Comments for Stand-Up Economist http://www.standupeconomist.com What is (and isn't) funny about economics Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:25:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Carbon pricing backdrop/storyline (draft #1) by Andy Extance http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/climate/carbon-pricing-backdropstoryline-draft-1/comment-page-1/#comment-48457 Andy Extance Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:25:06 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2736#comment-48457 Sounds plausible. There's likely to be a general election here in the UK in 2015 too... wonder if a similar case can be made for a campaign here. <em>[YB: The premier behind the BC carbon tax, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Campbell" rel="nofollow">Gordon Campbell</a>, is now the Canadian High Commissioner to the UK... maybe you can get his advice!]</em> Sounds plausible. There’s likely to be a general election here in the UK in 2015 too… wonder if a similar case can be made for a campaign here.

[YB: The premier behind the BC carbon tax, Gordon Campbell, is now the Canadian High Commissioner to the UK... maybe you can get his advice!]

]]> Comment on Are economists selfish? A lit review by vivek http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/are-economists-selfish-a-lit-review/comment-page-1/#comment-48307 vivek Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:59:18 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2629#comment-48307 On balance, having had a chance to look at your results- there's nothing there. All other disciplines may be indoctrinating and Economics, alone, not. The gender effect too argues for an observation effect. In any case, only shite Ango Econ is bereft of hermeneutic notions of Verstehen as underlying its activity. Zurich's result is not reproducible across the board. Look at Graciella Chichilnisky & Geoff Heard and Olde Cambridge. On balance, having had a chance to look at your results- there’s nothing there. All other disciplines may be indoctrinating and Economics, alone, not.
The gender effect too argues for an observation effect.
In any case, only shite Ango Econ is bereft of hermeneutic notions of Verstehen as underlying its activity. Zurich’s result is not reproducible across the board. Look at Graciella Chichilnisky & Geoff Heard and Olde Cambridge.

]]> Comment on Are economists selfish? A lit review by vik http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/are-economists-selfish-a-lit-review/comment-page-1/#comment-48276 vik Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:57:12 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2629#comment-48276 What I think would be interesting would be a survey which takes account of what Economics majors would rather have been studying if they felt they had what it takes to be outstandingly creative in that field. My feeling is that Econ is a second order discourse which one elects for because there is a first order discipline in which one is not confident of being so spectacularly good as to gain an equal livelihood. As a pedagogy, Econ is a safe and Scholastic harbour for failed Math mavens, failed analytical philosophers, failed Antrhopologists, Psychologists etc.. Committing to it is a confession of having failed as a human being in advance. Thus, Economists will show less emotional intelligence and more Sociopathy than other groups and may indeed gain a psychic benefit from 'tragedy of the commons' type situations. In the survey I propose, it would be nice to distinguish between the base-line nice guy who took to Econ coz he always wanted to be in modelling but looked like a sack of shit- Paul Krugman right?- and the guy who failed to make the grade as a Math maven coz he couldn't see ways of unifying things on the basis of greater generality, or, indeed, the wood for the trees anywhere anytime- Steve Lansburg comes to mind- who is bound to score high on sociopathy facilitate cynical availability cascades of the sort that have given Econ a bad name over the last thirty years. What I think would be interesting would be a survey which takes account of what Economics majors would rather have been studying if they felt they had what it takes to be outstandingly creative in that field. My feeling is that Econ is a second order discourse which one elects for because there is a first order discipline in which one is not confident of being so spectacularly good as to gain an equal livelihood.
As a pedagogy, Econ is a safe and Scholastic harbour for failed Math mavens, failed analytical philosophers, failed Antrhopologists, Psychologists etc.. Committing to it is a confession of having failed as a human being in advance. Thus, Economists will show less emotional intelligence and more Sociopathy than other groups and may indeed gain a psychic benefit from ‘tragedy of the commons’ type situations.
In the survey I propose, it would be nice to distinguish between the base-line nice guy who took to Econ coz he always wanted to be in modelling but looked like a sack of shit- Paul Krugman right?- and the guy who failed to make the grade as a Math maven coz he couldn’t see ways of unifying things on the basis of greater generality, or, indeed, the wood for the trees anywhere anytime- Steve Lansburg comes to mind- who is bound to score high on sociopathy facilitate cynical availability cascades of the sort that have given Econ a bad name over the last thirty years.

]]> Comment on Economic Inquiry: The home of economics humor! by rené http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/humor/economic-inquiry-the-new-home-of-economics-humor/comment-page-1/#comment-48076 rené Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:41:06 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=532#comment-48076 you may want to have a look at "The lighter side of the dismal science: The humor of economics". By: Ray, Margaret A., Social Science Journal, 03623319, 1991, Vol. 28, Issue 2 best, rené <em>YB: Thanks, I've added it!</em> you may want to have a look at “The lighter side of the dismal science: The humor of economics”. By: Ray, Margaret A., Social Science Journal, 03623319, 1991, Vol. 28, Issue 2

best,
rené

YB: Thanks, I’ve added it!

]]> Comment on The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Vol. 2 by Moh http://www.standupeconomist.com/books/cartoon-macro/comment-page-1/#comment-47630 Moh Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:19:54 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2246#comment-47630 Is there any chance buying a soft copy? I am in Egypt! <strong>YB: I sent you an email about this... write me back! Or check a local English-language bookstore...</strong> Is there any chance buying a soft copy?
I am in Egypt!

YB: I sent you an email about this… write me back! Or check a local English-language bookstore…

]]> Comment on The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Vol. 2 by Mirwais Masood http://www.standupeconomist.com/books/cartoon-macro/comment-page-1/#comment-47195 Mirwais Masood Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:05:01 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2246#comment-47195 hi, i just wanted to ask if these two books are available in Delhi, India. thanks. (The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Vol. 2)(The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Volume 1: Microeconomics) <em>YB: Probably at an English-language bookstore, but no Hindi translations yet, sorry.</em> hi, i just wanted to ask if these two books are available in Delhi, India. thanks.
(The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Vol. 2)(The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Volume 1: Microeconomics)

YB: Probably at an English-language bookstore, but no Hindi translations yet, sorry.

]]> Comment on Are economists selfish? A lit review by Yoram http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/are-economists-selfish-a-lit-review/comment-page-1/#comment-46504 Yoram Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:06:09 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2629#comment-46504 Brito: (1) We tested the causality issue. Like the paper you reference, we found a selection effect for econ majors, but we also found an "indoctrination" effect for non-majors. (2) You write that "college fees subsidies are a contentious issue with significant divides"; IMHO this is not true among college students, just as farm subsidies are not a contentious issue about farmers. Russ: Thanks for your comment. Some would argue that one can also address environmental problems through privatization, so that there's no more tragedy-of-the-commons issue. But you're right that in many cases it's necessary to have some sort of government (i.e., collective) action through things like carbon taxes, or cap-and-trade systems, or (less good IMHO) direct regulation. Brito: (1) We tested the causality issue. Like the paper you reference, we found a selection effect for econ majors, but we also found an “indoctrination” effect for non-majors. (2) You write that “college fees subsidies are a contentious issue with significant divides”; IMHO this is not true among college students, just as farm subsidies are not a contentious issue about farmers.

Russ: Thanks for your comment. Some would argue that one can also address environmental problems through privatization, so that there’s no more tragedy-of-the-commons issue. But you’re right that in many cases it’s necessary to have some sort of government (i.e., collective) action through things like carbon taxes, or cap-and-trade systems, or (less good IMHO) direct regulation.

]]> Comment on Are economists selfish? A lit review by Russ Abbott http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/are-economists-selfish-a-lit-review/comment-page-1/#comment-46500 Russ Abbott Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:11:52 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2629#comment-46500 Nice piece. And I agree with the conclusion of your NYT piece that instruction in economics should do more to point out those aspects of economic systems that do not benefit by totally EMH thinking. There are enough of them around; it shouldn't be hard to include that in introductory economics courses. To take pollution as an example, one reason it's rational to use the environment as a free sewer is because no charge is levied for that use. It would seem that the only way to approach the environment and other common goods from a rational economic perspective is to create a structure that can assess value. But that means some sort of collective behavior. There is nothing that violates economic principles about collective behavior, but it just isn't taught. (Actually, I'm not an economic, so I don't really know that that's true.) There is more to economic reality than individual choice but that this other side isn't part of the standard curriculum. Nice piece. And I agree with the conclusion of your NYT piece that instruction in economics should do more to point out those aspects of economic systems that do not benefit by totally EMH thinking. There are enough of them around; it shouldn’t be hard to include that in introductory economics courses.

To take pollution as an example, one reason it’s rational to use the environment as a free sewer is because no charge is levied for that use. It would seem that the only way to approach the environment and other common goods from a rational economic perspective is to create a structure that can assess value. But that means some sort of collective behavior. There is nothing that violates economic principles about collective behavior, but it just isn’t taught. (Actually, I’m not an economic, so I don’t really know that that’s true.) There is more to economic reality than individual choice but that this other side isn’t part of the standard curriculum.

]]> Comment on Are economists selfish? A lit review by Brito http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/are-economists-selfish-a-lit-review/comment-page-1/#comment-46494 Brito Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:18:24 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2629#comment-46494 I don't see how your work supports anything significant, because two completely diametric explanations are entirely consistent with your data. Maybe the undergrads don't want to give money to the group, even though they think the group increases social welfare on the whole, because they value their own utility over social utility. Or maybe they don't think the the group increases social welfare (college fees subsidies are a contentious issue with significant divides) and so have no interest in donating groups they don't support politically, rather than out of selfishness. Further, I agree with one of the papers you cited, I believe the causality is reversed, a lot of people pick economics because they seek a job in finance or business, I don't think its controversial that these people might be marginally more selfish, so it is selfish people picking economics, rather than economics making people selfish: "They find that “[p]olitical economists (to use the classical term) are not more selfish than the average student, but students of business economics are” and that “[the] higher level of selfishness of business students is due to self-selection, not indoctrination.” I don’t see how your work supports anything significant, because two completely diametric explanations are entirely consistent with your data. Maybe the undergrads don’t want to give money to the group, even though they think the group increases social welfare on the whole, because they value their own utility over social utility. Or maybe they don’t think the the group increases social welfare (college fees subsidies are a contentious issue with significant divides) and so have no interest in donating groups they don’t support politically, rather than out of selfishness.

Further, I agree with one of the papers you cited, I believe the causality is reversed, a lot of people pick economics because they seek a job in finance or business, I don’t think its controversial that these people might be marginally more selfish, so it is selfish people picking economics, rather than economics making people selfish: “They find that “[p]olitical economists (to use the classical term) are not more selfish than the average student, but students of business economics are” and that “[the] higher level of selfishness of business students is due to self-selection, not indoctrination.”

]]> Comment on China video blog #9: Economics comedy in Beijing (Part Two) by Russ Abbott http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/china-video-blog-9-economics-comedy-in-beijing-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-46009 Russ Abbott Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:05:53 +0000 http://www.standupeconomist.com/?p=2637#comment-46009 How can I leave a response if you don't show the video? [YB: Click the link on "Enjoy!". Sorry it's not more clear.] How can I leave a response if you don’t show the video?

[YB: Click the link on "Enjoy!". Sorry it's not more clear.]

]]>