Lazy Links

I don't feel like writing anything original today, so here are some interesting links. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel creative and write something about them.

In no particular order:

Interesting Link #1
Interesting Link #2


Happy New Years!

Sean

Words of Wisdom

"The economy is a thoughtless weather system - and nothing more" - Kurt Vonnegut

Whether it's sunny or rainy, you really have little control, and the weather could care less about your personal circumstance.

Luckily for me, it's 70 degrees and sunny outside.

Sean

C-SPAN's Biased Too?

I found this interesting: The Center for Economic and Policy Research finds that 51% of C-SPAN's coverage goes to conservative think-tanks, while only 23% goes to progressive or liberal think tanks. Perhaps this is just part of the overall trend that more conservative outlooks economics (and politics) seem to be "mainstream". To be honest, in my own limited viewing of C-SPAN, I've never noticed any sort of bias. Further, I don't really know anyone else that watches C-SPAN ever, so I'm not really sure how much it matters. Nevertheless, closer-to-heterodox think-tanks like the Economic Policy Institute or CEPR probably receive little to know play on this network or on any, and that only furthers the dominance of the mainstream, even if the so-called mainstream is not really an academic consensus.

Free Trade For All! Even Counterfeiters!

An article from yesterday's NYT highlights an unforeseen consequence of free trade zones: easier access to the global marketplace for medicine counterfeiters (actually, for all other forms of illegal trade too, but this article focused on medicine). I guess it would be obvious, right? Little to no regulation, no tariffs or quotas, and the ability to easily conceal the origin of the product...it seems like the counterfeiters dream.

It's my second to last day in London and I don't know what I should do.

Sean

Right vs. Left, Ortho vs. Hetero?

Oh Economist's View, what would I do without you? Great fodder for procrastination. Mark Thoma linked this blog post by Gregory Mankiw (see posts below) which delineates the differences between right and left leaning economists. I wonder if the same sort of chart could be made for ortho vs. hetero. I wouldn't call many of the beliefs set out by Mankiw to be inherently political, but instead economic. Does hetero overlap with many of the "left" views, or is it in its own league? At least with regards to ideas about competition, I feel that the left and the hetero would agree on their analysis of power in the markets, although maybe heterodox economists would go further in their claims about power disparities. Anyways, I thought this would just be an interesting thing to think about as we attempt to think about things other than finals. How political are the differences between right and left, and how do these differences mirror the differences between mainstream and heterodox economists? My guess is there is a lot of common ground in a lot of other places between so-called left-leaning and heterodox economists.

Legitimacy for Political Economics?

I saw this linked over on Economist's View. The long and short of it is that the National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) has set up a Political Economy Program. This article is a quick and dirty run-down of recent studies in political economy, although it seems to me to be a limited definition of political economy. Granted, the author talks a lot about institutional dynamics and such, but there is no mention of important things like power analysis, alternative measure of value, et al. Either way, it seems this development is a good thing, and maybe further reflects the openness reflected by Greg Mankiw that I posted about earlier.

How Much Do You Cost?

Here is a good article from PAE that critiques the use basic cost-benefit analysis for public policy. "How could something so basic and foundational to neoclassical economic analysis be inappropriate, or, dare I say, inadequate for public policy prescriptions?" you may ask. Well here is how: for cost-benefit analysis to "work" everything being analyzed must be given a monetary value. This might not be difficult when you are deciding whether to buy that late-night quarter dog (cost: $0.25 plus $2.00 for a bottle of pepto bismol = $2.25. benefit: hunger satisfaction = priceless). It gets a little more difficult when you are dealing with things like PEOPLE. How do you put a price on human beings? What is the "cost" of somebody dying due to lack of medical insurance. What is the "cost" or poor education or environmental degradation? Are different people worth different amount? Are "smarter" people worth more than "dumber" people? Do white people carry a premium? Looking at current public policy, this is the sort of logic that seems to be applied.

At Least He Admits They (We?) Exist

I saw an interesting blog post by Gregory Mankiw, current econ professor at Harvard and chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 2003-2005. He writes one of the more commonly used intermediate macro textbooks, which he admits is hewn from the mainstream theory. He eschews the fact that one of the founders of the Post-Autistic Economics movements, which is basically the most cohesive heterodox economics movement in existence, criticized his textbook. He writes,

This is not the first time my text has been criticized for being biased. When President Bush appointed me to be CEA chair, some members of the political right opposed the nomination because my textbook was too Keynesian and not sufficiently sympathetic to their supply-side views. I suppose the symmetry in the attacks suggests I am getting things about right.

When I teach introductory economics, either in the classroom or in my textbook, I view myself as an ambassador for the economics profession. I try to represent the economic mainstream, not my personal political views. Some students may view the economic mainstream as right of center. That assessment is probably correct, at least as judged by the universe of college professors. But the job of an introductory course is to present, as honestly as possible, the consensus of the profession. If the typical economist is more market-friendly than the typical literature professor, then that point of view will likely be reflected in the leading textbooks.

I suppose this sort of hits upon what we already know. Not all economists teaching at universities are mainstream economists. However, mainstream economics will inevitably be taught because it is the consensus of the profession. What is encouraging about this post, at least to me, is that Mankiw is not utterly dismissive of PAE. Instead, he acknowledges that non-mainstream economists are out there and that there is not just one "economics" as some of the people at ND's department might have us believe. I'm not defending Mankiw; I've never read his textbook or any of his work. Obviously I think he would likely do well to be more open to ideas outside the mainstream. However, he does seem to have at least some intellectual flexibility. Thoughts?

Corruption in Iraq? I Don't Believe It...

An article in today's NYT highlights the theft, bribery, and corruption present in Iraq. The article cites car wash businesses that siphon water illegally from public pipes and medicine stolen from the Ministry of Health now being sold on the black market as a few examples. These may seem trivial, but this illegal activity has huge implications in tring to end the violence in Iraq. When you think about what is really in demand in Iraq right now, you might list items like clothes, food, electrricity, and clean water. But, since the sectarian conflict is still raging, weapons are in high demand. The black market is where most of these weapons can eb obtained, and where the money to pay for them can also be found. From the article:

"Some American officials estimate that as much as a third of what they spend on Iraqi contracts and grants ends up unaccounted for or stolen, with a portion going to Shiite or Sunni militias."

Corruption, black markets, and war profiteers may contribute as much to the prolongation of a conflict as religion, ethnicity, or instability.