48 Comments

Ezra Klein, quoted with approval by Paul Krugman, offers this chart of how the Obama and Romney tax proposals will change rates for taxpayers in various quintiles:

What we’re supposed to infer, according to Krugman, is that

we have an election in which one candidate is proposing a redistribution from the top … downward, mainly to lower-income workers, while the other is proposing a large redistribution from the poor and the middle class to the top.

But no such thing is remotely true. What we actually have is an election in which both candidates are proposing massive redistributions from the top downward, one slightly less so than the other. You’d never know this from looking at Klein’s chart because it illustrates changes in rates, whereas what actually matters is the rates themselves. It makes no sense to ask whether any particular group ought to be paying more or less without reference to how much they’re already paying.

Indeed, this is a classic example of what I once called the “Grandfather Fallacy” — by focusing on changes instead of absolutes, Klein’s chart conceals any existing inequities and hence treats them as “grandfathered in”.

Fortunately, Greg Mankiw has provided the numbers that allow us to make the requisite correction. Here, according to Mankiw, are the current tax burdens on various income groups (counting transfers as negative taxes, as of course one should):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent

Top one percent: 28 percent

That “-301 percent” means, for example, that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives $3.01 in net transfers for every $1 that it earns.

By adding these numbers to the numbers in Klein’s graph, we can construct a picture that actually depicts something interesting, namely the projected tax burdens for each group. It looks like this (the vertical axis represents percentage of income):

Note, for example, that, contrary to the impression you might have gotten from Klein’s and Krugman’s posts, both plans place the highest percentage burden on the top 1%, and both plans place a negative burden on the middle quintile — though Obama’s does both of these things to an ever-so-slightly greater extent than Romney’s does. There’s room for disagreement about which plan is fairer, but no room, I think, for disagreement about which chart is relevant.

Continue reading ‘Charting the Tax Plans’

Share

Chain Reaction

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 12, 2012
in Anecdotes, History, Math, Oddities, Religion and Statistics
. 38 Comments

If you study economics, or statistics, or chemistry, or mathematical biology, or thermodynamics, you’re sure to encounter the notion of a Markov chain — a random process whose future depends probabilistically on the present, but not on the past. If you travel through New York City, randomly turning left or right at each corner, then you’re following a Markov process, because the probability that you’ll end up at Carnegie Hall depends on where you are now, not on how you got there.

But even if you work with Markov processes every day, you’re probably unaware of their origins in a dispute about free will, Christianity, and the Law of Large Numbers.

Continue reading ‘Chain Reaction’

Share

Goodnight to the Street Sweepers, Night Watchmen, Flame Keepers…

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 11, 2012
in Music
. 6 Comments

More great music, a propos of nothing in particular:

(YouTube version here.)

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

Disposable Thumbs

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 10, 2012
in Fluff
. 26 Comments

The average economist would sacrifice 1.02 years of life to avoid losing a thumb, or .77 years of life to get a paper published in the American Economic Review. An AER publication, then, is worth about 3/4 of a thumb.

We learn this from a study by three economists who sent out 1300 questionnaires, all to economists who had recently published in one of six major journals. They received 85 responses. Of these, 7 were discarded because they claimed to value their thumbs more than their entire hands, or their hands more than their entire arms, and another four were discarded because they indicated they were willing to sacrifice life-years for the privilege of losing a body part. The remaining 74 respondents valued their body parts as follows:

Continue reading ‘Disposable Thumbs’

Share

China Doll

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 9, 2012
in Romance
. 39 Comments

China has one of the highest male-female sex ratios in the world; as I discuss in Chapter 17 of The Armchair Economist, that means women can afford to be picky. Here (as reported in the May 14 issue of The New Yorker) are the requirements listed by a female graduate student seeking a mate on the Chinese equivalent of match.com:

  • Never married
  • Masters degree or more
  • Not from Wuhan
  • No rural I.D. card
  • No only children
  • No smokers
  • No alcoholics
  • No gamblers
  • Taller than one hundred and seventy-two centimeters
  • More than a year of dating before marriage
  • Sporty
  • Parents who are still together
  • Annual salary over fifty thousand yuan
  • Between twenty-six and thirty-two years of age
  • Willing to guarantee eating at least four dinners at home per week
  • At least two ex-girlfriends but no more than four
  • No Virgos, no Capricorns.

Continue reading ‘China Doll’

Share

Tuesday Puzzle

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 3, 2012
in Math and Puzzles
. 28 Comments

There’s an old puzzle popular among a certain type of schoolchildren that challenges the solver to write as many positive integers as possible using exactly four 4’s, together with some set of mathematical operations. (As is often the case with school children, the exact rules tend to get negotiated in real time as the puzzle is being solved.) Some examples are:

But when I became a man, I put away childish things. So here’s the grown-up version of the problem, which I got from Mel Hochster over 20 years ago, and still don’t know how to solve:

This being a grown-up problem, the rules are carefully specified:

Continue reading ‘Tuesday Puzzle’

Share

New Math

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on July 2, 2012
in Miscellaneous
. 24 Comments

It was obvious the police department was running an investigation that paralleled mine, the two interesecting at more than one point.

—Sue Grafton, V is for Vengeance

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

A Naive Question

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 29, 2012
in Current Events and Law
. 92 Comments

Can someone help me understand this?

1) The Constitution, as amended, gives the federal government the right to levy taxes uniformly across the states, and also to tax income.

2) The federal gasoline tax is neither levied uniformly across states nor is it a tax on income. Thus it must be justified under something other than the explicit taxing powers set forth in the Constitution.

3) I’ve always sort of presumed that the missing justification is provided by the Commerce Clause.

4) In other words, the right to levy a gasoline tax seems to be dependent on the Commerce Clause.

5) By the same reasoning, the right to levy a tax on not-having-health-insurance would seem to be dependent on the Commerce Clause.

6) But John Roberts says explicitly that the Commerce Clause can not be used to justify a tax on not-having-health-insurance.

7) How, then, can a tax on not-having-health insurance possibly be constitutional? It’s not levied uniformly across states, it’s not a tax on income, and we have the Chief Justice’s word that it can’t be justified by the Commerce Clause. Whence, then, the constitutional authority to levy such a tax?

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

Post Mortem

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 28, 2012
in Current Events
. 49 Comments

So the individual mandate is Constitutional because it’s a tax.

I wonder if the Chief Justice forgot that all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives. There’s that pesky Constitution again.

Hat tip to Jim Kahn for this.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Edited to add: The really striking thing about this ruling is that someone could use the exact same reasoning to decide that Social Security is constitutional. This is what’s known as a reductio ad absurdum.

Share

Public Service Announcement

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 28, 2012
in Blogging
. 30 Comments

I’ve been traveling and hence not blogging much the past several days. I’d intended to post something for today, but since I don’t know what’s going to happen at 10AM, and since that’s likely to be the only thing anybody wants to talk about today, I think I’ll hold off. I’ll be back soon though!

Meanwhile, once 10AM has come and gone, feel free to use this space for (thoughtful!) discussion of the Supreme Court decision, whatever it may be.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

Thursday Solution

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 21, 2012
in Economics and Puzzles
. 39 Comments

Last week, I challenged readers to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements, both of which are frequently made in economics textbooks:

  • To minimize distortions, all goods should be taxed equally.
  • To minimize distortions, inelastically demanded goods should be taxed more heavily. (This is sometimes called the Ramsey rule, after Frank Ramsey, who plays a major role in the final chapter of The Big Questions).

I’ll give you the answer in a minute. The executive summary is that a) “Inelastically demanded goods should be taxed more heavily” is true only in very special circumstances; in general a much more complicated formula is needed, b) When all goods can be taxed, that complicated formula does in fact tell you to tax them all equally, and c) a lot of textbooks give incredibly misleading accounts of all this.

The more detailed answer follows; if you prefer a more mathematical account, click here. To keep things manageable, I’ve assumed all supply curves are perfectly elastic.

Continue reading ‘Thursday Solution’

Share

Immigration Followup

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 20, 2012
in Current Events and Policy
. 150 Comments

I’m a little frazzled this week, so I haven’t caught up with all the comments on Monday’s
post on immigration, but I know there’s been some discussion about the actual costs and benefits of admitting unskilled immigrants. I thought I’d supply some numbers that might inform that discussion; all of this is lifted from Chapter 20 of The Big Questions.

When an unskilled Mexican immigrant arrives in the United States, his wages typically rise from about $2 a hour to $9 an hour — call it a $7 an hour gain. He also bids down the wages of American workers by (and this is a high-end estimate from the labor economics literature) about $.00000003 per hour; multiply that by a hundred million American workers and you’ve got a collective $3 an hour loss.

Now there seems to be something like a consensus that it’s okay for US policies to benefit US citizens at the expense of Mexicans, but there also seems to be something like a consensus that there’s a limit to that; we would not want, for example, to allow Americans to hunt Mexicans for sport. So when we consider turning someone away at the border, one good question is: Are we willing to do $7 worth of harm to a Mexican in order to confer $3 worth of benefits on American workers?

Note that the potential Mexican immigrant is typically much poorer than those American workers, and that it’s not uncommonly argued that we should care more about the poor than about the rich. If you weight that $7 loss to the Mexican and that $3 gain to the Americans accordingly (i.e. assuming logarithmic utility, which is a quite conservative assumption — that is, one that biases the result in the anti-immigration direction), you discover exclusion hurts the Mexican about five times as much as it helps the Americans.

So, at least if you buy into that way of thinking (which pervades a lot of the policy literature) then exclusion is justified only if you “count” a Mexican as less than one-fifth of an American. That’s a pretty extreme position. It’s not as extreme as hunting Mexicans for sport, but it’s still pretty extreme.

Continue reading ‘Immigration Followup’

Share

And Everyone Who Supports Vaccinations is Motivated by a Desire to Stab People….

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 19, 2012
in Bad Reasoning
. 27 Comments

In an apparent case of libertarianism run amok, two cognitive scientists and one economist have declared (in effect) that proponents of income redistribution are always and everywhere motivated by exactly the same psychopathic impulses that lead people to scratch other people’s cars, break streetlamps, and engage in other forms of senseless destruction.

That’s not a conclusion; it’s their starting assumption. Then they do an experiment in which some subjects choose to engage in a mild form of income redistribution — and conclude that psychopathic behavior is frighteningly widespread.

Now I too am generally skeptical of the impulse to redistribute other people’s income, but even I concede that redistribution is rarely entirely senseless and pretty much never entirely destructive. In particular, the experimenters consider a case where money has just been redistributed and subjects are given the opportunity to (partly or fully) reverse that redistribution. Those who exercise that opportunity are labeled “destructive”. So apparently, in order to avoid the “destructive” label, you must passively accept any arbitrary redistributions imposed by authority figures without ever feeling any impulse to redistribute in the opposite direction.

In the experiment, each subject is initially awarded 1000 tokens. The paper is so poorly written that it’s hard to be sure, but I think these tokens are ultimately exchangeable for money; it’s mentioned that the average subject earns the equivalent of nine British pounds. One subject is then given the opportunity to destroy some of the other subject’s tokens, thereby returning some funds to the experimenters or to the taxpayers who are funding this experiment.

Rather shockingly (to me) only about 15.5% of the subjects exercised this option; given the presumption of public funding, I’d have hoped for a higher number. The experimenters, however, want to conclude that these 15.5% are the sorts who are likely to key your car.

This stuff is infuriatingly stupid. Even more distressingly, Robin Hanson, who is much much much too smart for this, seems to have fallen for it.

Continue reading ‘And Everyone Who Supports Vaccinations is Motivated by a Desire to Stab People….’

Share

Lest We Forget

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 18, 2012
in Current Events and Policy
. 106 Comments

Thanks to an election-year conversion by the President of the United States, 800,000 young people born outside the country will now be spared the threat of deportation. That’s a good thing. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the biggest victims of American immigration policy are not the ones we deport; they’re the ones who never got to come here in the first place.

The President defends his new policy as humane. Put aside the question of where his humanity has been for the past three and a half years and ask yourself what’s so humane about protecting the children of relatively rich “illegals” (that is, the ones who have had the opportunity to earn American wages) while we continue to bar the door to their desperately impoverished cousins.

Regarding the beneficiaries of this new policy, the President says that

These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag …

Why is any of this relevant? When did visibility become a criterion for moral status?

This is indeed a time to celebrate and I don’t want to diminish that. But I do have two questions for the President:

Continue reading ‘Lest We Forget’

Share

Thursday Riddle

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 14, 2012
in Economics and Empirical Puzzles
. 64 Comments

Do any of you guys know anything about economics? Because I have a question I can’t answer and I’m hoping you can help me.

In many real estate markets (including the one where I’m currently shopping), the agent’s commission is equal to a fixed percentage of the sale price. (Typically it’s 6%, though this is split evenly between the buyer’s and seller’s agents, each of whom gives a cut to their respective agencies, so either agent’s take-home is more on the order of 2%).

This means that if you sell a million-dollar house, you earn TEN TIMES the commission of your identical twin who sold a hundred-thousand-dollar house, though I doubt very much that you did ten times the work or bore ten times the expense.

Now, plenty of hundred-thousand-dollar houses are being sold, which means that plenty of agents are settling for the relatively dinky commissions. Question: Why are those agents not attempting to steal some of the high-end business by offering to accept a smaller percentage? After all, 1% of a million is still a lot more than 2% of a hundred thousand.

You might say that the agencies collude to restrain them — but what stops a rogue agency from busting the cartel?

All too many times in my life, I’ve noticed some apparently anomalous behavior which I’ve challenged myself and/or others to explain with the tools of game theory, axiomatic bargaining theory, and the theory of markets — only to discover that the true explanation is “It’s required by law”. (Of course one can always step a little further back and try using economics to explain the advent of the law.) But I don’t think that’s the case here. (I’m prepared to be wrong about this, though.)

Continue reading ‘Thursday Riddle’

Share

Tuesday Solution

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 12, 2012
in Puzzles
. 33 Comments

Remember the bullet problem from two weeks ago? If not, I’ll give you a few moments to refresh your memory.

Okay. Are we ready?

I am pretty well convinced that 16 bags suffice, as argued by Mike H, Jeffrey, Brian, and Jacopo, and generalized by Categories+Sheaves.

The explanation I liked best was Jeffrey’s. Let me try to illustrate it. (Warning: There’s no way, I think, to make this instantly clear. It will take a little work to understand it. Only you can assess the opportunity cost of your own time!)

The gray rectangle is the room you’re in.

The blue dot is you. The red dot is the shooter.

With mirrors on all the walls, you’ll perceive yourself as standing in an infinite grid. The graph shows 16 of the grid rectangles, but the pattern continues forever in every direction.

You’re standing at some point (a,b). The shooter is at some point (p,q). You’ll see copies of that shooter at every point with coordinates (2m ± p, 2n ± q) where m and n range over all integers. Sixteen of those infinitely many points are shown in the picture.

Continue reading ‘Tuesday Solution’

Share

Monday Puzzle: The Least Bad Tax

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on June 11, 2012
in Economics and Puzzles
. 65 Comments

Today’s puzzle is specifically for the econo-geeks. Less geeky fare will follow in the near future.

Two of the main lessons that our undergraduates typically take away from their introductory classes are these:

  • To minimize distortions, all goods should be taxed at the same rate.
  • To minimize distortions, inelastically demanded goods should be taxed most heavily.

What is the correct response to this pair of apparently contradictory lessons?

  1. Economics is large. It contains multitudes. Get over it.

    2. Continue reading ‘Monday Puzzle: The Least Bad Tax’

Share

Hypocrites and Half-Wits

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 29, 2012
in Books and Recommendations
. 23 Comments

hhwThe letter to the editor is a literary genre unique unto itself. Unlike the editorial or the op-ed, the letter typically allows its author only a couple of short paragraphs to make a single compelling point. A good blog post might ramble from one loosely connected idea to another, but a good letter proceeds directly to its target.

Don Boudreaux is, beyond any doubt, the modern master — no, the all-time master — of this underrated branch of literature. When a radio station interviews a Galveston resident who’s just topped off her gas tank in anticipation of Hurricane Ike — and who is furious to learn that gas prices have jumped 50 cents a gallon overnight even though “Ike hadn’t hit yet” — a blogger (or an Armchair Economist) might respond with a long-winded explanation of why it’s a good thing that supply, demand, and therefore prices respond quickly to a change in expectations. Boudreaux, instead, skips right to the heart of the matter:

Your reporter should have immediatedly asked this woman: “Well, why were you topping off your tank? Ike hadn’t hit yet.”

Continue reading ‘Hypocrites and Half-Wits’

Share

Fighting Back

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 23, 2012
in Current Events, Law and Policy
. 78 Comments

notredameA consortium of Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, is suing to overturn the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. I hope they lose. I think.

The birth control mandate strikes me as a very hard policy to defend, though I’ve done my part to put together the best possible arguments in its favor. For the record, I do think there’s a quite reasonable case to be made for some insurance mandates — primarily with regards to pre-existing conditions and catastrophic illnesses. (There’s also a very good case against those mandates, so don’t take this as an endorsement!). Those mandates at least address plausible market failures. A contraception mandate pretty clearly fails that test (though see the discussion at the linked post for some reasoned argument to the contrary).

So I believe the mandate is bad policy, both in its specifics and in its general presumption in favor of government power. If this isn’t unconstitutional, we need a better constitution. But that’s not the basis of Notre Dame’s lawsuit. Notre Dame’s position, as I understand it, is that Catholic institutions (as opposed to, say, General Electric) should be exempt from the mandate because religious objections (as opposed to, say, financial objections) have some kind of special exalted status. That strikes this non-lawyer as straying perilously close to a law respecting the establishment of religion. And if that’s not unconstitutional, then we really need a better constitution.

Continue reading ‘Fighting Back’

Share

Tuesday Puzzle

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 22, 2012
in Puzzles
. 106 Comments

This has been making the rounds lately; I’m not sure where it first came from.

You’re in a rectangular room. Elsewhere in the room is a man with a gun, who shoots a bullet in a random direction. The bullet careens around the room, bouncing off walls, until it hits either you or one of the various punching bags you’ve placed around the room for purposes of absorbing the bullet. The punching bags must be positioned before you know the random direction of the bullet (though you do know both your own location and the bad guy’s location, neither of which you can change). How many punching bags do you need to guarantee your survival?

This being a math problem, you should treat the room as two dimensional, and yourself, the bullet and the punching bags as points.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

Song of Bernadette

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 18, 2012
in Favorites and Music
. 8 Comments

When I screw up, I try to confess and atone for my errors.

Just about exactly a year ago, I posted a list of the 25 most beautiful folk songs ever recorded. How on earth did I manage to overlook Judy Collins’s stunning cover of Leonard Cohen/Jennifer Warnes’s heart-wrenching “Song of Bernadette”?

I’m afraid this egregious oversight has deprived you all of a year of sublime listening pleasure. My apologies to Miss Collins and to all of my readers.

Though YouTube says this is from a 1991 Collins concert in California, she performed a nearly identical rendition at Wolf Trap in 2000. The Live at Wolf Trap CD is well worth its exorbitant price; every track is stunning.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

When the Saints Go Marching In

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 16, 2012
in Favorites, Music and Paul Krugman
. 44 Comments

(Click here to watch on YouTube.)

Sixteen years ago, Slate Magazine was launched, with Paul Krugman and me as the alternating economics columnists. At the time, Paul was fond of observing (with considerable dismay) that most of the time, highly educated and intelligent non-economists appear to be completely incapable of distinguishing between compelling arguments and utter nonsense in the field of economics. His essay on “Pop Internationalism” is a brilliant series of riffs on this theme — a guided tour of sheer balderdash that gets a respectable hearing even though no economist could possibly take it seriously. “Pop Internationalism” (the lead essay in the book of the same name) is high on my recommended reading list.

The lesson I took from this observation was that we (Krugman, I, and economic commentators in general) had a responsibility to explain not just what economists believe, but why we believe it — to help readers understand that there’s a rigorous underlying logic to the discipline, and that there are good reasons for insisting that people adhere to that logic. Nowadays, when he’s at his most obstreperous, I sometimes suspect Krugman of having drawn a very different lesson — that because nobody understands the real logic of economics, we can get away with saying any damned thing we want to. It’s a frustrating thing to watch, because when he’s good, he’s very very good. But when he is bad he is horrid. I won’t list examples here, but you can find quite a few by browsing my Paul Krugman archive.

Continue reading ‘When the Saints Go Marching In’

Share

The Economics of Teenage Pregnancy

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 14, 2012
in Empirical Puzzles
. 34 Comments

Teenage motherhood is well correlated with poor economic outcomes. This of course need not mean that teenage motherhood causes poor economic outcomes; in fact, Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine (of U. Maryland and Wellesley College) argue precisely the opposite: Being on a low economic trajectory causes teenage motherhood, and conditional on that original trajectory, teenage motherhood does little economic harm:

Continue reading ‘The Economics of Teenage Pregnancy’

Share

News of the Day

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 10, 2012
in Current Events
. 75 Comments

obamaThe President of the United States thinks that gay marriage should be legal. So do I. But I have two coments:

First, I am dismayed by the notion that anyone’s vote might be swayed by this issue, in either direction.

As I said earlier in the week, I do understand why this is an issue of major importance in some people’s lives. But the number of people affected, and the magnitude of the effects, are still meager compared to the effects of, say, trade or immigration policy. What ever happened to perspective?

Of course, Bryan Caplan will tell you that voters are systematically irrational in any event, so it might be just as well that they’re basing their votes on things that don’t matter very much, as opposed to basing their votes on things that really matter and getting them wrong. But it’s still disheartening to think about.

Second, I am dismayed by the President’s suggestion that he came to this viewpoint through observation of “incredibly committed monogamous” same-sex relationships among his staffers — suggesting (though not outright asserting) that monogamy ought to be somehow relevant to the legal status of one’s marriage. And here I’d thought the whole point of this gay marriage thing was that the way people have sex is not properly a concern of the legal authorities. If he’s continuing to deny this principle, then the President remains philosophically on the same side of this divide as Family Research Council.

Continue reading ‘News of the Day’

Share

Today’s the Day

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 7, 2012
in Book, Recommendations and Self-Promotion
. 37 Comments

The new revised edition of The Armchair Economist is now on sale in paperback and electronic versions. Last week’s glitch (where the electronic versions were of the wrong edition) is fixed.

For almost twenty years, Armchair has been widely recognized among economists as the book to give your mother when she wants to understand what you think about all day. In this new version, fully updated for the 21st century, I’ve completely rewritten several chapters to make them even clearer, livelier and more contemporary.

I (and you if you buy the book) am deeply indebted to Lisa Talpey who read every chapter multiple times, insisting that I keep rewriting until everything met her meticulous standards of clarity. Chapters I’d thought were pretty good are vastly improved thanks to Lisa; these include:

  • Why Popcorn Costs More at the Movies (and Why the Obvious Answer is Wrong)
  • Was Einstein Credible? (The Economics of Scientific Method)
  • The Indifference Principle (Who Cares if the Air is Clean?)

    • and

  • Why Taxes Are Bad (The Logic of Efficiency)

Others are almost completely rewritten to focus on issues that are in the news today; these include

  • The Mythology of Deficits

    • and

  • Unsound and Furious: Spurious Wisdom from the Media

By way of general housecleaning, I’ve excised all references to cassette tapes, Polaroid film, and Walter Mondale.

You can read the preface here. You can buy the book here. Here are direct links to the updated Kindle and Nook editions. (These editions are advertised as “published November 2007”, but don’t panic; that’s just the lingering shadow of last week’s glitch. They’re actually the brand-new 2012 edition.)

Dan Seligman at Fortune called the first edition of The Armchair Economist “enormous fun from its opening page”; Alfred Malabre of the Wall Street Journal called it “the most enjoyable and sensible book by an economist about economics that I’ve read in donkey’s years”; Milton Friedman called it “an ingenious and highly original presentation of some central principles of economics for the proverbial Everyman”; George Gilder called it “a crisp, lively, pungent display of the economist’s art”. This second edition is, I believe, all that and more.

The Armchair Economist is indeed the perfect gift for your mother, or for your father, or for the new college grad in your life, or even for yourself. Enjoy it, and come join the discussion right here.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

In the News

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 4, 2012
in Current Events, Musings, Policy and Politics
. 54 Comments

As long as we have anything like traditional marriage, I believe that restricting it to heterosexual couples is an exceptionally bad and stupid policy, laced with unnecessary cruelty. It is not, however, an issue that is likely ever to affect my vote, because so much else dwarfs its importance. Legalizing gay marriage would make life substantially better for a few million people of the wealthiest people in the world (i.e. Americans) and is therefore a good thing, but if I’m going to pick my battles, I’ll cast my lot with, say, the tens or hundreds of millions of Third Worlders who are relegated to dire poverty by American trade and immigration restrictions. I’ll take the homophobic free trader over the protectionist crusader for sexual equality every single time.

Continue reading ‘In the News’

Share

Kindle Update

Published
by
Steve Landsburg
on May 3, 2012
in Uncategorized
. 7 Comments

The all-new revised edition of The Armchair Economist is now available in a Kindle edition (as well as paperback) here.

As of this writing, the Amazon page still says you are buying the 2007 version, but that’s wrong. The version you’ll get is the new 2012 version.

Barnes and Noble still has the 1993 version for the Nook. This will be fixed in a day or two.

Share
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »