pushmedia1
11.30.2006
UC Davis Econ in the news
Professor Stevens' research spotted in paragraph 3 of this Wall Street Journal column. This is same research Prof. Mankiw wrote about a couple months ago.
11.28.2006
11.16.2006
Lou Dobbs is an idiot, deal with it
All that is wrong with Lou Dobbs is captured in this quote. He would like to believe what he said, and his intentions I'm sure are quite honarable, but as the late Milton Friedman said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results."
Trade restrictions are bad, bad, bad for the poor of Mexico, China and India. They are bad, bad, bad for American consumers who have to pay more for Mexican, Chinese and Indian goods. In fact, trade restrictions only help "dominant special interests" like trade unions and low-productivity industries.
Its ironic that Dobbs would lament "our political elites' cowardice" and then advocate giving those political elite more power over the economy. We should reward their cowardice by allowing them to decide which industries get protection and which special interests get 'subsidies'?
No, we should judge policies by their results not their intentions. Trade protection results in more poverty and an empowerment of already entrenched powers. Protection in its effect, not its intention, is an unmitigated bad.
And Lou, We The People established the Constitution in part as a check on populist whim. We wouldn't need a Constitution if the knee-jerk reactions of the people was always sovereign.
I have never blamed the poor of Mexico, China or India for corporate America's avarice and our political elites' cowardice.
All that is wrong with Lou Dobbs is captured in this quote. He would like to believe what he said, and his intentions I'm sure are quite honarable, but as the late Milton Friedman said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results."
Trade restrictions are bad, bad, bad for the poor of Mexico, China and India. They are bad, bad, bad for American consumers who have to pay more for Mexican, Chinese and Indian goods. In fact, trade restrictions only help "dominant special interests" like trade unions and low-productivity industries.
Its ironic that Dobbs would lament "our political elites' cowardice" and then advocate giving those political elite more power over the economy. We should reward their cowardice by allowing them to decide which industries get protection and which special interests get 'subsidies'?
No, we should judge policies by their results not their intentions. Trade protection results in more poverty and an empowerment of already entrenched powers. Protection in its effect, not its intention, is an unmitigated bad.
And Lou, We The People established the Constitution in part as a check on populist whim. We wouldn't need a Constitution if the knee-jerk reactions of the people was always sovereign.
Milton Friedman RIP
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results." -- Milton Friedman
11.12.2006
Interesting Abu Ghraib timeline I wasn't aware of...
The General in charge of prisons in Iraq when prisoner abuse occured in Abu Ghraib was admonished, and stripped of rank, for the abuse found there *four* months before the abuses were first exposed by the media.
The story broke late April of that year.
General Karpinski was issued a Memorandum of Admonishment by LTG Sanchez, Commander, CJTF-7, on 17 January 2004.
The story broke late April of that year.
11.11.2006
Smackdown!
Ohhhhhhh!!!!!!!
The Jesuits said 'give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man'.
From my 25 years of teaching children aged 5 -7 years, I would argue that there is little that teachers can do to change the impact of genetics on the character of the young child. In my experience a child with parents who are honest/dishonest, caring/bullying, selfish/generous usually demonstrates the same characteristics from an early age. It was reported in the press this week that scientists have discovered that even facial expressions that run in families result not from mimicry but from family genes. Science is discovering more and more that in the nature versus nurture debate it is 'nature' that has the greater influence over our characters. My question is this: If we are the victims of our genes can we truly be held culpable for our misdeeds?
Response from Peter Lipton on November 11, 2006
Your question raises a number of interesting issues, but I will here just ask one brief question in return. If we were more victims of our environment than of our genes, could we then truly be held culpable for our misdeeds?
Ohhhhhhh!!!!!!!
11.07.2006
11.03.2006
11.02.2006
UC Davis Econ in the news
Prof. Clark's book is getting more attention from Marginal Revolution. Links and more commentary from EconLog and Cafe Hayek.
11.01.2006
I heart economists, part 5
-- Steve Landsburg describing Prof. Kendall's research on violence and media
Similarly, psychologists have found that male subjects, immediately after watching pornography, are more likely to express misogynistic attitudes. But as professor Kendall points out, we need to be clear on what those experiments are testing: They are testing the effects of watching pornography in a controlled laboratory setting under the eyes of a researcher. The experience of viewing porn on the Internet, in the privacy of one's own room, typically culminates in a slightly messier but far more satisfying experience—an experience that could plausibly tamp down some of the same aggressions that the pornus interruptus of the laboratory tends to stir up.
-- Steve Landsburg describing Prof. Kendall's research on violence and media
