Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8115)	2/24/2008 1:01:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

More from Harford -- Who shares wins An article written by Tim Harford on the 29th of September, 2007. Published on Undercover Economist. Armed with their theories and their statistical models, economists are increasingly marching off to occupy distant intellectual territory: marriage (Gary Becker), racial segregation (Thomas Schelling), obesity (David Cutler) and whether it matters whether your child goes to school with bright kids (Caroline Hoxby). The practice – which has been around for a while – is often termed “economic imperialism”, perhaps because of the less-than-heartfelt welcome the natives usually extend to the economic explorers. I am all in favour of economists venturing into new territory – and receiving incursions from outside – but the practice isn’t quite as productive as it should be. Take the experience of Emily Oster, a young assistant professor of economics at Chicago with a big reputation. One of her celebrated articles is an analysis of the Aids epidemic in Africa: she offers her own epidemiological model and concludes that the virus is best fought by treating other sexually transmitted diseases. The research was published in the prestigious Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE) in May 2005. But Oster’s conclusion is probably wrong. Epidemiologists embraced the idea of treating other sexually transmitted diseases a long time ago, but it has been discredited (to their deep disappointment) by a series of rigorous clinical trials. Oster says that the most convincing evidence came out after her paper was written; still, she has repeated her recommendations more recently in Esquire magazine. Oster also made a mistake in handling her data. The error – which she has acknowledged, and which makes a modest but noticeable difference to her calculations – was quickly spotted when I asked two epidemiologists to review her research. The QJE will be publishing a correction. Oster quite reasonably says that her article has other merits. But it might have been much better if the epidemiologists had taken a look long before the FT got involved. The problem is that the economists couldn’t get the epidemiologists to take the research seriously enough to comment. Oster tells me that she tried, but she couldn’t name an epidemiologist who was familiar with her QJE paper. And Larry Katz, the QJE editor who published Oster’s paper, acknowledges that the epidemiologists would not typically agree to review papers for the QJE. Different academic disciplines should talk to each other more – but that is easy to say. “Every discipline develops a different set of things they care about,” says Michael Kremer, a Harvard economist. Kremer has studied the impact of aid on the performance of schools, and that meant working with education experts. He focused on the statistical robustness of the research; they were worrying about whether the tests being given to students were valid. “Both are right, but the difference in areas of concern means that it takes a lot of work to communicate.” It is not just the economists who struggle to collaborate. I recently read a book by the physicist Neil Johnson who believes physics is a better tool than economics for understanding financial markets. I was disappointed to find no evidence that Johnson cared what economics actually said about financial markets, which would have been helpful if he aimed to refute it. Still, there are reasons for optimism. Princeton economist Alan Krueger is working with the psychologist (and winner of the Nobel prize in economics) Daniel Kahneman. The “neuroeconomists” talk to the neuroscientists, if only to beg the use of their brain-scanners. And Gary Becker, another Nobel laureate and the economic emperor himself, also holds a sociology professorship. It is not so easy for younger economists to be taken seriously by others. Something tells me that is not going to curb their ambitions. timharford.com "...Other research suggests that high stakes can befuddle the brain. Ariely and his colleagues once offered payments of up to six months’ salary to Indian peasants who could successfully complete certain mental or physical tasks. Modest stakes motivated excellence; super-high stakes simply caused nerves..." timharford.com A measured approach An article written by Tim Harford on the 5th of January, 2008. Published on Undercover Economist. The aid industry faces a dilemma. On the one hand, countries are more likely to grow rich if their citizens are provided with some important basics, such as a legal system that works, or protection from corrupt officials. Such basics might seem the priority for aid money. On the other hand, it is much easier to measure success in simpler projects, such as building roads and laying pipes. If development agencies focus on pouring concrete, they may be spending money on infrastructure that will never be used – and perhaps never even be built – because of corruption in the background. But if they focus on the broader stuff – democracy, corruption, human rights – they risk trying to do everything and achieving nothing. William Easterly, the World Bank’s most prominent apostate, argues that development agencies love big agendas because their contribution cannot be measured and found wanting. It is a bitterly cynical view, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I once gave a talk to a delegation of Danish students in which I advocated careful measurement of results, on the grounds that a lot of development spending is faddy and based on sketchy evidence. The Danes replied that their government concentrated on promoting democracy. “That sounds good,’’ I said. “Does it work?’’ They didn’t know. Nor do I... timharford.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (8115)	3/14/2008 4:33:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

Sacrificing an Economic Adviser Arnold Kling Tyler is upset. It seems the Barack Obama campaign is distancing itself from Austan Goolsbee, who is indeed a first-rate economist...Which kinds of advisers will flourish best in a "message consistency" environment? Independent and critical minds, able and willing to speak the truth to power? My view is that it does not take much for an economic adviser to become expendable. In a world of close substitutes, if the cost of one goes up a tad, you pick another. If Goolsbee freelanced up in Canada, then it's easy to see why you might want to let him go. (Another scenario is that he "took one for the team," in which case you still let him go, but he is more of a hero for it.) I think if I were in an advisory position, I could understand the desirability of remaining inconspicuous. There is mostly downside for the politician in having his or her economic advisers make headlines. I think I would be ok with message discipline in that sense. What I couldn't handle would be telling a whopper in public in order to support the President's decisions. "These steel tariffs actually are in the interest of consumers..." I couldn't say something like that without my nose getting long, or, more realistically, just breaking out with a case of the giggles. Megan worries that it shows that Obama is not so committed to free trade. To which I cannot respond any more eloquently than Glenn Reynolds... econlog.econlib.org MAYBE THERE'S NO REAL CONTRADICTION HERE: The Obama campaign is rife with academic economists, according to the latest issue of The New Republic . . . . Meanwhile, according to a new L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll, people think McCain will do a better job handling the economy than Obama. No, that's not a knock on Obama's economists -- just on the fact that he doesn't seem to be listening to them. When it comes to things like NAFTA, there seem to be only two possibilities. Either Obama's anti-NAFTA talk is a ruse to fool the rubes, or his coterie of distinguished economic experts is a ruse to fool a different batch of rubes... instapundit.com