I own a couple of CDs by Matt Wilson's Arts and Crafts. Mostly wonderful, in parts a little precious. But what comes across as precious on a recording becomes engagingly goofy in live performance. Wilson is a real jazz ambassador and keeper of the tradition. He plays drums like nobody's business, in every jazz and soul idiom, and he surrounds himself with first-rate collaborators. At Stanford Sunday night, local boy makes good Taylor Eigsti sat in at the piano. Eigsti is undoubtedly technically brilliant and a clever improviser, though to my ear he always sounds too cautious and studied. A gig with Wilson could definitely loosen him up a bit, as was evident Sunday.
Taylor isn't on this one, but you'll get the idea. Catch Arts and Crafts if you can. It's a great show.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Mobility: good or bad?
Paul Krugman weighs in on an econ-blogosphere mini-kerfuffle about whether economic mobility is a good thing. (He thinks it is, by the way.) You can follow the links and see what it's about, but the basic issue is simple. Economists measure mobility, whether within or between generations, by seeing how much churn there is within the income distribution. In a more mobile society, where individuals or generations have a greater chance of moving up the ladder relative to others, there is also by implication a greater chance of moving down. If there is no mobility, the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. If there is lots of mobility, many poor become rich, and many rich become poor.
Now it turns out that careful studies tend to find that there is no more mobility, and probably less, in capitalistic America than there is in socialistic northern Europe. Tyler Cowen offers some arguments for why mobility thus measured is overrated. One of these is that if habit formation and loss aversion are important, moving down the ladder is a LOT worse than moving up the ladder, so the net effect of more mobility is less total happiness. Krugman and DeLong make fun of this, but I don't see why. They are both fans, I would guess, of Bob Frank's work on relative consumption, and Cowen's conclusion follows quite logically from Frank and the work of many behavioral economists. I think Cowen makes one additional very important point: if possible, we should count international mobility in our calculations. Rich countries that are more open to immigrants from poor countries should get mobility credit for that.
I happen to agree that mobility is good, but a utilitarian defense of it is difficult. Better justifications rest on democratic values and a critique of caste, and/or equality of opportunity. And in most such arguments, I suspect, we will view mobility as a consequence and thus indicator of something we value, rather than as an end in itself.
Now it turns out that careful studies tend to find that there is no more mobility, and probably less, in capitalistic America than there is in socialistic northern Europe. Tyler Cowen offers some arguments for why mobility thus measured is overrated. One of these is that if habit formation and loss aversion are important, moving down the ladder is a LOT worse than moving up the ladder, so the net effect of more mobility is less total happiness. Krugman and DeLong make fun of this, but I don't see why. They are both fans, I would guess, of Bob Frank's work on relative consumption, and Cowen's conclusion follows quite logically from Frank and the work of many behavioral economists. I think Cowen makes one additional very important point: if possible, we should count international mobility in our calculations. Rich countries that are more open to immigrants from poor countries should get mobility credit for that.
I happen to agree that mobility is good, but a utilitarian defense of it is difficult. Better justifications rest on democratic values and a critique of caste, and/or equality of opportunity. And in most such arguments, I suspect, we will view mobility as a consequence and thus indicator of something we value, rather than as an end in itself.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Stats R Us, Part 1
Here's my initial blog post on teaching intro econometrics with R, posted on our Technology in Teaching blog.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It does matter who is elected president...
... for many things that matter, but probably not when it comes to abuse of power in the name of national security. Obama's place in history will suffer, but basic human rights will suffer more. Shameful and, I have to think, pointless.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Political ideology in America... what's it all about?
I do know a number of sincere libertarians who favor a minimal state, and that includes a minimal military. But in terms of U.S. politics, I think Dean Baker basically has it right... the ideological divide is less about the size of government than the distributional impact of government. This is also broadly consistent with the fascinating and important work of Keith Poole and his collaborators on political polarization. So, yeah, class warfare. Who's to blame for the polarization since the 80s? You decide...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)