EclectEcon

Internet Addiction

Living hand-to-mouse.

The Causes of the 2008-09 Recession

Most of us pretty much agree that the bursting of the housing bubble contributed.

Most of us pretty much agree that policies permitting and even promoting the sub-prime lending were part of the cause.

I'm not sure whether most of us would agree that the oil price spike of 2008 contributed to the recession, though Jim Hamilton makes a strong case for this, and I argued to a friend in e-mail that it would be a contributing factor back when it was happening.

And Ironman, at Political Calculations, makes a case that the raising of the minimum wage in the US in 2007 also was a contributory factor leading to this recession:

It may well be that the minimum wage hike of 2007, with its corresponding job losses and employer cutbacks in hours worked, was sufficient to cause the level of payroll employment to erode enough so that the start date of recession was pushed up to November-December 2007, some four to five months sooner than it might have done otherwise as the outcome of the oil shock.

And should that be the case, the increase of the federal minimum wage in 2007 would join with the bursting of the housing bubble and the fallout from the oil shock as the third leg forming the current recession.

Nadal and Verdasco

Wow! that was one heck of a tennis match that just concluded at the Australian Open! Good summary at that link:

Top-seeded Rafael Nadal has beaten fellow left-handed Spaniard Fernando Verdasco in the longest match in the history of the Australian Open...

Nadal beat Verdasco 6-7 (4), 6-4, 7-6 (2), 6-7 (1), 6-4 Friday and will try to prevent Roger Federer from winning his record-equaling 14th Grand Slam when the two meet Sunday in the final.Verdasco, who knocked out the bookie's favorite Andy Murray in the fourth round, put up a stubborn resistance. But despite a whole host of winners and some scintillating tennis, it was the 14th seed's unforced errors that eventually cost him with a double fault at match point handing victory to the world number one.

Watch for the Canadian Natural Unemployment Rate to Rise

If people choose, in equilibrium, to search longer for work when they are unemployed, then in total the unemployment rate will increase. And in the January, 2009, budget, the gubmnt of Canada is proposing all sorts of subsidies that encourage people to search longer:

Employment insurance and other programs to help Canadians who don't have jobs would get a temporary boost over the next two years under Tuesday's federal budget.

"They [the unemployed] will need greater support in this time of recession," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in his budget speech.

The support would include:

• Extending funding for workers searching for new jobs and for retraining.
• Extra help for individuals who have lost their jobs as a result of employers going bankrupt.
• Additional funding to help younger, older, aboriginal workers and immigrant workers find jobs.

Super Bowl Bets?

I had hoped to spend Super Bowl weekend in Las Vegas, but the combination of scheduling and my own preferences meant I decided not to go there this year. Maybe next year.

However, I will try to make it to Caesar's casino in Windsor, which I think is the only legal sports book in the area, and watch the Super Bowl there.

I get the impression that I will not be made to feel comfortable or welcome if I go into a sports book and just lounge around, watching others, talking with others, and cheering and laughing and hooting and yelling. So, even though I'm not a sports gambler, and even though I will try to free ride on the gambling of others, there is a chance I will place a few bets before and during the game.

So here are some questions:

• What are some of the weird bets that might be fun?
• Can Pittsburg really be seven point favourites with all their injuries?
• Last I looked, the over-under is 46.5. Does that make sense to you?

Smoot-Hawley All Over Again?

It is really difficult to read things like this [from WaPo]:

The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package.

A Senate version, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus-funded projects use only American-made equipment and goods.

Proponents of expanding the "Buy American" provisions enacted during the Great Depression, including steel and iron manufacturers and labor unions, argue that it is the only way to ensure that the stimulus creates jobs at home and not overseas.

Opponents, including some of the biggest blue-chip names in American industry, say it amounts to a declaration of war against free trade. That, they say, could spark retaliation from abroad against U.S. companies and exacerbate the global financial crisis.

One of the realities of being an open economy is that fiscal stimuli tend to leak. But trying to plug those leaks can create massive problems, as happened when the US enacted the Smoot-Hawley tariff, thus contributing to the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Do you think the politicians learned anything from that experience?

Change in Demand; Change in the Quantity Demanded

The US housing market in late 2008 provided a classic example of a "change in demand" and a "change in the quantity demanded."

• The demand for housing declined, shifting the demand curve to the left.
• The supply curve is definitely not horizontal.
• Thus the drop in demand eventually led to a decline in the price.
• And this lower price led to an increase in the quantity demanded along the new, lower (leftward of the old one) demand curve.

For the BBC's coverage, see this [h/t to Brian Ferguson].

The Frightful Growth of Anti-Semitism on University Campuses

Almost since the beginning of this blog, I have been writing about what I thought was a minority of wacko academics in the United Kingdom who kept trying to institute boycotts of Israeli scholars [here is an early example]. In response to their position, which seemed like little more than thinly veiled anti-Semitism, I sought and obtained affiliations with two different Israeli academic institutions.

Two recent developments in Canada really concern me.

1. The York University student federation, holding a meeting to discuss appropriate responses to an ongoing strike at the university, diverged from its agenda to pass a resolution condemning Israel's attack on Gaza. Did this body ever do or say anything about the eight-year rain of rockets fired from Gaza at Israel? no. Did the resolution say anything about Hamas' charter calling for the destruction of Israel? no. Did the resolution say anything about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields? no. All it did was condemn Israel. What is worse, it was passed unanimously!.
2. A friend writes that something similar happened at McMaster University: "[a friend] in Hamilton just told me about a hate fest yesterday at McMaster in which, among other things, Israel was described as undemocratic and Hamas was praised as a democratic, progressive force. Not one pro-Israel academic on the faculty panel, the same bs from top to bottom."

What is happening? I am just plain flabbergasted. I cannot believe how ignorant I have been to miss the significance of this growing trend of anti-Semitism and hatred on North American campuses. It makes me both sad and angry.

Do these people hate/fear Jews so much that they ignore the continued threats to the existence of Israel? Why are there so many alleged scholars who ignore the lack of freedom and the lack of democracy in Gaza, Syria, and elsewhere in the world and focus on Israel instead?

Even if Israel should not have launched its settlements in Gaza and the West Bank after the 1967 war (I'm not persuaded they shouldn't have promoted the settlements, given the continued threats to Israel's existence), that is no excuse for the total one-sided blind support of terrorists; that is no excuse for promoting explicit anti-Semitism.

Update: the full text of the resolution as it was sent to me by CAFI is below the fold:

User Profile Services: Service Failed to Log On

I have used computers for about 45 years [Fortran I, anyone?]. I have used personal computers for over 25 years. And yet I feel so frigg'n ignorant sometimes.

The other day I decided to restart my computer because the back-up programme was acting up. When I tried the restart, I received the on-screen message, "User Profile Service: Service failed to log on." [yes, it's Vista; I really regret not having specified that I wanted XP as a retrofit when I bought this computer].

So I disconnected things, and tried again. It logged me off again. And again. And again. Finally, I held the power button down to get a forced power-off,  and I restarted the computer in "safe mode". But I had no clue what to do. Nor did I have any clue what might have caused the problem. And the windows help seemed to want me to do all sorts of horrible and strange things (fortunately I kept looking for a solution I could understand).

Finally, I used my iPhone to search the web and found a tutorial that walked me through a step-by-step process to edit the user profile in the registry. Somehow my old profile (the one I wanted to use) had been given a .bak extension and the profile the computer was trying to use wasn't working. After changing the extensions on the file names, everything was back to normal and working fine.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that having my iPhone connected to the computer might have buggered things up when I tried to restart the computer. I now make sure it is disconnected when I do a restart.

Here's the link to the forum that had the walk-through, in case it happens to you.

The Macro Pseudo-Debate

It should be clear by now that intra-profession ad hominems are strongly counter-cyclical. See, for example, the sad and gratuitous comments one finds all over the place: here, here and here. I'm sure we can also find plenty of disappointing comments from the other side, but that's besides the point.

Here's but a sample of questions I would like discussed and that we're not seeing asked.

1. On "equilibrium". Is the economy in an underemployment equilibrium or a full-employment equilibrium? Imposing that the data come out of an equilibrium process has little, if any, empirical implications. Monopolistic markets clear too. Deriding "equilibrium business cycle theory" is more telling of the prosecution than of the accused. Once posturing becomes boring maybe we can ask instead what sort of equilibria best explain the data we observe.
   .
2. Is fiscal and/or monetary policy effective? I.e., can it change the time paths of GNP and its components? If it is--and pretty much everyone agrees that it is--what sort of paths can policy implement? (If it can do something it doesn't mean that it can do anything.)
   .
3. Unless government spending pays for itself in extra tax revenue, and it doesn't, any increase in government expenditure now must be matched by some combination of higher monetary base growth or higher taxes in the future, unless the US government is going to default on its debt. When and how large will these increases be? What assumptions (re: future productivity, etc.) are implied in that forecast?
   .
4. What makes this recession special? We have a large body of historical data full of recessions. Why makes this extra recession the straw that breaks the camel's back with respect to "equilibrium business cycle theory"? Is any recession proof against "equilibrium business cycle theory"? Presumably not, so what's so special this time?
   .
5. Who is working on models in which the verbal scenario we tell about this recession can be an equilibrium outcome? How close are they to success? -- We tell this story of housing and banking industries regulation interacting with principal-agent issues in the financial markets and regulatory arbitrage with regards to the hedge funds. We then hand-wave based on wealth effects and "flight to quality" to argue that a financial market restructuring spills over into the "real economy" and... hence the recession. As things stand we have no guarantee that this story is internally consistent and even less of a clue regarding the set of circumstances and assumptions under which this story makes sense. What we get, instead, are a bunch of platitudes about Prophet Keynes and the bad faith of Chicago U. reactionaries.
   .
6. In (small and large) open economies like ours, any fiscal stimulus better be coordinated. How are the stimulus proponents suggest that they get other countries to commit to joint action when the temptation to free-ride is so large?
   .
7. What regulatory reforms are necessary so that financial markets look less like casinos and more like the minimalistic, safe mechanism for matching savings and investment projects that efficiency require them to be?

Claims to the effect that "it's all in Keynes" or, for that matter, that "it's all in Barro" are not helpful.

25 Commonly Misspelled Words

The spelling test is here.

About half seemed pretty obvious (to me). Another quarter I was quite sure of. And about a quarter I got lucky on (e.g., guessing the differences between American and Brit spellings --- not mean feat for Canadian/Americans who are of advanced years) -- overall 96% (missed one).

Sea Kittens?

From The Economist:

Even by PETA’s standards, its latest campaign against fish is particularly troubling. In the past PETA has drawn much mirth for its “fish empathy” campaigns, and at one point tried to have fish sticks banned. But its latest campaign, dubbed “Save the Sea Kittens”, is beyond satire. The sea kitten site aims to rebrand fish in the eyes of younger consumers. “It’s time for a serious image makeover,” an ad says. “And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?”

When I first started blogging, I opined that "catch-and-release" fishing is a heck of lot more cruel (in my moral order) than catching/shooting one's food. Unsurprisingly, not everyone agreed.

A Sitcom about Economists? Why Not?

The Administrator of EconPoint Forum is hosting a contest, asking people to devise story lines for a sitcom about economists:

Afterall, even physicists got one (The Big Bang Theory) and in my opinion it's easier for most people to relate to Economics than Physics. Besides people might want to see what life looks like through econ goggles.

In any case, as a step to promote this forum and have some fun in the process I'm proposing a contest.

The contest is for the best plot on a sitcom about economists.

If you are interested, check out the rules for the contest, posted here.

Also, be sure to visit the site for discussions about other economics topics. The site is moderated, so it isn't just amateurs talking to amateurs (which was one of the problems with the old usenet economics discussion groups).

My fervent hope is that the winner of the contest will not be yet another snide put-down of economics and business students, a la Family Ties.

A Writer for The Economist Does Today's Papers

And it is noticeably different from Slate's more frequent liberal clap-trap.

Well Now I Must See This Movie:The Visitor

Alan highly recommends The Visitor, especially praising the performance by Richard Jenkins:

In "The Visitor" he plays an economics professor late in his career and not really committed to much, who comes to life due to some rather unexpected developments. It is a small quiet film, with great performances from many people, but especially Jenkins. It's rare that I am deeply satisfied by what I consider an 'airplane film'.

Meanwhile, Rondi, while praising Jenkins' performance, exhibits her dripping and undaunted sarcasm at its best and is quite negative about the film,

While The Visitor was a mediocre movie, he was excellent as the protagonist (he was actually "the visitor" to his own life. Deep and meaningful, see?). As I watched I wondered who the hell Jenkins was, and whether he would get the recognition he so deserved for carrying an otherwise middling movie. What's too bad is, it could have been a great movie, if the writer (who was also the director) hadn't decided to make it an anti-war on terror bromide. In this movie, one learns that Muslims are wonderfully liberal and multicultural, they love Jews, everyone taken into detention since 9-11 is innocent, American police officers are just drooling to arrest anyone who comes from a country with a funny name and white people are completely closed and ignorant and don't know a thing about the world. Nothing. The movie was so bloody ham-handed -- had it focused on Jenkins' character's grief and his coming back to life through meeting new people, it could have been saved. And it also had an aspect of Boomer-ish pretension. "Oh, lookey me! I'm 60 now! I'm bored. I'm sad. And even though I have a great job and am well off and educated and have two great places to live, I'm having a crisis! No one has ever gone through this struggle before!" Argh.

For more, check out the reviews at Amazon:

Text => Speech Demo Site

From Ms. Eclectic. Try typing such words as "redistribute". I was impressed. Click here. There's much more to it than just phonics.

Almost Too True to be Funny

Edited from The Onion [h/t to King]:

LONDON, ON—In what many are calling a complete bulls*** move, UWO Economics Professor J. Palmer, 84, assigned his class an a**load of economics homework due Tuesday.

The homework, which included a number of impossible to solve word problems, several stupid equations, and a bunch of other pointless crap, was assigned at the end of class on Thursday. According to sources, Palmer handed out the homework at approximately 6:18 p.m., even though it was a completely unfair thing to do and would totally screw over everyone's weekend (the weekend begins on Thursdays at UWO).

"He assigned it right before the class ended," said future York Student, Kenny Riley, who claimed that the last thing he needed was to spend all day Sunday looking at some retarded economics textbook. "I was packing up my stuff to go when Palmer comes out of nowhere and gives us, like, fourteen huge pages of work to take home."

Added Riley, "Fu********k."

In addition to its poor timing, students expressed outrage Friday over the length of the economics assignment, which some estimated would take f***ing forever to complete, and was even more tedious than that lame "getting in touch with your self-esteem" project from Prof Sheppard’s Sociology class.

Students also cited the need to show one's work, circle final answers to get full credit, and use the formula for a straight line—whatever that is—as leading indicators of how hard the homework sucked.

"We did so much work in class already," said Michelle Siringano, who still plans to go to the mall with several friends on Saturday. "Palmer just wants us to be as miserable as he is."

According to a recent survey, Palmer pulls this kind of stupid bulls*** all the time. In November, the 84-year-old announced a surprise econ test that wasn't even about stuff that made any sense, while earlier this year, Palmer reportedly lost his mind and assigned homework on the very first day of school.

Sources still have not confirmed what the f**k that was about.

Some students have warned that if classmates did not complete last week's assignment on the prisoners’ dilemma there was no way in hell they were going to understand Friday's work. Making matters worse, students said, was their economics textbook, which reportedly doesn't even have any of the freaking answers in the back.

So far, various attempts have been made to get out of doing the required work. Many students, such as Daniel Gill, have considered leaving their heavy-**s bags in their lockers and coming in early on Monday to copy the answers from that douche Brian Raffel.

Still others planned to come up with some kind of genius excuse before Monday, such as forgetting their assignment on the bus, getting food poisoning, or maybe having their grandmother pass away over the week- end and being way too sad to think about doing any homework.

Despite being a total nut-job who hates his life and probably drools, Palmer claimed that assigning the weekend work wasn't something he wanted to do.

"We were falling a little behind," the conniving b*****d said. "I just wanted them to catch up so they wouldn't have any extra work to do over the break."

-----------------------------------------------

The original: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/shitload_of_math_due_monday

Nineteenth-Century Liberalism, Growth, and Infant Mortality

Stable, open markets with well-defined property rights tend to promote human development and reduce infant mortality rates, according to a recent study by John Gerring and Strom Thacker.

Specifically, this paper hypothesizes that open international trade policies, low-inflation macroeconomic environments, and market-oriented property rights regimes promote human development across the world. We test this argument by examining the impact of several measures of neoliberal policies on infant mortality rates across the world between 1960 and 1999. Results suggest that openness to imports, long-term membership in the GATT and WTO, low rates of inflation, and effective contract enforcement are each associated with lower rates of infant mortality across the world, even when controlling for countries' economic performance.

One of the conditions they identify is too often ignored by planners and elitist "I'm OK, You're Not OK" development specialists: the emphasis on well-defined and well-enforced property rights and contracts. [see Coase].

But in total, the conditions they set out are those that economists continue to stress --- when people are free to pursue gains from exchange at low cost (low transaction costs; low barriers to trade; low costs due to low risk of inflation, etc.), then scarce resources are freed up for other uses, thus promoting economic growth. And economic growth tends to promote better health conditions in general.

We Are Unlikely to See This in the MSM

My casual reading of the main stream media (MSM) has been that they tend to use Gazan stringers to report from Gaza. Understandably, I am skeptical about the objectivity of the reports. Similarly, I am skeptical (but much less so, I freely admit) about some reports from some Israeli sources. With this caveat in mind, consider this item (h/t Alan Adamson)

Israeli troops are withdrawing from Gaza, yet we are seeing Palestinian schools and hospitals being used as centres for ‘brutal torture’, Palestinians kidnapped at funerals, Palestinians shot in the legs and their hands broken, Palestinians summarily executed on trumped up charges. Israeli war crimes? No, it’s not the work of the IDF; all this comes courtesy of the ruling Islamist faction of the Palestinian ‘resistance’. We have seen recently a number of Western commentators playing down the violence inherent in Hamas’s ideology and world view. We hear much of the ‘democratically elected Hamas’, and now we see, yet again, the reality of rule by Hamas.

The above summary is based on news reports from The Jerusalem Post. I tend to trust the reporting there. And I certainly do not recall having seen anything about this in what I read of the NYTimes or WaPo.

Libertarian Bureaucrats?Now, There's an Oxymoron for You.

One might think that bureaucrats have a vested interest in playing up the potential role for gubmnt intervention throughout the economy. Doing so would drive up the derived demand for their services, thus increasing the bureacrats' 3 Ps: pay, power, and prestige.

And maybe that's the way it works publicly and in the voting booth.

But privately, perhaps it is a different story. From Alvaro Vargas Llosa:

Before I came to live in Washington, I was convinced that since more than one in four residents work for the government, the District of Columbia was a socialist republic. I am not entirely sure it is not, but my personal impression is that nothing makes people more cynical about government than working for it. I have never heard a libertarian speak about the futility of most government departments the way American and foreign officials often do in restaurants or bars on Capitol Hill, on K Street—the center of the lobbying industry—in Georgetown or even at the Fish Wharf.

This is the one silver lining in the gathering storm of increased government power caused by the current recession. In the wake of the collapse of collateralized debt obligations and credit-default swaps, the government basically nationalized part of the financial services industry. A running joke in Washington used to be that the separation of powers was not the balance between the three branches of government but between Wall Street, where securities were traded, and Washington, where laws were traded. Now both are traded in Washington. As the money supply and fiscal expenditure expand astronomically in response to the recession, the one mitigating circumstance is that Washingtonians, who will implement many of the policies, seem to me to be deep down mistrustful of their main industry—the government.

I am less optimistic than Llosa. I expect that the 3Ps will win out, and more bureaucrats with more hubris and more east-coast-elitist-interventionist training will pour into Washington; and they will negotiate (albeit in good faith, for the most part) with increasing numbers of rent-seekers to redistribute more wealth and power away from voters and taxpayers. Furthermore, the slower growth the US will experience 5 and 10 years from now will be attributed to these policies by only a minority of policy analysts.

As Russ Roberts says, "Watch your liberty and your wallet. They are both at risk."|

Hope Over Fear?

President Obama says we must choose "hope over fear." Isn't that what caused the dot-com bubble and then the housing bubble? 

An Important Symbol of Transition

No matter what you think of Obama's politics, today is, in part, a celebration of the extent to which racism has declined in the US.

50 years ago, I would not have thought it possible that the voters would elect a mixed-race person to be President of the US. What an impressive symbol of de-segregation and integration.

I'm delighted to have been a very small part of that transition in the 1960s. And I'm embarrassed for everything it took to get me there.

I'm grateful that my father, raised in a southern racist environment, so proudly stood against racism; and I'm delighted with the memories of the nudges and jabs both my parents made to help us understand the stupidity and injustice of discrimination. They helped teach us, in their own ways, to help make the world a fairer, more just, place.

Update #1: Alan Adamson has written several postings on this topic over the past couple of days. His thoughts are much richer and deeper than what I expressed above.

Update #2: Was anyone able to watch the inauguration via streaming video over the internet? Between 11:30am (EST) and about 1pm, transmissions were very slow where I work. It seemed to me that the internet must have been completely swamped by people wanting to follow the events of the day.

Update #3: From Instapundit:

The civil-rights revolution was something of my parents’ generation, not mine — my dad marched at Selma, but I was learning to walk, talk and eat at the time, skills I found useful in later life, but . . . . Still, whether or not you voted for Barack Obama, this is a watershed moment. I find that my overwhelming feeling for him right now is sympathy, though, as it was for President Bush. Bill Clinton probably realizes just how lucky he was to be President during a period where things were relatively calm. I fear that won’t be Obama’s lot, as it wasn’t Bush’s, though I hope I’m wrong.

Meanwhile, let’s also hope that this watershed will fade from memory. It was a big deal when JFK became the first Catholic President, but now it seems quaint that that was ever an issue. It will be nice to see the same thing come true regarding the first black President. Meanwhile, inevitably some people will find their fondest expectations unmet, while others — at this point, I count myself among them — will be pleasantly surprised by how things go.

Stimulus Packages?We Don't Need No Steenking Stimulus Packages

James Surowiecki argues in The New Yorker that the best type of tax cut is one that adds to people's take-home pay, not a lump sum rebate.

If you want people to spend the money, you don’t want to give them one big check, because that makes it more likely that they’ll think of it as an increase in their wealth and save it. Instead, you want to give them small amounts over time. And you want the rebate to show up as an increase in people’s take-home pay, because an increase in steady income is more likely to translate into an increase in spending. What can accomplish both of these goals? Reducing people’s withholding payments.

In other words, households and individual decision-makers are stupid and don't know that a temporary tax change has a present value equal to some lump sum amount. I'm skeptical of policy proposals that assume such stupidity on the part of decision-makers.

But I'm even more skeptical about the advisability of inducing people to spend more. Oh, sure, doing so might pump up the economy a bit now, but what the economy really needs is more saving and growth to provide for an even higher standard of living in the future.

A Great Example of Opportunity Costs

When alternative forms of employment become less attractive, the supply of labour to the military shifts to the right:

"As the number of jobs across the nation dwindles, more Americans are joining the military, lured by a steady paycheck, benefits and training."

But there are other reasons for increased enlistments:

"The recent decline in violence in Iraq has “also had a positive effect,” Dr. Gilroy said.[EE: which also shifts the supply curve to the right]

"Another lure is the new G. I. Bill, which will significantly expand education benefits. Beginning this August, service members who spend at least three years on active duty can attend any public college at government expense or apply the payment toward tuition at a private university. No data exist yet, but there has traditionally been a strong link between increased education benefits and new enlistments.[EE: increased pay (of sorts) causes a movement along the supply-of-labour curve, not a shift; alternatively, if the vertical axis has only pay on it, then the improved benefits cause a shift of the curve to the right.]

"The Army and Marine Corps have also added more recruiters to offices around the country in the past few years, increased bonuses and capitalized on an expensive marketing campaign." [EE: better marketing, more information shift the curve to the right as well.]

And People Wonder Why I Am So Skeptical about Modern Macro-Economics

A number of years ago, I asked one of our new macro colleagues something about the monetary transmission mechanism (how do changes in the rate of growth of the money supply affect GDP growth?) and he sort of looked blankly at me and said he didn't think that was important for the study of macroeconomics. Hmmmm.

And now this, via Craig Newmark.

Official Time, Atomic Clocks, and Absolute Zero

The official time in the US is provided, by time zone, at this site. For the Eastern time zone, perhaps this link will be direct.

I came across these links after watching this wonderful lecture, "The Coolest Stuff in the Universe" by William D. Phillips and presented by TVO. Slightly geeky stuff at a level that smart undergrads can probably understand covering time, space, atoms, and absolute zero. Too bad it is difficult or impossible to make the video full screen, but it is still worth an hour of your time.

Some Painful Truths about Aging

To the tune of "Born to be Wild", here is Walt Toon's version about the tribulations of aging baby boomers:

Bored, Tubby, Mild

The Philistine Liberation Organization Objects

A cemetary in the UK has banned the use of plastic flowers:

The use of artificial flowers has been banned from a crematorium on grounds of health and safety.

A council has prohibited the laying of artificial wreaths or flowers and also barred pottery, glass items and wire mesh fences.

The rules have outraged mourners who claim people should be allowed to grieve in their own way and point out many cannot afford to place fresh flowers on a plot every week.

Relatives of deceased loved ones are furious at North East Lincolnshire Council which last November threatened to remove keepsakes from children's graves.

The council says any items or mementos left at the crematorium in Grimsby, except fresh plants and flowers, will be confiscated as they clutter up the grounds and leave the place untidy.

...

Glenn Greetham, head of neighbourhood services at North East Lincolnshire Council said: 'I hope residents and visitors with loved ones buried or cremated within the site see the difficulty in providing a dignified and sensitive service while maintaining an acceptable standard.

'Unfortunately some items that have been placed at the crematorium including CD holders, cards pinned in trees, wine glasses, empty cans of beer, candles, cuddly toys, wind chimes and balloons are not appropriate.

'The majority of people want the crematorium and memorial gardens to be a quiet and appropriate place to remember their loved ones. Fresh plants and flowers are acceptable on the crematorium grounds.

'All other items will be removed as they can often pose a health and safety risk and conflict with the majority of the crematorium users.'

And just how are artificial flowers like empty beer cans or wine glasses? The analogy escapes me.

For more on the PLO, see this. And for recent postings and other links to the PLO, see this.

Information, Markets, and Gubmnt

From the conclusion to Arnold Kling's 14th macro-economics lecture:

It is true that markets have been overwhelmed by today's information problems, and consequently resources are unemployed. However, the ultimate solution of where resources belong is not known by government officials any more than it is known by private investors. A large "fiscal stimulus" is, ultimately, a major transfer of power away from the trial-and-error process of entrepreneurial markets and instead toward the bureaucratic planning process. It is not clear to me that technocrats have suddenly acquired the wisdom that would justify such a transfer. In fact, while they may have an air of certitude, they may know even less than usual about the best future direction for economic resources.

A succinct and pithy summary and explanation for why so many economists are skeptical about the benefits (especially in the long-run) of various proposed stimulus packages.

Sociologists Top Economists?I Question the Methodology

Ironman posted a link to a WSJ article showing this table in an earlier comment.

The Best and Worst Jobs

Of 200 Jobs studied, these came out on top -- and at the bottom:

The Best	The Worst
1. Mathematician	200. Lumberjack
2. Actuary	199. Dairy Farmer
3. Statistician	198. Taxi Driver
4. Biologist	197. Seaman
5. Software Engineer	196. EMT
6. Computer Systems Analyst	195. Garbage Collector
7. Historian	194. Welder
8. Sociologist	193. Roustabout
9. Industrial Designer	192. Ironworker
10. Accountant	191. Construction Worker
11. Economist	190. Mail Carrier
12. Philosopher	189. Sheet Metal Worker
13. Physicist	188. Auto Mechanic
14. Parole Officer	187. Butcher
15. Meteorologist	186. Nuclear Decontamination Tech
16. Medical Laboratory Technician	185. Nurse (LN)
17. Paralegal Assistant	184.Painter
18. Computer Programmer	183. Child Care Worker
19. Motion Picture Editor	182. Firefighter
20. Astronomer	181. Brick Layer

So why would "Sociologist" rank so highly? Perhaps because the job involves so little stress?